SB1562 - Editorial: Public pressure reshaped the bill

From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
Date: Tue May 09 2000 - 14:21:26 PDT

Next message: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis: "San Mateo Times SFO article"
Previous message: David Nelson: "Re: Treasure Island"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

From: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
Message-ID: <d9.3e3ce7d.2649db56@aol.com-DeleteThis>
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 17:21:26 EDT
Subject: SB1562 - Editorial: Public pressure reshaped the bill
To: wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis, windrider@protectourbay.com-DeleteThis (Richard Zimmerman), clem.wang@altavista.com-DeleteThis, cems1@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, allen.zimmermann@gte.net-DeleteThis, geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis, janhalt@wenet.net-DeleteThis, benitaz@msn.com-DeleteThis, Leo_Bragagnolo@sfport.com-DeleteThis, sss4@pge.com-DeleteThis, hangtime@hotmail.com-DeleteThis, jip@chrm.com-DeleteThis, jmcgrath@portoakland.com-DeleteThis, peteru@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, gerry_owen@hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis, Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis, suwanda@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, billrx@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis, Robberson.Bill@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis, hunthy@sirius.com-DeleteThis
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Subj: Editorial on Burton Bill
Date: 5/9/00 2:06:26 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: alert@savesfbay.org-DeleteThis (Save The Bay)
To: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis

This editorial ran in the San Mateo Times on Saturday, 5/6/00 and the
Oakland Tribune on Sunday 5/7/00

Public must closely scrutinize SFO expansion
It looks like state Sen. John Burton has done the right thing by changing a
bill that would have weakened the environmental standards San Francisco
International Airport must meet to build runways in the Bay. But the strange
journey of SB1562 illustrates why the public has to keep a sharp eye on the
process as SFO tries to get permission to go ahead with its runway expansion
plan.

SFO officials have made no secret of the fact that they think the only way to
reduce chronic delays is to build runways in the Bay, a project that could
require up to 2 square miles of fill. As mitigation, they have proposed
restoring up to 18,000 acres of wetlands in the South Bay. When it passed,
the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality about two weeks ago, SB1562
would have relieved SFO of the responsibility to complete an environmental
impact report on the mitigation. An EIR would still be required for the
runway project itself.

After amendments made to the bill late this week , SB1562 now requires that
SFO do an EIR on the mitigation plan, although it won't have to be as
detailed as the report they complete on the runway project. The bill also
says the airport must study an alternative to building runways in the Bay
that would involve some sort of joint agreement and a high-speed rail line
between SFO and Oakland International Airport.

That's as it should be. In fact, that's as it is. The California
Environmental Quality Act already says that developers have to do EIRs on
mitigation projects. It also says that developers must explore alternatives
to projects that will have an environmental impact. Burton's bill now
basically restates what's already law, although it does so in a lot more
detail. His staff said that's because the airport wanted a clarification of
the existing rules. But until environmental groups came out in strong
opposition, the bill would have relaxed the rules, not clarified them.

While environmental groups like Sierra Club and Save San Francisco Bay don't
support the current bill, which will be heard before the Senate
Appropriations Committee May 15, they won't actively oppose it. But if they
and some members of the public hadn't made a lot of noise, the bill probably
wouldn't have changed.
And the original bill would have tied the hands of those who have to evaluate
SFO's proposal. In order to get a permit, airport officials have to make the
case to the Bay Conservation and Development Commission that wetlands
restoration will be an adequate mitigation for the bay fill plan. But BCDC
couldn't have made that judgment without knowing the potential impacts of
that mitigation.

If it gets approved, the plan to build runways in the Bay would be
unprecedented in its size, scope and potential impacts. So would the proposed
restoration of 18,000 acres of wetlands. Both projects deserve more
scrutiny, not less. We'd hate to see any bills remove hurdles from SFO's path
when those hurdles are there for a very good reason. And we want SFO to live
up to its promises and obligations. To ensure that happens, the public must
watch this process, which is going to drag on for at least 18 more months.
Bills targeting the airport and the expansion should be closely examined and,
if necessary, challenged. Environmental groups are doing a good job of it,
but the public must be involved as well.

The Bay belongs to everybody. We should all be keeping an eye on it. Public
comment on SFO's proposed runway expansion must be received by May 19.

Send comments to:
John L. Pfeifer, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports District Office,
831 Mitten Road, Burlingame, CA 94010-1303 Gerald Green, Director, Planning
Department, City of San Francisco, 1660 Mission St., 5th Floor, San
Francisco, CA 94103.

Next message: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis: "San Mateo Times SFO article"
Previous message: David Nelson: "Re: Treasure Island"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Mail actions: [ respond to this message ] [ mail a new topic ]

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