Re: Windsurfing Dismissed by Burlingame Planning Commission

From: william robberson (ATOMIC1@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis)
Date: Wed May 12 1999 - 21:34:53 PDT


Received: from opus.hpl.hp.com by jr.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA147150547; Wed, 12 May 1999 21:42:56 -0700
Return-Path: <ATOMIC1@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis>
Received: from hplms26.hpl.hp.com by opus.hpl.hp.com with ESMTP (1.37.109.24/15.5+ECS 3.3+HPL1.1) id AA146890543; Wed, 12 May 1999 21:42:23 -0700
Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36]) by hplms26.hpl.hp.com (8.9.1a/HPL-PA Relay) with ESMTP id VAA16456 for <wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis>; Wed, 12 May 1999 21:42:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from worldnet.att.net ([12.72.192.14]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (InterMail v03.02.07 118 124) with ESMTP id <19990513044022.JLAM13020@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis>; Thu, 13 May 1999 04:40:22 +0000
Message-Id: <373A566D.BFC574D6@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis>
Date: Wed, 12 May 1999 21:34:53 -0700
From: william robberson <ATOMIC1@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis>
Reply-To: ATOMIC1@worldnet.att.net-DeleteThis
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en]C-WorldNet  (Win95; I)
To: Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis
Cc: OConnor.Karina@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis, harris@synopsys.com-DeleteThis, bob@quake.net-DeleteThis, geohaye@hotmail.com-DeleteThis, Robberson.Bill@epamail.epa.gov-DeleteThis, Randyboz@aol.com-DeleteThis, karinaoc@earthlink.net-DeleteThis, harris4life@yahoo.com-DeleteThis, CoyoteSurf@aol.com-DeleteThis, bdow@cisco.com-DeleteThis, TFeldstein@grmslaw.com-DeleteThis, mtischler@mail.arc.nasa.gov-DeleteThis, lbauman@fostercity.org-DeleteThis, jrunge@netcom.com-DeleteThis, wind_talk@opus.hpl.hp.com-DeleteThis, msides@harding.com-DeleteThis, russell_ford@cygn.com-DeleteThis, dan_weller@yahoo.com-DeleteThis, tom.vavul@kla-tencor.com-DeleteThis, jleipner@co.santa-barbara.ca.us-DeleteThis, scott@inet-sciences.com-DeleteThis
Subject: Re: Windsurfing Dismissed by Burlingame Planning Commission
References: <47122340.246afc68@aol.com-DeleteThis>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

After reading Peter's latest comments below, this appears to be typical
naivety on the part of those Commissioners who supported the significant
impact but voted the other way... what were they trying to do, be liked
by EVERYONE and make things BETTER by deciding that WE SHOULD ALL GET
ALONG and work the details out INFORMALLY instead of FORMALLY? Are they
kidding themselves, are they naive political idealists or scheming
realists? This is development folks, development return on investment
VS the environment. With ANY large structures immediately upwind we
will be losing the established beneficial use as we know it and we will
end up with a significantly degraded recreational resource (windsurfing)
as a result. Does anyone really believe that out of the "kindness of
DWI's (developer) heart" and the Commissioner's "good intention
oversight", that DWI and the windsurfers can get together and somehow
brainstorm and agree on an option the will Make The Impacts Go Away, and
that we'll do this within the project deadlines probably set by DWI,
without a formal process and groundrules such as those that CEQA calls
for when an impact is deemed significant? Does anyone believe we'll do
this considering that ANY above-grade construction in that narrow upwind
zone will only make wind quality worse than it is now when launching and
transiting from the beach towards the channel..and returning when cold
and sometimes tired. Perhaps I should apologize for being so blunt, but
are we all blind?*

Some Commissioners have concurred that the wind impacts are
significant.. do they really think that they have a better way to
address the impacts? Do they really think that they can do it BETTER?..
than the CEQA process? And so much better that they can publically
admit that wind impacts are significant but, well, the CEQA finding of
significant impact is soooo, well, unpleasant? What public official
would want to be associated with a Finding of Significant Impact? Not
me says the outgoing chair!?

I realize that I'm in the attack mode on this, but who is trying to save
face here? Perhaps they didn't want to be embarrased at this time by
previously having made verbal assurances to the developer too early and
MISTAKENLY moved forward with the "let's do a deal here" attitude before
they or their staff did their due diligence? Conjecture on my part, but
understanding "why" can help in understanding what's important to them.
Right now, based upon their actions, I'd say that collectively they are
either spineless and well intentioned or somewhere between unconsciously
incompetent and consciously incompetent.

It's been said that the CEQA process is only as good as those
implementing and administering it. I believe that by ignoring the
winds-impact evidence we have presented**, the Commissioners have
screwed up their CEQA obligations big-time, and if our counsel concurs,
then I believe that we now have no legal recourse but to attempt to shut
this thing down for real; based upon the Commissioner's incapacity to
properly understand and use the CEQA public participation process to do
the right thing... they didn't have to become CEQA experts, all they had
to do was understand it and READ the opposition materials before them,
but they couldn't even do that. However, once we either file a
compliant with the State Clearinghouse, or in State Civil Court, they
sure as shooting will have to take the time to understand CEQA, and I'll
bet that they'll be experts on it after this thing is all over, egg on
their faces and all. We could engage the Burlingame City Attny in this
so extensively, that the City won't have counsel's time for anything
else, which would get the Commissioners rethinking their priorities real
quickly. My guess is that once we have a judge assigned, the
Commissioners will get CEQA savy real quick.

