Senate Bill 1562 revised, moving forward

From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
Date: Mon Apr 24 2000 - 22:25:37 PDT


Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com (root@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis [15.0.168.176]) by jr.hpl.hp.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA24012 for <wind_talk_ls@jr.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
Received: from hplabs.hpl.hp.com (hplabs.hpl.hp.com [15.255.176.47]) by opus.hpl.hp.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id WAA15874 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:37:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from imo-d03.mx.aol.com (imo-d03.mx.aol.com [205.188.157.35]) by hplabs.hpl.hp.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id WAA22586 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Mon, 24 Apr 2000 22:37:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis by imo-d03.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v25.3.) id 1.a2.37a712b (9639) for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Tue, 25 Apr 2000 01:25:38 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <a2.37a712b.26368651@aol.com-DeleteThis>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 01:25:37 EDT
Subject: Senate Bill 1562 revised, moving forward
To: wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 105

SB 1562 revised and moving forward but we appear to have an ally in the
Senate:

Today was quite an interesting day in the capitol. I ended up not testifying
on SB1562 after it was extensively revised in a last minute deal between the
Audubon Society and SFO (Yes, I was surprised too). The revised bill appears
to have been cleared to go to the Senate floor with Senator Sher voting
against it. I'm still trying to figure out how much better or worse the bill
is now. Senator Sher was the only vote against the bill initially, but there
may have been an additional no vote or two after we left as the committee
leaves the vote open for some time. In the initial vote Sher was outnumbered
6 to 1. Those opposing the revised bill included the Sierra Club, Save The
Bay, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the Bay Area chapter of
the Audubon Society, and the City of San Jose. We still have time to oppose
this bill as it moves through the Senate and eventually goes to the House. We
owe Senator Sher a thank you for his efforts.

The revised bill is specific to the Cargill Salt ponds, but not to SFO. It
says that a development project which gives money to state agencies to
restore all of or part of Cargill as mitigation may limit the analysis of the
environmental impacts stemming from the restoration. It also indicates that
the EIR for the development project shall establish restoration goals which
state agencies would agree to meet if they agreed to implement the mitigation
plan.

Senator Sher, the chair of the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality,
questioned the Audubon rep and SFO attorney as to why the CEQA process should
be modified. The Audubon rep seemed at a loss and the SFO attorney argued
that they needed to avoid a full analysis of mitigation at the Cargill Salt
Ponds in order to save 18 months or more on analysis time. Sher expressed
concerns and said he did not see how they could ensure that the amount/level
of mitigation was adequate without doing a thorough analysis of the
mitigation. Senator Burton said that he thought the airport expansion was a
matter of great economic importance to the whole Bay Area. Sher agreed, but
added that it was a massive fill project that was also of great concern to
the health of the Bay and the circulation of the Bay. He stressed the need to
have a process that would not leave the public with the impression that
corners were being cut. Senator Burton also expressed frustration with the
BCDC and indicated that their permit process is too onerous.

A reporter for the San Jose Mercury News was on hand, so hopefully there will
be an article tomorrow. The City of San Jose is concerned about effects of
salt pond restoration and possible flood control issues that may stem from
restoration. Senator Burton seemed dismissive of the City of San Jose
concerns.

Peter



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 27 2002 - 12:24:05 PDT