STATEMENT OF DIRIDON R

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 001 OF 10

DIRIDON R CHAIRPERSON PRESIDENT

SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS

103712

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT HOUSE

MR. DIRIDON. I HAVE A VERY BRIEF STATEMENT TO READ INTO THE RECORD. AND, THEN I'D LIKE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. AND, PARTICULARLY, ADDRESS A FEW THAT WERE ASKED EARLIER.

MR. RYAN. OK.

MR. DIRIDON. THE REMARKS WERE DESIGNED TO INTRODUCE REMARKS FROM THE ABAG STAFF, AND, I'LL PRESENT THEM AS SUCH.

AND, LET ME BEGIN BY APOLOGIZING FOR MAYOR MOSCONE AND FOR DIANE FEINSTEIN. BOTH HAVE BEEN CALLED INTO EMERGENCY BUDGET SESSIONS. THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO BE HERE TODAY. I ASSUME THEY WILL CONTACT YOUR OFFICE AND TRY TO RESCHEDULE THE TESTIMONY AT SOME OTHER TIME DURING YOUR STAY HERE.

THE STATEMENT IS PRESENTED AS FOLLOWS:

I THINK THE STAFF HAS DONE A GOOD JOB SUMMARIZING THE PROCESS WE'VE COMPLETED TO DATE, I'D LIKE TO CLOSE OUR FORMAL PRESENTATION WITH A FEW OBSERVATIONS ABOUT WHAT WE'VE LEARNED FROM THE PROCESS.

WE LEARNED THAT IT IS POSSIBLE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO DO THIS JOB ON TIME, ACCORDING TO A SEVERE TIME SCHEDULE SET BY CONGRESS. YOU, AS OUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE, SHOULD CONSIDER HOW TO DEVELOP INCENTIVES FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO DO GOOD PLANNING IN A TIMELY FASHION IN OTHER AREAS.

CERTAINLY REGIONS THAT CAN PRODUCE HIGH-QUALITY PLANS ON TIME OUGHT NOT TO BE PENALIZED MERELY BECAUSE OTHER REGIONS, EITHER BY INTENTION OR BY ACCIDENT, LAG IN PREPARING ACCEPTABLE PLANS. THAT'S THE FIRST THAT WE'D LIKE TO STRESS, AND IT'S PARAMOUNT IN OUR MINDS AT THIS POINT.

SECOND, THERE MUST BE CLEAR, CONCISE EXPLANATIONS OF FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS AND POLICY GUIDANCE TO ASSIST LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS.

THE CLEAR, EARLY UNDERSTANDING, FOR EXAMPLE, OF THE SANCTIONS THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER THE CLEAN AIR ACT WOULD HAVE PREVENTED PEOPLE FROM ASKING US, AS LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS ATTEMPTING TO CARRY OUT CONGRESSIONAL MANDATES: WHY ARE YOU DOING THIS?

IT'S NOT ENOUGH FOR CONGRESS OR EPA, TO SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE WILL DO TO YOU, IF YOU DON'T COME UP WITH A PLAN TO SATISFY US. INSTEAD, CONGRESS AND EPA HAVE TO FULLY PARTICIPATE FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS. IN THIS REGION, I AM PLEASED THAT WE HAVE HAD THE ACTIVE ENCOURAGEMENT AND SUPPORT OF PAUL DEFALCO, EPA REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ADMINISTRATOR, THROUGHOUT OUR PROGRAM. IF ALL EPA ADMINISTRATORS WERE AS CREATIVE AND SUPPORTIVE OF LOCAL PROCESS AS PAUL HAS BEEN, IT WOULD GO A LONG WAY TOWARD ELIMINATING THE US-VERSUS-THEM SYNDROME THAT SEEMS TO PREVADE THIS PROGRAM AND OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAMS.

THIRD POINT: WHILE SUPPORTIVE OF OUR PROCESS TO DEVELOP THIS PLAN, PAUL HAS ALSO NOT WAIVERED FROM THE PROPER POSITION THAT REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL LAW MUST BE MET. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. AS POINTED OUT IN THE COVER LETTER TO THE PLAN, LOCAL OFFICIALS IN THIS REGION ARE VERY CONVERNED THAT OTHER REGIONS OF THE COUNTRY MAY NOT BE REQUIRED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FEDERAL LAW.

STATEMENT OF DIRIDON R

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 002 OF 10

DIRIDON R CHAIRPERSON PRESIDENT

SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS

103713

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT HOUSE

BOTH PAUL DEFALCO AND EPA ADMINISTRATOR DOUGLAS COSTLE HAVE INDICATED TO US EPA'S INTENTIONS TO ADMINISTER THE FEDERAL LAW EQUITABLY THROUGHOUT THE NATION. WE INTEND TO HOLD EPA TO THAT COMMITMENT, AND WOULD HOPE TO RECEIVE THE SUPPORT OF CONGRESS IN THAT INTERPRETATION.

FOURTH POINT: TURNING TO ANOTHER CONCERN OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, LET ME TALK A LITTLE ABOUT MONEY.

I AM SURE I DON'T NEED TO TELL YOU THE PUBLIC CONCERN, AS EVIDENCED BY THE ENACTMENT OFPROPOSITION 13 FOR PUBLIC SPENDING. WE KNOW, HOWEVER, THAT AT THE SAME TIME, THE VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA APPROVED THE STATE'S CLEAN WATER BOND ACT. THIS IS PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT. BUT, BECAUSE OF PROPOSITION 13, LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUST BE GIVEN THE RIGHT TO REEXAMINE ALL THEIR PROGRAMS AND MAKE CHOICES.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PROGRAMS WILL BE OUT. BUT, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A CAREFUL DETERMINATION OF WHAT LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WILL BE IMPLEMENTED.

OFFICIALS AT THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL HAVE TO APPRECIATE THE SITUATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT FACES WITH RESPECT TO FINANCING GOVERNMENT SERVICES. WE ARE NOT SAYING, WE WON'T CARRY OUT THESE PLANS WE'VE DEVELOPED. WE ARE SAYING, WE ARE GOING TO BE CAREFUL HOW WE DO IMPLEMENT THE PLAN.

FINALLY, I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT OUR PLAN ASKS CONGRESS TO REEXAMINE THE UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT. MANY PEOPLE HAVE CHARACTERIZED THATPHILOSOPHY AS TO RISK. RECENTLY, EPA PROPOSED A CHANGE IN THE OXIDANT STANDARDS, MAKING IT EASIER FOR REGIONS, SUCH AS THIS ONE, TO MEET FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. THAT CHANGE DID NOT, OF COURSE, CHANGE THE UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY OF THE ACT. WE WOULD ASK THAT CONGRESS REVIEW THE ACT, ITS REQUIREMENTS, TO MAKE SURE THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS CAN DO THE JOB ASKED OF THEM, WHILE MEETING OTHER PUBLIC GOALS SUCH AS PROVIDING JOBS AND HOUSING FOR THEIR CITIZENS.