One note of perspective on the City of Burlingame's big strategic error
here: City governments are not exempt from making huge mistakes in
judgement; far from it... City governments initiate and do things that
are as stupid, illegal and wrong as any John Q. Public does, and City
govenments are also quite capable of giving out just as bad and illegal
advice to honest, well-meaning developers and business people as well.
In my work, when it comes to environmental review vis-a-vi development
and infrastructure approvals, we see people in authority at all levels
of government come and go, some with an understanding of statutes and
regulations and policy, etc., and some without even a clue of what the
differences are between the types of law, the specific levels of
authority each carry nor what they mean to the community. Good City
Managers are worth their weight in gold, but they can also be
ineffective or not influentual if the various mayors and commissioners,
etc. don't nurture and build the necessary staff/official relationship.
And regardless of anyone's "government and civic leadership competency",
they might still exercise a serious lack of integrity in the moment of
choice, and some just make lousy decisions amidst good intention... the
point being that just because someone is elected to a role or a position
in city government, or just because someone is on staff as a Planner or
a manager or whatever, it doesn't ensure competency. No one knows what
you think they know.
 
Now, if the vote had gone the other way, if they had voted significant
impact, then they would have done the correct thing and my sense is that
we would also be tied to the next steps in addressing alternatives and
impacts and negotiation of potential mitigation measures, etc. The
developer would have been required to work with all concerned to develop
and consider alternatives which might mitigate the impacts in one
fashion or another to stakeholder's satisfaction, remembering that it
could also end in a standstill of sorts, but the lead agency would still
have the authority to make a command decision or determination after
weighing the facts and circumstances. As it stands now, the developer
has no requirement to mitigate and can turn and ignore the tough options
at any time because he really only has to please the Commission.. and
any other permit requirements ahead. And consistent with someone's
query yesterday, we do need a complete synopsis of the permittors...
like BCDC.

*I've seen the leads for junk projects completely bamboozel the public
and other stakeholders while supposedly complying with CEQA and NEPA
review processes, and get the approvals, only because the local
officials administrating the environmental review process weren't
competent in same and those effected were asleep at the wheel and/or
clueless re their own rights and how their own state and local
governments operate (most common), and I've seen far more worthy
projects stopped dead in their tracks because the stakeholders were far
more savy on regulatory intent and process than the project leads and
government representatives.

**As we have discussed, when changes to the environment are proposed
(e.g., development projects such as this one), the project lead is to
provide conclusive data and information that project impacts to the
environment will not be significant; the environment should not have to
defend itself. Thus, one cannot determine the impacts that new
buildings will have on the wind quality and quantity until one fully
understands the wind characteristics and parameters of the existing
environment. This was never done adequately, and thus SFBA maintains
that the City of Burlingame cannot make the judgement of no significant
impact in the EIR when it has not shown that it understands the existing
state of that which is being impacted.

For example, when doing an assessment to consider environmental impacts,
one must start with a datum of 1) a specific vulnerability that warrants
protection (e.g., shrimp in location X), then 2) one must identify the
endpoints of that vulnerability that are of the highest priority in
protecting it (e.g., shrimp larve at x depth of water column at y time
of year), then 3) what are the hazards which threaten the above
identified vulnerabilities (e.g., oil spill), and then 4) what are the
pathways by which the identified hazards might reach the endpoints
(e.g., dispersing oil into water column during cleanup). In the Coyote
Point issue, the vulnerability is wind for windsurfing, which is the
wind in the identified areas from sea level to approximately 15 foot
elevation ASL, the endpoints to consider include velocity, turbulence,
holes, wind direction, gusts, barametric pressure, humidity, etc. The
RDEIR did not weigh or evaluate the many endpoints the make up the wind
quality and quantity of the wind at Coyote, thus the impacts due to the
hazards (buildings) and the hpathways by which these hazards impact the
winds (building placement, wind directions, gusts, length of wind
shadows per wind direction and velocity of concern, etc.) are not
reliable.

In summary, we should not have had to defend our position that the winds
will be ruined with any of the alternatives. Before any DWI funded wind
tunnel testing work took place, the existing nature, quality and
quantity of the 15 foot MSL layer wind at Coyote should have been
studied, analyzed and proposed to SFBA for buy-in and development of
adequate parameters and measurement benchmarks from which an impacts
assessment could be conducted. In other words, the way in which DWI's
wind tunnel test results were also used to develop the benchmark or
standard upon which the EIR's conclusions were drawn is like making up
the rules of a game as you go along so that they fit the outcome you
want. Sorry, do not pass go!

Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis wrote:
>
> I have talked with the City Attorney and the City Planner and was surprised
> to hear a congratulatory tone in their appraisals of the situation. The
> opinion from the City side seems to be that windsurfing has not been
> dismissed because the Planning Commission plans to modify the project in the
> approval process even though they
> didn't make a finding of significant impact. The City is expecting us to work
> thorugh the approval process to come up with a modified development plan that
> will reduce impacts. How big a reduction they have in mind is a wild card and
> probably varies quite a bit from commissioner to commissioner.
>
> There is apparantly an addition to the EIR summary which will obligate the
> City to consider wind impacts when any future developments occur in the
> Anza/bayfront area. The City considers this a great finding for windsurfing
> but it seems that CEQA would require this in any event. The real problem is
> that it will require an evaluation of wind but it will be based on the flawed
> standard contained in the current EIR.
>
> There was a new staff report and also a new report by the environmental
> consultant which discussed/challenged the turbulence information put forward
> by myself and Mark Tischler two weeks ago. I did not have time to read these
> but I have copies coming from the City Planner. There are also copies at the
> Burlingame library. These documents should be carefully considered read
> before we make too strong of a response. I think a couple of commissioners
> may been sympathetic but voted
> based upon a recommendation to deal with windsurfing through the approval
> phase instead of the CEQA/EIR phase.
>
> Peter



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 10 2001 - 02:35:28 PST