Safe development. Keep Brisbane Small and Safe.

By Dana Dillworth

To protect residents from spills and hazardous releases, we need to restrict transportation and development of chemical and pathogenic substances near residential areas. I would introduce legislation to declare Crocker Park a Toxic and Biotech -free Zone. Baylands and Quarry developments should be low-exposure, low-water consumption uses.

TO: CITY OF BRISBANE FROM: DANA DILLWORTH RE: SCH # 2000052109 June 29, 2001

COMMENTS on DRAFT E.I.R. ONE QUARRY ROAD RESIDENTAL PROJECT

The purpose of a CEQA environmental review is to clearly define and review a proposed project's environmental setting and current issues, in order have sufficient information to adequately reveal impacts and offer effective mitigation measures to reduce their impacts to a level of not significant. To achieve this goal, these impacts need to be adequately identified, fully disclosed, and the hopeful-mitigation measures need to be proven and effective. This DEIR is defective in these respects.

FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY IDENTIFY IMPACTS

1.) The use of Quarry Road for primary access is assumed. The EIR fails to recognize the environmental impacts of this assumption and fails to require mitigation or other means of primary access. There is little recognition that this proposed project is adjacent to a State-recognized Biological Reserve causing an inadequate disclosure of impacts that housing development will have to Owl and Buckeye Canyons.

The EIR does make the notation that the anticipated traffic impacts of the proposed project are 1900 average daily trips. Currently there are 0-1 daily trips along Quarry Road. These proposed 1900 trips of vehicles are in the path of rare and endangered species. By policy and actions, the City of Brisbane is encouraging endangered species to migrate to and from Owl and Buckeye Canyons and the Ridge. Use of this road for any purpose other than emergency egress becomes a virtual Frogger Game to the "species of concern", an unnecessary Gateway to Destruction of this Rare and Endangered Universe. The omission and understatement of this fact leads to mitigations which are inadequate: such as (but not restricted to) that future Home Owners Association, or some unidentified Environmental Organization, or future signage program is responsible for educating newcomers about these (animal/pet and invasive plant) issues. The way to reduce this impact to insignificant would be to disallow the vehicular use of Quarry Road.

2.) Loss of natural resources, natural features, and biotic values don't require mitigation. Again, the DEIR underplays the area's water features as having little value even though "opportunistic wildlife" visit and use these resources in their present state. The DEIR merely looks at water run/off as problems to be under grounded and resolved at a later date, by future studies, by future design plans, and by future yet-to-be disclosed storm water maintenance and management plan(s.) It fails to mention that, by law, natural resources, particularly water, and particularly at this time, need to be recognized as a public resource.

The DEIR and City, via General Plan policy, have failed to engage in a study of our watershed. They have failed to identify and address local opportunities for conservation and supply. Absent adequate information in this DEIR, alternatives and mitigation(s) to the loss of the water, ponds and natural watercourses remain absent from this procedure.

For example, while the DEIR recommends mitigation for loss of wetland/ waters of the US (of only one of the multiple water features within the project area) is only 1:1. The Brisbane General Plan allows a greater degree of recovery. Clearly, a mitigation measure requiring greater improvement, supported by the town's General Plan, must be considered in greater detail than merely just being stated and ignored. Given that the owner of the property has continuously degraded the environment, continuously degraded adjacent environments AND this project's proximity to a Biological Reserve, mitigation measures of 1:1(or less) are inadequate. The highest possible mitigation value should be required and should look at what it will take to get a healthier environment, not how little you can get away with contributing. The DEIR fails to recognize this issue/opportunity.

Additionally, the author has mentioned "numerous seeps and springs" being present while simultaneously been careful to understate the water features, such that, an aggregate loss of this natural resource in a 144.4 acre area is under 3-acres. This understatement allows them to qualify for a Nationwide Watershed Destruction Permit requiring little or no mitigation. By not honoring the intent of CEQA, NEPA, and the Brisbane General Plan, and not recognizing the value of the surface water as a public resource, by leaving the watershed improvements and design decisions up to engineers, absent any requirement of environmental review qualifications for the future decision-makers, absent City employees qualified to conduct environmental reviews, this project will fail to gain the highest possible mitigation measures and will fail to review alternatives such as (but not limited to) creating an open reservoir for environmental enhancement, fire suppression, irrigation, recreation, and/or back-up water-supply.

3.) Failure to identify Land Use Change as a controversial issue/ impact. This is an issue of grand importance to this town. It has been demonstrated by large attendance at meetings and previous correspondence. Previous oversight of citizen's concerns on a controversial Land-Use change (GPA 1-91) lead to a lawsuit that virtually stopped the town for three years. While the city council of Brisbane has indicated that the residents would be given the opportunity to vote, there is no recognition of this option, nor any provision for it to be required, nor does it indicate where in the process the vote would occur. Failure to recognize this issue creates anxiety and ignores options open to the public, such as a funding/timing mechanism for an election. These issues should be addressed and may require additional mitigation measures.

4.) Air Quality information is inadequate. Plans for re-use of a quarry create a unique situation and air-quality issues must be carefully reviewed.

This quarry has its very own micro-climate created by the cooler (possibly fungus- and mold-spore containing) marine air mass (due west) being drawn into the warmer exposed benches in Brisbane--(Bench exposure is a residual, never- successfully mitigated to-date - impact from quarrying operations.) The benches themselves are covered by loose debris subjecting the environment to impacts of siltation during wet times and particulate matter during windy times. The DEIR indicates that the wind is almost constant year-round, (we've recently had winds up to 80 mph.) Therefore, the impacts of dust are almost constant, are far-reaching, and must be recognized and mitigated.