THAT'S THE FORMAL STATEMENT THAT WOULD WRAP UP THE TECHNICAL PRESENTATIONS OF THE STAFF. AND, I'D BE VERY PLEASED TO COMMENT FURTHER, IF YOU'D CHOOSE?

I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL -- NOT SO MUCH FOR YOU, LEO, WHO HAS BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME -- BUT, FOR YOUR OTHER REPRESENTATIVES TO RECOGNIZE THE STRUCTURE OF ABAG, WHICH I HASTEN TO SAY, MAYOR CONDON DOES NOT. I'VE TALKED THIS OVER ON ONE OCCASION WITH HIM. APPARENTLY, HE IS NOT AWARE THAT ABAG IS, IN FACT, A JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY; THE SAME KIND OF A BODY THAT HE WAS SUGGESTING BE CREATED.

ABAG WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1961 FOR THE PURE AND SIMPLE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN THE BAY AREA FROM REGIONAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL CONTROL. IN FACT, ALL OF THE CALIFORNIA COUNCILS OF GOVERNMENT WERE CREATED USING THE SAME KINDS OF JOINT POWERS AUTHORITIES RATHER THAN UNDER STATE LAW AS WITH THE REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE OTHER PARTS OF THE NATION.

AS A DEVICE FOR PROTECTING LOCAL GOVERNMENT FROM STATE AND FEDERAL CONTROL, ABAG HAS NO POWER. THAT'S A FLAT STATEMENT THAT I WILL SUPPORT IN ANY WAY YOU'D LIKE. THE ONLY POWERTHAT ABAG RECEIVES IS THAT WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY DELEGATED BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVES THAT ARE SIGNATORS TO THE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY. AND THAT POWERCAN BE TAKEN AWAY AS QUICKLY AS THE NEXT GENERAL ASSEMBLY CAN BE CALLED, IF IT'S ABUSED.

STATEMENT OF DIRIDON R

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 003 OF 10

DIRIDON R CHAIRPERSON PRESIDENT

SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS

103714

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT HOUSE

THE JOINT POWERS AUTHORITY THAT WAS CREATED IS ADMINISTERED THROUGH -- IN THE CASE OF EMP -- 4 DIFFERENT ORGANIZATION LEVELS: THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF ABAG, WHICH CONSISTS OF A DELEGATE FROM EACH ONE OF THE 87 MEMBER CITIES, AND 7 MEMBER COUNTIES CREATE POLICY ON MAJOR ISSUES. IN ABAG A MAJORITY OF EACH OF THOSE BODIES IS REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL. THE 7 COUNTIES MUST HAVE A MAJORITY IN FAVOR AND THE 87 CITIES MUST VOTE A MAJORITY IN FAVOR FOR POLICY TO BE CREATED.

THERE ARE SUBCOMMITTEES OF THOSE ORGANIZATIONS. THE EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETS ON A MONTHLY BASIS. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, BY THE WAY, MEETS QUARTERLY. THE EXECUTIVE BOARD MEETS ON A MONTHLY BASIS, TO CARRY OUT THE BUSINESS OF THE ORGANIZATION. AND, THEN, SUBCOMMITTEES OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD MEET TO TAKE ON SPECIFIC TASKS.

FOR EXAMPLE, A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE EXECUTIVE BOARD IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE, WHICH WAS GIVEN THE RESPONSIBILITY TO HANDLE THE EMP. THAT SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTED TO THE REGIONAL PLANNING COMMITTEE, WHICH THEN REPORTED TO THE EXECUTIVE BOARD AND THEN TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FINALLY, ESTABLISHED THE POLICY THAT ADOPTED THE VERY DISTINCTLY MODIFIED PLAN, WHICH IS NOW BEING TRANSMITTED TO THE STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THE EMP IN ITS ADOPTED FORM HAS PRACTICALLY UNANIMOUS ENDORSEMENT FROM THE CITIES, COUNTIES, AND INTEREST GROUPS OF THE BAY AREA.

WE HAVE HAD A NEWS RELEASE DISTRIBUTED TO YOU, THAT WAS SUBMITTED RECENTLY BY ABAG, THAT IDENTIFIES THE LEVEL OF SUPPORT THAT THE PLAN NOW HAS.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT'S A DISTINCT DIFFERENCE FROM THE DRAFT VERSION OF THE PLAN, WHICH DR. LEONG DESCRIBED AS A LAUNDRY LIST OF ALL ALTERNATIVES. THE LAUNDRY LIST WAS REQUESTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE MEMBERS, WHO WERE MAJORITY ELECTED OFFICIALS, BACK IN DECEMBER 1977. THAT WAS BADLY MISINTERPRETED BY INTEREST GROUPS, AND BY THE MEDIA AS BEING THE PLAN. IN FACT, IT WAS MERELY MEANT TO BE A LISTING OF ALL ALTERNATIVES THAT COULD BE SELECTED FROM.

ONCE THOSE ALTERNATIVES WERE SELECTED, THE ONES THAT WERE ACCEPTABLE -- AFTER 600 HOURS OF PUBLIC HEARINGS, 1,500 PAGES OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY -- THE PLAN HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE VERY ACCEPTABLE TO THE REGION. AND, IN FACT, THIS PROCESS IS THE BEST TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF DEMOCRACY IN ACTION THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN. AND, IT'S BEEN DESCRIBED AS SUCH BY OTHERS WHO HAVE WATCHED.

MR. RYAN. YOU SELL VERY WELL, BUT, I QUESTION SOME OF THE THINGS YOU SAID, AND THE WEIGHT OF WHAT YOU SAY, BECAUSE OF WHAT I'VE HEARD BEFORE. BEGINNING WITH THIS MORNING EARLIER, WHEN A TV REPORTER OUT THERE QUOTED YOU AS SAYING THAT I WAS ILL-PREPARED. IS THAT TRUE?

MR. DIRIDON. I INDICATED TO THE TV REPORTER THAT YOUR INFORMATION WAS OBSOLETE, AS IT APPEARED FROM THEIR QUESTIONS. YES, SIR.

MR. RYAN. WELL, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENT. I THINK THAT CERTAINLY INDICATES SOMETHING TO THE REST OF MY STAFF. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS THING FOR MONTHS. I APPRECIATE THAT.

