Editor,
Suddenly a developer is proposing to build a 1.3-million-square-foot warehouse in the stone quarry that is located in the very heart of the otherwise-pristine wilderness of San Bruno Mountain. The quarry’s been quarried since 1895 and now that the quarrying operations have wound down, a developer sees an opportunity to squeeze a few more bucks out of this land that could and should be melded into the wonderful park that has saved and preserved most of the mountain. Building a giant commercial warehouse – which would require a lot of construction and then a lot of transporting of goods into and out of the warehouse – would be a travesty and a desecration of the remaining wild areas of the mountain.
(5) comments
Thanks for your letter, Mr. Muselman, but if a warehouse project isn’t built, then are you proposing that the land “sits” and becomes an ongoing expense vs. a warehouse project that will bring income to South San Francisco? And do any of these butterflies, birds, coyotes, snakes, lizards, trees and other plants exist only on San Bruno Mountain? If not… it’s all about the money. Income vs. ongoing liability.
San Bruno Mountain "is home to at least 14 rare or endangered plant species, as well as critical host and nectar plants for threatened butterflies, including the San Bruno Elfin, Mission Blue, Callippe Silverspot, and Bay Checkerspot — species found in only a handful of locations worldwide.... Renowned biologist E.O. Wilson once described San Bruno Mountain as a 'global biodiversity hotspot' and an area that should be protected.
"In addition to butterflies, the mountain supports 195 species of birds, 13 reptile species, six amphibian species, small mammals, and rare insects such as the San Francisco Forktail Damselfly, according to San Bruno Mountain Watch."
https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/02/12/san-bruno-mountain-development-threat-conservation-efforts/
We should also understand that light pollution from the proposed development will harm insects, which can have consequences on the ecosystem (https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/light-pollution-contributes-insect-apocalypse-180973642/)
Thanks for your response, ILikePi, but it sounds like these species are not found only on San Bruno Mountain. And we’re not talking about a development that will encompass all of San Bruno Mountain, just a small portion of the mountain so flora and fauna have plenty of room to roam. Again, it comes down to the money… is it better to let the land “sit” and become an ongoing liability or is it better to have an ongoing concern that will bring income to SSF? Per the LTE from Mr. Muselman, it sounds like land trusts don’t want to acquire the quarry so… BTW, I hope you enjoyed Pi Day a week and a half ago. I enjoyed a slice of Dream Pie this year.
The term, “Death by a thousand cuts” is often applied to habitat loss resulting in extinction of a species. Habitat loss is the number one reason for extinction, and it happens by a little bit of habitat lost here and a little bit there, which adds up. The idea that a species has other places to live other than San Bruno Mountain, or elsewhere on the mountain, is an example of extinction by a thousand cuts. Additionally, the “other places “ where the species lives may also be under threat of loss or degradation.
Thanks for your response, MT, but this one cut (if we can truly describe it as such) is described as follows in a recent article (https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/san-bruno-mountain-brisbane-warehouse-20190311.php),
“Brisbane would annex 104 acres of the site: the 62 acres for the warehouse facility, plus an additional 36 acres that would be protected under a conservation easement. An additional 46 acres would be offered to San Mateo County and proposed as designated “conserved habitat” under the San Bruno Mountain Area Habitat Conservation Plan. Orchard Partners would also contribute $1.8 million to the conservation plan, which funds efforts to protect and manage butterfly habitat, Higgins said.”
San Bruno Mountain is considered to be between 2400 and 3600 acres and already includes an 83 acre ecological reserve. Seems to me that this “cut” isn’t much of a “cut” and again I ask, is it better to let the land “sit” and become an ongoing liability or is it better to have an ongoing concern that will bring income to SSF? And again, per the LTE from Mr. Muselman, it sounds like land trusts don’t want to acquire the quarry so…
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.