Choice to not review the actual ambient air-quality of this unique place and instead use a countywide monitoring figure is inadequate. The supplied information tells us that residents at or near 10 Arkansas Street do not have a noticeable impact from the quarry but it does not tell us the air quality within the high walls of the quarry, especially if wood-burning fireplaces are allowed, nor does it tell us the impacts to residents and businesses in Brisbane in the fall-out zone.

Residents have never been tested or queried about lung health. It would be remiss to ignore these potential undisclosed impacts and allow a polluter to walk away from their obligation to the public without even a look at the issue.

The DEIR only identifies potential Air Quality impacts during the grading operation (which is woefully understated.) It then assumes "upon project completion, dust generation at the site would essentially cease" and air quality impacts would be fully mitigated. It fails to analyze serious health issues that currently exist and will continue to exist because of this oversight. If proper review of air quality issues had been done, measures requiring HEPA and/or air filtration systems would most likely be required.

5.) Current issues with utility and water usage are understated. The author of the DEIR fails to recognize the current situation with water and utility suppliers as an environmental impact, and fails to address the problem. In the case of the latter, the crystal ball mitigation-oversight presumes that "current supply shortages will be addressed by the time any dwelling units" are occupied and therefore offers no solutions if it weren't.

Based on public meetings I have attended and information circulated in the press, presently, there IS AN ACUTE water and utility supply issue. With parts of the City's wastewater system being at-capacity, the City's water contract nearly maxed, the system being subject to failure or being in such grave disrepair... as was presented at the water system workshops... growth should be curtailed. This possible no-growth mitigation is not mentioned.

Absent any discussion of this impact, or recognition that the General Plan has goals to require efficiency and conservation to our resources, these impacts remain not mitigated. For example, there are a large number of homes facing north. A simple mitigation measure could be (but not limited to) to require either re-alignment of the homes to face south or to require a passive solar design (south-facing slate-floored greenhouse rooms) or even require something as radical as energy self-sufficiency. These issues are not adequately addressed.

INEFFECTIVE MITIGATION MEASURES

In some cases the proposed mitigation measures are not adequate or effective. In some situations, the impacts are listed as being reduced to non-significant while the EIR indicates that they cannot be mitigated to the level of non-significant. (GEO-1)

1.) HCP mitigation measures are ineffective. While there are legal means that allow an incidental take of the rare and endangered species, attempted mitigation measures of re-vegetation and restoration have not proven to be successful as BIO-1b would otherwise imply. There does not appear to be review of any of the annual reports from the HCP, or the HCP itself, so disclosure of this information of mitigation efficacy is inadequate. Without review of the HCP plan, there is no basis to support the use of the proposed lame mitigation measures. Adequate review of the facts would reveal better mitigation measures.

Example: BIO-1b- as a measure to support the species of concern, claims that "successful planting methods" of lupine are proposed. This mitigation measure will not support any other species of concern than the Mission Blue, while the plan in fact allows the destruction of viola and stonecrop without any mitigation to that destruction. This plan should not allow any grading on the perimeter areas nor areas that have managed to re-vegetate themselves over time.

Example: BIO-2a and b, chain-link fences and signage are not effective mitigation measures and the impact of preventing wild animals from migrating is not recognized.

Example, BIO-2 d and e- as mentioned earlier, mitigation measures relying on future HOA's or environmental organizations to educate the residents may not be effective. They seldom are.

A permit for an incidental take is not a mitigation measure.

2.) Affordable Housing mitigations are inadequate. Based on the Northeast Ridge project, (only two out of three hundred units on the Ridge qualify as affordable, and then, only moderate-income level.) Open, loose, or otherwise weak language around this important social requirement will not be adequate enough to met housing goals. Just designating 20% of the project's housing units as affordable... and working with the city to establish appropriate sales prices... just doesn't cut it. What happens if there is a disagreement? There is no measure to ensure that these units will be affordable over time and no requirement for recordation of the required 20% of the units as affordable.

The secondary mitigation POP-2b is ineffective and also revealing. The City of Brisbane has had low- and moderate- income housing needs since 1960 when the redevelopment area was established. The City had forty years to engage in responsible housing-needs planning, however, it accumulated its money and almost lost it to the State for not doing their job as required by law. In lieu fees do not necessarily produce housing and there is no discussion of how much funding would be required to produce the equivalent of 20% (or 44 units) of affordable housing. There are no timelines for accomplishing the goal, no alternate sites under construction or proposed at this time. This mitigation measure should be ironclad, not open to whatever happens like NER.

OFF-SITE IMPACTS ARE NOT ADEQUATELY DISCLOSED

There is little mention of the siltation in the Lagoon and the spread of invasive species as off-site impacts. The DEIR euphemistically calls the area to be dedicated as open space as relatively undisturbed land throughout, then accidentally calls it undisturbed land in Figure IV B-1. This is inaccurate.

Please review prior quarry permit renewals, (@1989.) The CA Native Plant Society has on record a request that the yet-unmitigated- impacts of broom-infested acreage caused by quarry operations be carefully removed. While there is a provision to have a CD of $400,000 to ensure the work is done, by today's prices, the acreage to be covered, and the years that would be required to monitor this area, $400,000 seems inadequate. There appears to be no mitigation measure for the existing siltation impact.

CONCLUSION

It is unacceptable to pander to the notation that it is o.k. to degrade the environment over 100 years and then declare that due to that same degradation, it is of so little value you don't have to protect it any longer or that full restoration should not be attempted. The DEIR has many inadequacies and misses the mark on several mitigation goals. It is not adequate for certification. Thank you for the opportunity to review the plan.