MR. DIRIDON. IT APPEARS THAT YOUR STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING

MR. RYAN. ON MAY 11 -- IF I MAY GO ON, AND GO A LITTLE FURTHER WITH THIS -- IN THE SAN MATEO TIMES THERE IS A REFERENCE HERE TO A PRESS CONFERENCE WHICH YOU HELD, IN WHICH S-PERVISOR ROD DIRIDON, SANTA CLARA COUNTY SUPERVISOR, SAID AT THE PRESS CONFERENCE IN SAN FRANCISCO THAT, "RYAN DROPPED THE IDEA OF A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING A MONTH AGO."

STATEMENT OF DIRIDON R

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 004 OF 10

DIRIDON R CHAIRPERSON PRESIDENT

SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS

103715

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT HOUSE

MR. DIRIDON. THAT'S NOT ACCURATE.

MR. RYAN. WELL, OK. I JUST WANTED TO HAVE YOU SAY THAT FOR THE RECORD. SO WE CAN INDICATE THAT WHAT THE PRESS IS SAYING IS INACCURATE. OR, THE PRESS' COMMENT IS INACCURATE.

AND, THEN, THERE IS ANOTHER PARAGRAPH HERE WHICH I WOULD LIKE YOU TO COMMENT ON: "DIRIDON HAS SAID RYAN HAS SINCE RECOGNIZED THAT THE CONTROVERSIAL EMP IS WIDELY ACCEPTED THROUGHOUT THE REGION DUE TO MANY CHANGES IN RE LAST 2 MONTHS". NOW. "RYAN HAS SINCE RECOGNIZED" -- I WONDER WHERE YOU GOT THAT INFORMATION? I NEVER SAID THAT MYSELF. I WONDER IF SOMEONE ELSE TOLD YOU THAT?

MR. DIRIDON. THAT'S THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAD PRESENTED TO US DURING THE HEARINGS. THAT YOU WERE MUCH MORE CONVINCED OF THE VIABILITY OF THE PLAN AS A RESULT OFTHE MODIFICATIONS.

MR. RYAN. WELL, YOU'RE QUOTING ME, THEN?

MR. DIRIDON. NOT DIRECTLY. I AM QUOTING INFORMATION THAT

MR. RYAN. YOUR IMPRESSION OF WHAT I SAID?

MR. DIRIDON. NO. NOT -- I WAS QUOTING THE IMPRESSIONS THAT I WAS RECEIVING FROM PUBLIC TESTIMONY FROM THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO WERE AWARE OF YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT THE PLAN.

MR. RYAN. NOW, YOUR'RE SAYING THAT I DIDN'T -- THAT YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT THE IDEA OF A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING A MONTH AGO WAS YOUR CONCERN?

MR. DIRIDON. MY STATEMENT AT THAT TIME WAS THAT THE ORIGINAL HEARING, PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THEPLAN, HAD BEEN DROPPED BY YOU. AND, THAT YOU WERE INTENDING TO HAVE A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING AFTER THE PLAN WAS ADOPTED. AND, THAT I HAD HOPED THAT THAT HEARING WOULD DWELL PRINCIPALLY ON HOW TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PLAN WAS MAINTAINED INTACT.

MR. RYAN. WELL, WE HAVE THE REPORTER HERE FOR THE SAN MATEO TIMES WHO WROTE THAT STORE. IT MIGHT BE INTERESTING TO ASK HER. I DON'T REALLY WANT TO EMBARRASS THE REPORTER, THOUGH, WITH THE SOURCE OF THAT STORY. MAYBE WE CAN HAVE THE STAFF TALK WITH HER LATER.

THE REASON I ASK THESE QUESTIONS IS BECAUSE YOU MAKE COMMENTS SUCH AS -- AND AGAIN, I QUOTE THE STORY FROM THIS SAME ARTICLE, IN THE SAME PRESS CONFERENCE -- AND THIS IS IN QUOTES. "A PLAN THAT IS ACCEPTABLE TO VIRTUALLY ALL LOCAL GOVERNMENT, BUSINESS, LABOR, AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUPS." IS THAT SUBSTANTIALLY CORRECT THERE?

MR. DIRIDON. THAT'S SUBSTANTIALLY ACCURATE. YES. IN THE FORM THAT HAD BEEN MODIFIED. YES.

MR. RYAN. YES. WELL. I PRESUME THE REASON I ASK THAT IS BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO HAVE A TENDENCY TO MAKE ENTHUSIASTIC STATEMENTS WHICH ARE A LITTLE BIT LARGER THAN, PERHAPS, THE FACTS MIGHT WARRANT. IN THE CASE OF MY OWN COMMENTS, ANYWAY. I THINK YOU INTERPRETATION OF WHAT I SAID AT THAT MEETING IS OPEN TO QUESTION, OF COURSE, BUT IT WAS CERTAINLY NOT MY INTENTION TO INDICATE THAT, I BELIEVE, THERE WAS ANY KIND OF WIDE ACCEPTANCE BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES. I DIDN'T MAKE THAT COMMENT THEN: AND, I DON'T MAKE IT NOW. IN FACT, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S WIDE ACCEPTANCE, AT ALL, OF THIS PARTICULAR PLAN. ON ANY KIND OF A REFERENDUM BASIS. I QUESTION WHETHER IT WOULD GET ANYTHING LIKE THE SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION 13, AS A MATTER OF FACT.

THAT'S PART OF THE PROBLEM I HAVE. I AM TRYING TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS PARTICULAR PLAN IS A RESULT OF THOSE WHO ARE: (A) ENTHUSIASTS FOR REGIONAL GOVERNMENT; (B) THOSE WHO TEND TO BELIEVE THERE IS SOME VALUE IN CLEANING UP THE WATER IN THIS FASION; AND (C) WHO ARE JOINED TOGETHER THROUGHOUT THE BAY AREA BY MEANS OF THE VARIOUS CITY COUNCILS AND THE STRUCTURES THAT WE HAVE, WITHOUT ANY KIND OF REFERENDUM TO THE PEOPLE.

STATEMENT OF DIRIDON R

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 005 OF 10

DIRIDON R CHAIRPERSON PRESIDENT

SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS

103716

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT HOUSE

NO ONE, THAT I KNOW OF, ON THAT ABAG EXECUTIVE BOARD RUNS FOR OFFICE TO THE ABAG EXECUTIVE BOARD. AND, YEARS AGO, WHEN I WAS IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE, WITH JACK KNOX, AS WELL AS SOME OTHERS, I WAS A VERY STRONG PROPONENT OF A REGIONAL BODY IN THIS BAY AREA TO BE THE REGIONAL GOVERNMENT, TO GET ELECTED TO THE JOB. SO THE REASON FOR IT IS RATHER OBVIOUS. BECAUSE, I BELIEVE, THAT THERE WOULD BE, THEN, A REFERENDUM IN WHICH PEOPLE, WHO WERE MAKING THESE DECISIONS, WOULD STAND FOR ELECTION AND BE CHALLENGED FOR THOSE PARTICULAR KINDS OF DECISIONS.

AND, I DON'T KNOW, TODAY -- AND, THIS FIRST EFFORT THAT'S GOTTEN THIS FAR, BECAUSE OF FEDERAL LEGISLATION -- THAT THIS KIND OF APPROACH TO THE RESOLUTION OF POLLUTION PROBLEMS -- WHICH ARE SERIOUS IN THIS COUNTRY -- IS, PERHAPS, THE RIGHT WAY TO GO FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AND, THAT'S WHERE THE IMPETUS COMES IN THE END.

YOUR COMMENT, FOR INSTANCE, THAT YOU SAY -- I BELIEVE, THIS IS A DIRECT QUOTE: "ABAG HAS NO POWER." AND, I FIND THAT VERY HARD TO LIVE WITH' BECAUSE, ITS A LITTLE BIT LIKE SAYING THAT THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE HAS NOT POWER UNTIL THE FULL HOUSE RATIFIES ITS DECISIONS.

THAT'S TRUE, IN THE STRICT SENSE, I SUPPOSE. BUT, IT IS WHOEVER HAS THE PURSE STRINGS -- AND, ABAG HAS THE PURSE STRINGS IN DETERMINING MANY OF THESE GRANT REQUESTS THAT GO OUT TO CITIES. IF, IN FACT, AS MAYOR CONDON SAID, THEY ARE AFRAID OF WHAT THEY WILL LOSE -- THE CITIES ARE AFRAID OF WHAT THEY WILL LOSE, IF THEY DON'T GO ALONG WITH A PARTICULAR PLAN. OBVIOUSLY, THE IMPLIED THREAT THERE: IF YOU DON'T GO ALONG WITH US ON THIS PARTICULAR PLAN, WE WILL REMOVE OUR APPROVAL FROM YOUR PROJECT FOR SEWAGE PLANT RENEWAL, OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE. NOW, THAT'S THE SOURCE OF THE COERCION, IF IT EXISTS -- THE IMPLIED COERCION, IF IT EXISTS.

AND, I'D LIKE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF COMMENT, AS YOU SEE IT, ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR LINE OF REASONING, OR THAT RATIONALE?

MR. DIRIDON. YOU'VE ASKED ABOUT SIX QUESTIONS.

MR. RYAN. ALL RIGHT.

MR. DIRIDON. AND, I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THEM, IF YOU'D GIVE ME THE MOMENT.

FIRST OF ALL, THE ADOPTION OF THE ABAG PLAN, THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, IS IN NO WAY A REFERENDUM ON REGIONAL GOVERNMENT. IT WAS PRECISELY RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING MANAGEMENT PROCESS.

MR. RYAN. THAT'S YOUR CONCLUSION. AND, I WOULD ACCEPT IT AS SUCH.

MR. DIRIDON. WELL, I THINK IT'S ACCURATE, ALSO.

MR. RYAN. WELL, THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE ELECTIONS.

MR. DIRIDON. THE PROCESS OF GOVERNMENT THROUGH THE REGION SHOULD BE DIRECTLY ELECTED. AND, I HAVE SUPPORTED THAT CONCEPT EVERY TIME JACK KNOX HAS PRESENTED HIS NUMEROUS REGIONAL GOVERNMENT BILLS.

ABAG, BY THE WAY, ENDORSES DIRECTLY ELECTED REGIONAL GOVERNMENT. AND, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE, AND ARE INTENDING, AFTER THE PROPOSITION 13 SITUATION SETTLES DOWN, TO PURSUE AGAIN ANOTHER OF JACK'S MANY ATTEMPTS AT ESTABLISHING A REGIONAL BODY, RECOGNIZING THAT IF A DIRECTLY ELECTED REGIONAL GOVERNMENT IS ESTABLISHED, IT WILL HAVE DIRECT POWER, ALSO.

STATEMENT OF DIRIDON R

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 006 OF 10

DIRIDON R CHAIRPERSON PRESIDENT

SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS

103717

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT HOUSE

LET ME ADDRESS NOW THE ISSUE OF POWER OF ABAG. EVERY ONE OF THOSE VOTES ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN WAS A DIRECTED VOTE. AS YOU HEARD FROMMAYOR CONDON, THE VOTE OF HIS CITY WAS DIRECTED. HE HAD NO CHOICE WHEN HE CAME TO THAT GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEETING. HE WAS TOLD TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN. JUST AS WITH ALL OF THE OTHER87 CITIES AND 7 COUNTIES.

OUT OF THAT DIRECTION PROCESS -- AND THAT DIRECTION OCCURRED DURING A PUBLIC HEARING AT A CITY COUNCIL MEETING, NOT BEFORE A GENERAL ASSEMBLY HEARING AT ABAG -- BUT, IN THAT DIRECTION PROCESS, ONLY FIVE CITIES VOTED IN OPPOSITION TO THE PLAN. FOR WHATEVER REASON -- WHETHER IT WAS BY THE PROCESS OF COERCION, THAT YOU DESCRIBED; OR, WHETHER IT WAS BY THE PROCESS OF WANTING TO PROTECT LOCAL CONTROL; WHICH IS REALLY THE REASON.

MR. RYAN. SUPERVISOR, DO YOU THINK THAT THE

MR. DIRIDON. OUT OF THE TOTAL GENERAL ASSEMBLY, FIVE CITIES VOTED IN OPPOSITION.

MR. RYAN. DO YOU THINK THAT THE CITIES WERE WELL INFORMED?

MR. DIRIDON. YES, I THINK, VERY WELL INFORMED. AS A MATTER OF FACT, EVERY CITY HAD AT LEAST ONE PRESENTATION. EVERY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HAD AT LEAST ONE PRESENTATION. AND, MOST OF THEM HAD NUMEROUS PRESENTATIONS. AND, EACH ONE OF THE AREAS HAD PUBLIC HEARINGS

MR. RYAN. SO, YOU BELIEVE THE CITY COUNCILS WERE WELL INFORMED ON THIS PLAN?

MR. DIRIDON. I THINK THIS

MR, RYAN. WOULD YOU THINK THAT THERE IS ANY QUESTION, THEN? OR, IF THERE'S ANY EFFORT ON E PART OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE TO PREPARE A KIND OF "20-QUESTION" SORT OF QUESTIONNAIRE, WHICH MIGHT BE SENT OUT TO THE VARIOUS 84 MEMBERS -- 84 CITIES IN THE BAY AREA -- 84, OR 86?

MR. DIRIDON. THERE ARE 87 -- 87 IN ABAG.

MR. RYAN. TO THE 87 CITIES, AND ASK THE VARIOUS CITY COUNCILS, INDIVIDUALLY -- MEMBERS -- TO ANSWER THE THING, TO GET SOME IDEA OF THE RELATIVE UNDERSTANDING OF THE ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN?

MR. DIRIDON. I THINK, IF YOU WOULD COMPARE THEIR RESPONSE ON THIS PLAN WITH THEIR RESPONSE ON A SIMILAR KIND OF PIECE OF LEGISLATION YES, IT'S A RELATIVE ISSUE.

MR. RYAN. I THINK THAT'S -- I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT. ONE OF THE DOUBTS THAT I HAD IS THAT FROM MY OWN EXPERIENCE, THE 7 YEARS ON A CITY COUNCIL HERE IN THE BAY AREA, WHEN DAVE MARTIN WAS ONE OF THE VETERANS IN THE SAN MATEO COUNTY -- DAVE AND I SERVED AT THE SAME TIME FOR AWHILE ON CITY COUNCILS -- NOT ON THE SAME ONE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME -- AND, WE USED TO DISCUSS THE PROBLEM OF COMMUNICATION, AND LACK OF INFORMATION ON THEPART OF SO MANY MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL; AND BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. AND I AM NOW. AND, BECAUSE THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA LEADS THE WAY AND SETS A PRECEDENT, I AM TERRIBLY ANXIOUS THAT WE HAVE AS ACCURATE A KIND OF INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE, ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THEINFORMATION THAT'S BEEN AVAILABLE.

MR. DIRIDON. WOULD YOU CARE TO HEAR A COMMENT FROM DAVE ON THIS? COUNCILMAN.

MR. RYAN. DAVE?

MR. MARTIN. A COUPLE OF ITEMS. YOUR SOURCE OF MR. CONDONS INFORMATION THAT HE'D BETTER ACCEPT THE PLAN WAS PROBABLY ME. THE IMPLICATION, THOUGH, THAT YOU'RE GOING FROM -- AND, I DON'T THINK IS QUITE WHAT I HAD IN MIND. NOW, WHETHER I WAS THE ORIGINATOR, OR SOMEONE ELSE THAT HE TALKED TO WAS THE ORIGINATOR, I DON'T KNOW. IT FITS WITH MY PHILOSOPHY OF GOVERNMENT, SO IT'S NOT A NEW IDEA, AS FAR AS I AM CONCERNED.

STATEMENT OF DIRIDON R

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 007 OF 10

DIRIDON R CHAIRPERSON PRESIDENT

SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS

103718

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT HOUSE

THE POINT HERE IS NOT THAT I AM AFRAID OF THE LEGISLATION OF THE CONGRESS. WHAT I AM AFRAID OF IS TWO OTHER THINGS THAT INTERVENE BETWEEN THE CONGRESS AND THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. AND, THAT IS, THE BUREAUCRATS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. AND, WHAT I AM EVEN MORE SCARED OF ARE THE BUREAUCRATS IN SACRAMENTO.

IF THE PLAN WAS ACCEPTED -- AND, I AM IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE CONGRESS -- WE NEED CLEAN AIR; WE NEED CLEAN WATER. BUT, THE CONGRESS DIDN'T REALLY SAY ALL THE LITTLE BITS OF PIECES THAT GO IN THE MAKING UP THE REGULATION THAT'S THIS THICK, THAT WE HAVE NOW. I WAS PRESENT FOR THESE HEARINGS, AS YOU WELL KNOW. ONE OF THE POINTS THAT I WANTED TO MAKE AT THE HEARINGS IS, LET CONGRESS TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AND SEE IF THEY REALLY WANT THEIR RESTRICTIONS AS STRICT AS EPA HAS MADE THEM.

THE REASON I ADVISED THE CITIES TO ACCEPT IS THAT, UNDER THE ACT, IF WE DID NOT PRESENT A REASONABLE PLAN, IT WAS THE POWER OF THE STATE AGENCIES -- AND, I AM PARTICULARLY CONCERNED WITH THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD AND MR. QUINN -- SOME OF THE THINGS THEY COULD HAVE FORCED ON US, WE COULD NOT HAVE LIVED WITH.

MR. RYAN. JUST, FOR EXAMPLE?

MR. MARTIN. WELL, FOR EXAMPLE, LAND USE.

MR. RYAN. COULD THEY STILL DO IT?

MR. MARTIN. YES, LAND USE, I THINK, WOULD BE A HORROR. WE WOULD BE FORCED TO LIVE WITH A LAND-USE PLAN THAT REALLY ONLY AFFECTS FROM 4 TO 7 PERCENT OF THE POSSIBLE REMOVAL OF THE HYDROCARBONS. AND 24 TIMES THAT IS SOME 364. MY FIGURES MAY BE A LITTLE VAGUE. BUT, GENERALLY, IN THAT RANGE. THIS IS OVERKILL. AND, YET, I AM SURE AS I AM SITTING HERE, IF THE AIR RESOURCES BOARD WAS ABLE TO, THEY WOULD ATTEMPT TO IMPOSE THOSE REGULATIONS ON US. HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET SOMETHING -- IF THEY DO THAT -- THAT WILL FORCE THAT PLAN BACK, AND LETUS TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT. AND, THROW THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON ANY AGENCY THAT SAYS OUR PLAN IS NOT VIABLE. RATHER THAN JUST THROW IT BACK AND SAY: YOU FIGURE IT OUT. I WANT THEM TO COME BACK WITH CASE BY CASE AS TO WHY IT ISN'T. THEN, LET US TAKE A LOOK AT IT'

I DON'T LIKE SOME OF THE THINGS OF ABAG. AND, I'VE BEEN A MEMBER OF THEIR GENERAL ASSEMBLY SINCE 1962, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A COUPLE OF YEARS, WHICH IS PROBABLY LONGER THAN ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM. THEY DO A LOT OF THINGS WRONG. BUT, IT'S STILL SOME PLACE THAT I CAN WORK WITHIN THE RULES, AND GET MY VOICE HEARD, AND GET MY CITY HEARD.

IN THE CASE OF THIS PLAN, THE COUNTY WAS WELL ORGANIZED, IN THE SAN MATEO COUNTY. FROM THE DECEMBER PLAN TO THE APRIL PLAN, WE PROPOSED 23 AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN. AND, EVERY ONE OF THESE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE EXECUTIVE BOARD.

SO, CITIES DO HAVE SOME WAY TO PUT INTO ABAG.

AND, I THINK THE PLAN THAT WE HAD IN DECEMBER, THAT YOUR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE, AND, I THINK, BASICALLY, ABAG'S STAFF, WROTE WAS A HORROR. THE PLAN THAT WAS ACCEPTED IN JUNE, I THINK, IS A REASONABLE PLAN. IT'S STILL PUTTING A GREAT DEAL OF IMPOSITION ON CITIES AND COUNTIES. BUT, WE CAN LIVE WITH IT, IF WE HAVE TO.

I THINK WHAT WE'RE ASKING YOU IS: TAKE ANOTHER LOOK, AND MAYBE, EASE SOME OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS. SO THAT THE ECONOMIC HARDSHIPS THAT THEY WILL WORK ON THIS REGION ARE NOT SO THAT WE CAN'T EXIST UNDER THEM.

ANY QUESTIONS?

MR. RYAN. YES. I'VE GOT ONE IN PARTICULAR: ARE YOU, PERSONALLY, COMFORTABLE WITH THE PRESENT PLAN?

MR. MARTIN. WE HAVE TO HAVE A PLAN.

STATEMENT OF DIRIDON R

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 008 OF 10

DIRIDON R CHAIRPERSON PRESIDENT

SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS

103719

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT HOUSE

MR. RYAN. WELL, LET ME SAY IT THIS WAY. WE HAVE TO HAVE A PLAN, WHY?

MR. MARTIN. BECAUSE, THE CONGRESS SAYS WE HAVE TO.

MR. RYAN. IF YOU HAD A CHOICE, WOULD YOU NOT HAVE IT?

MR. MARTIN. I WOULD NOT HAVE THIS PLAN, IF I HAD A CHOICE.

MR. RYAN. WHAT WOULD YOU DO?

MR. MARTIN. I THINK THAT WE NEED TO RELAX SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS.

MR. RYAN. SUCH AS WHAT?

MR. MARTIN. SUCH AS SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS ON THE AUTOMOBILE. THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE MEET CERTAIN HYDROCARBON STANDARDS, AND SO ON.

THE PROBLEM HERE IS THAT THESE ARE BASED ON HYPOTHETICAL POINTS. THEY ARE BASED ON A HYPOTHETICAL POPULATION, FOR A HYPOTHETICAL NUMBER OF CARS. NOBODY KNOWS THAT THOSE ARE CORRECT. I THINK THAT WHEN WE GET THROUGH WITH THIS PLAN, AS IT'S WRITTEN, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE VERY CLEAR AIR. BUT, NOBODY MAY BE WORKING, IS THE PROBLEM. I THINK THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION MORE THAN THEY HAVE BEEN.

MR. RYAN. IF YOU HAD THE CAPACITY TO WRITE THE FEDERAL LEGISLATION, GRANTED JUST THE ONE FACT THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FEELS IT NECESSARY TO GET INTO THE ACT OF CLEANING UP AIR AND THE WATER IN THIS COUNTRY, HOW WOULD YOU DO IT?

MR. MARTIN. I THINK -- GOD FORBID I SHOULD EVER RUN FOR CONGRESS

MR. RYAN. THAT'S GIVING YOU THE IDEA BEFORE YOU

MR. MARTIN. I THINK THE LEGISLATION TENDS TO GO TOWARD NO RISK. AND, IF I WERE IN THE CONGRESS, I WOULD TEND TO RELAX THAT NO RISK, NO HARM,

MR. RYAN. MAY I INTRODUCE A MEMBER OF THIS SUBCOMMITTEE, WHO WAS BUSY IN ANOTHER COURTROOM HAVING HIS OWN HEARING. HE'S ALSO A CHAIRMAN OF A SUBCOMMITTEE OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS. THE ONE, THE ONLY, THE INIMITABLY -- CONGRESSMAN JOHN BURTON, FROM SAN FRANCISCO. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

MR. BURTON. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. UNFORTUNATELY, WE'VE GOT OUR OWN HEARING GOING DOWN IN ANOTHER CHAMBER.

MR. RYAN. LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING ATTENDANCE THAT MR. BURTON IS PRESENT.

DAVE, GO AHEAD, UNLESS YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS.

MR. MARTIN. I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE FAILURE OF HUD AND THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO GET INTO THE ACT, AS EPA HAS. BECAUSE, I BELIEVE THAT WHAT EPA DOES IS, ESSENTIALL, TO PENALIZE PEOPLE FOR BEING WHERE THEY ARE, AND TO TRY TO FORCE THEM TO MOVE ELSEWHERE, OR TO MOVE IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION BY USING PRESSURES OF VARIOUS KINDS, PRIMARILY FINANCIAL, THROUGH THE CITIES TO CAUSE CHANGE.

MR. RYAN. THAT'S CORRECT.

MR. MARTIN. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO IT. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WERE TO TAKE THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY INVOLVED HERE, ONE-HALF OF A BILLION DOLLARS, AND PUT IT INTO ENCOURAGEING DIFFERENT KINDS OF TRANSPORTATION MODES, DIFFERENT KINDS OF TAX BENEFITS. FOR EXAMPLE, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSES WITH HUD. DIFFERENT KINDS OF POLICIES WHICH WOULD ENCOURAGE PEOPLE -- PULL THEM BACK INTO SAN FRANCISCO TO LIVE IN DIFFERENT KINDS OF STRUCTURES THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED SO THERE'S A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF NECESSITY FOR AUTOMOBILE TRAVEL -- INSTEAD OF, AS THEY DID A FEW YEARS AGO, TRYING TO FINE EVERYBODY WHO PARKED IN THE PARKING LOT IN SERRAMONTE OR IN BURLINGAME, YOU KNOW.

STATEMENT OF DIRIDON R

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 009 OF 10

DIRIDON R CHAIRPERSON PRESIDENT

SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS

103720

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT HOUSE

THE APPROACH THAT EPA IS USING NOW, TO ME, IS ONE WHICH, ESSENTIALLY, IS THEPUNISHMENT ROUTE, RATHER THAN THE REWARD ROUTE. AND I WONDER IF THERE ISN'T -- IF YOU, OR OTHERS, WHO HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS, AS YOU HAVE FOR YEARS, DON'T HAVE SOME KIND OF SUGGESTIONS THAT MIGHT IMPROVE THE SITUATION.

I DON'T KNOW ANY WAY TO IMPROVE IT. THE WAY GOVERNMENT WORKS THESE DAYS, I'M ABOUT TO GIVE UP. I SOMETIMES THINK THERE IS NO SOLUTION.

LET ME GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, BURLINGAME BUILT THE FIRST PARTIALLY TERTIARY TREATMENT PLANT ON THE BAY SOME 10 YEARS AGO. ALMOST FROM THE DAY THAT PLANT WAS COMPLETED, WE WERE UNDER SANCTION FROM THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD BECAUSE THEORETICALLY WE HAD SOME SOLIDS GOING INTO THE BAY. AND, THEN, BEYOND THAT, WE GOT INTO A DISCHARGE IMMEDIATELY OFF LAND, NO DEEP WATER DISCHARGE.

THE WATER WAS CLEAR ENOUGH SO THAT WHEN THE PLANT WAS DEDICATED -- I WILL ADMIT WE BOOSTED UP THE CHLORINE CONTENT, SLIGHTLY. BUT, CONGRESSMAN MCCLOSKEY AND I DRANK THE WATER.

MR. RYAN. I REMEMBER THE PICTURE IN THE PAPER.

MR. MARTIN. THAT'S RIGHT.

MR. RYAN. THERE WERE ALL KINDS OF COMMENTS ABOUT THAT.

MR. MARTIN. THAT'S RIGHT. YES, THERE WERE. I THINK MR. DIRIDON HAS SOME COMMENTS.

MR. DIRIDON. I CAN TELL YOU, I AM NOT ANXIOUS TO DRINK THAT WATER. THAT TAKES COURAGE.

YOU ASKED TWO QUESTIONS THAT ARE PIVOTAL IN THE PROCESS REGARDING TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING. I THINK THAT A VERY MUCH MORE POSITIVE APPROACH TO SOLVING SOME OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE ARE SEEING HERE COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED BY CONGRESS BEING MORE VIGOROUS IN REGARD TO PROVIDING MASS TRANSPORTATION FUNDING AND ASSISTANCE IN HOUSING.

AND, IF YOU CAN TAKE THAT BACK FROM ME, NOT AS PRESIDENT OF ABAG, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PRESENT THAT, BUT AS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, SANTA CLARA COUNTY, PLEASE DO. AND, WITH A FERVENT PLEA THAT YOU SUPPORT ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR MASS TRANSPORTATION FOR CALIFORNIA. WE ARE IN SERIOUS NEED. PARTICULARLY, SINCE PROPOSITION 13'S PASSAGE.

THE PLANNING PROCESS, THOUGH, THAT WE'VE JUST BEEN THROUGH IS MANDATED. AND, UNLESS THE LAW IS CHANGED, WE ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE THAT PLAN.

WE HAVE A PLAN, NOW, THAT, ALTHOUGH EACH OF US WOULD FIND INDIVIDUAL FLAWS WITH IT, HAS MET THE TEST OF POLITICAL COMPROMISE TO THE POINT THAT IT'S BEEN ADOPTED. IT'S BEEN ADOPTED

MR. RYAN. WHAT IF THE STATE AND/OR THE FEDERAL REJECT THAT PLAN?

MR. DIRIDON. WELL, I HOPE THAT THAT WOULD BE ONE OF THE OUTGROWTHS OF THIS HEARING.

MR. RYAN. WILL IT BE WORSE?

MR. MARTIN. YES.

MR. DIRIDON. IT WILL BE WORSE, IF ONLY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL ANYMORE AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

MR. MARTIN. RIGHT.

MR. DIRIDON. AND, AS A PRIOR LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIAL, THAT'S WORSE.

MR. RYAN. THAT'S RIGHT.

MR. DIRIDON. IF WE CAN CONTROL IT HERE, THEN SOMEONE CAN COME TO US; WALK AROUND THE CORNER; AND COME TO MY HOUSE IN THE EVENING, AND SAY, HEY, I DON'T LIKE YOUR PLAN, CHANGE YOUR PLAN.

STATEMENT OF DIRIDON R

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 010 OF 10

DIRIDON R CHAIRPERSON PRESIDENT

SANTA CLARA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS

103721

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT HOUSE

BUT, IF IT'S UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL CONTROL, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE THAT SAME KIND OF HEARING. UNLESS, IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS, YOU CAN HAVE THE HEARINGS HERE, WHICH IS VERY RARE.

MR. RYAN. DO YOU ACCEPT THE PROPORTION OF THE FUNDS THAT WOULD BE SPENT BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT, AND THE COMMENTS MADE EARLIER BY THE STAFF?

MR. DIRIDON. WELL, LET ME REFINE THEM JUST A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE I THINK THEY MIGHT HAVE BEEN MISLEADING.

THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT'S GOING TO BE REQUIRED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS FOR THIS PLAN IS ALREADY COMMITTED. THIS IS IN THE SANITATION IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT. AND THE LOCAL MATCHING FUND IS GUARANTEED WITH THE PASSAGE OF PROPOSITION 2, IN THE ELECTION JUST A FEW DAYS AGO. AND THE MATCHING FEDERAL FUNDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUDGETED IN THE MAIN. THERE ARE A FEW CASES WHERE THE GRANTS ARE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF BEING PURSUED. BUT MOST OF THIS IS ALREADY IN THE PROCESS.

I THINK THE CALCULATION WAS 70 PERCENT OF THE COST OF THIS PLAN IS EITHER UNDER CONSTRUCTION, OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING PURSUED BY GRANTS NOW. AND IT'S ALL IN THE SANITATION TREATMENT AREA, OR WATER PLANT CONSTRUCTION. AND I AM SPEAKING NOW OF SAN PHILLIPE AND THE OTHER PERIPHERAL CANAL KINDS OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS THAT WILL BE COMING DOWN THE PIKE IN THE FUTURE.

MR. RYAN. WHY WAS THERE NO REFERENCE, THAT I HAVE SEEN SO FAR -- AND, IF THERE IS, PLEASE CORRECT ME -- IN ALL OF THIS TO THE EAST BAY MUNICIPAL TREATMENT PLANT, WHICH IS NOW BURNING ITS OWN SLUDGE AS A SOURCE OF POWER?

MR. DIRIDON. THIS IS ONE OF THE PROGRAMS THAT MAYOR CONDON OBJECTS TO. HE FEELS THAT IT'S NOT COST-EFFICIENT. NOW, IT DOES COST RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE OF THE STATE OF THE TECHNOLOGY, A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN STANDARD TREATMENT OF REFUSE DISPOSAL. BUT, I CAN TELL YOU THAT IN THE FUTURE, AS WE LOSE OUR LANDFILL SITES -- AS THOSE SITES BECOME MORE VALUABLE FOR OTHER PURPOSES -- THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY VIABLE ALTERNATIVE.

INCINERATING SOLID WASTE, GARBAGE; RECOVERING METALS, AND SO ON, FROM THE GARBAGE IS GOOD BUSINESS. AND THIS IS A PART OF THE EMP. AND THE MECHANISMS ARE SET UP FOR ACCOMPLISHING THAT IN A VERY GENTLE PHASE-IN SORT OF WAY. IT ISN'T FORCED. BUT, IT'S A NATURAL PROGRESSION OF THE CURRENT PLAN.

MR. RYAN. WHO PUTS UP THE MONEY?

MR. DIRIDON. THE MONEY WOULD COME, PRIMARILY, FROM THE PRIVATE SECTOR' AND, OF COURSE, THAT'S YOU AND ME IN THE ULTIMATE OF THE CYCLE AS WE PAY OUR REFUSE COLLECTION BILL.

MR. RYAN. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU HAVE UP THERE IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY ON THAT?

MR. DIRIDON. WE ARE HOPING TO ATTRACT ONE OF THE THREE-PHASED P.G. & E. PLANTS FOR THE AREA. THE PLANT WOULD TAKE SLUDGE AND REFUSE; GRIND THE REFUSE; AND CENTRIFUGE OUT THE WATER AND THE METALS; TAKE THE CELLULOSE AND THE PLASTICS THAT RESULT, AND INCINERATE IT FOR POWER GENERATION; RECYCLE THE WATER; AND SELL THEMETALS.

WE ARE ONE OF THREE LOCATIONS BEING CONSIDERED NOW AND WOULD HOPE TO BE SELECTED.

MR. RYAN. WELL, YOU'VE COVERED A GREAT DEAL WITH THAT LAST COMMENT. BECAUSE THIS SUBCOMMITTEE HAS -- PREPARED, OR NOT -- LOOKED INTO SUCH THINGS AS THE BALTIMORE EXPERIMENT, WHICH HAS COST BALTIMORE COUNTY $20 MILLION. AT WHICH POINT, HONEYWELL GOT OUT. AND THE FEDS CAME IN WITH ANOTHER $20 MILLION, TRYING TO MAKE THE PYROLYSIS TECHNIQUE WORK. IT STILL DOESN'T WORK.

ON THE OTHER HAND, THIS SUBCOMMITTEE HAS ALSO GONE TO SOME CITIES IN EUROPE AND SEEN WASTE DISPOSAL PLANTS THAT HAVE BEEN IN OPERATION FOR 25 OR 30 YEARS THAT OPERATE VERY EFFECTIVELY AND VERY EFFICIENTLY.

AND IF I CAN GIVE YOU AND SANTA CLARA COUNTY A LITTLE ADVICE, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU NOT TREAT ANY KIND OF OFFER FROM P.G.&E. AS SIMPLY A

A VOICE. MONSANTO.

MR. RYAN. I'M SORRY. IT'S MONSANTO, NOT HONEYWELL, THAT CONSTRUCTED THE BALTIMORE PLANT. THANK YOU. BE SURE AND GET THE RIGHT PLANT THERE AND NOT LOSE CREDIBILITY.

MR. DIRIDON. WE WOULD INTEND NOT TO SUBSIDIZE THE PLANT AT ALL.

MR. RYAN. WELL, I'D BE VERY CAREFUL. IT ISN'T JUST A MATTER OF SUBSIDY. I THINK YOU'D BE A LITTLE EMBARRASSED TEARING IT DOWN IF IT DIDN'T WORK, IF IT'S DONE WRONG. THE FACT IS THAT THAT KIND OF A DESIGN IS VERY EXPERIMENTAL, WHEN THERE ARE KNOWN TECHNOLOGIES ALREADY THAT ARE WELL ACCEPTED. I THINK THE PROBLEM HERE IN THIS COUNTRY IS THAT THE TAXPAYERS TAKE IT VERY UNKINDLY WHEN A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY GOES TO COPENHAGEN AND LOOKS AT THEIR VERY MODERN WASTE DISPOSAL PLANT. YOU CAN GO TO NEW YORK, IF YOU WANT, OR YOU CAN GO TO SAUGUS, MASS., BUT YOU CAN'T GO TO COPENHAGEN.

MR. DIRIDON. NOT ANY MORE. MAYBE I CAN GO TO ALVISO.

MR. RYAN. THERE'S ONE IN SAUGUS YOU CAN LOOK AT, THAT'S PRETTY GOOD, TOO.

THE TIME IS UP FOR THIS MORNING'S SESSION. YOU WILL BE BACK HERE, HOPEFULLY -- IF THE WAITERS AND THE LUNCHEON PLACES ARE SUFFICIENTLY ALERT -- AT 1:15. WE'LL RECONVENE THE COMMITTEE.

(WHEREUPON, AT 12:15 P.M., THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECESSED, TO RECONVENE AT 1:15 P.M., THE SAME DAY).

STATEMENT OF HASSELTINE E

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 001 OF 7

HASSELTINE E SUPERVISOR

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA, CALIFORNIA

103722

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

MR. RYAN. THE SUBCOMMITTEE WIL COME TO ORDER.

I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO THOSE WHO ARE PRESENT. BUT DURING THE HEARING WE EXPRESS AN INTENT, NOT NECESSARILY THE FACT CABDRIVERS BEING WHAT THEY ARE, AND LACKING CHANGE, AND TRAFFIC, AND SO ON.

OUR FIRST WITNESS THIS AFTERNOON FOR OUR HEARING IS MR.

MR. HASSELTINE. HASSELTINE.

MR. RYAN. MR. HASSELTINE, WHO IS A SUPERVISOR OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. VERY GOOD. WOULD YOU RISE TO BE SWORN IN? IT'S THE PRACTICE OF THIS COMMITTEE AND ITS SUBCOMMITTEES TO SWEAR IN ALL WITNESSES.

(WITNESS SWORN.)

MR. RYAN. THANK YOU. IF YOU WILL GIVE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, MR. HASSELTINE.

MR. HASSELTINE. MY NAME IS ERIC HASSELTINE. I AM A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTS COUNTY.

I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR HERE TODAY, MR. CHAIRMAN. I DO NOT HAVE A WRITTEN STATEMENT TO SUBMIT AT THIS TIME, SINCE I WAS NOTIFIED LAST EVENING OF MY OPPORTUNITY.

STATEMENT OF HASSELTINE E

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 002 OF 7

HASSELTINE E SUPERVISOR

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA, CALIFORNIA

103723

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

MR. RYAN. YES.

MR. HASSELTINE. SO I WILL BE TALKING SOMEWHAT EXTEMPORANEOUSLY. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS MY COMMENTS TO THREE PARTICULAR POINTS.

THE FIRST IS THAT THIS PLAN, WHICH WE'VE ENTERED INTO AS A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AMONGST THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND INTERESTED PARTIES OF THE BAY AREA, WAS REALLY DESIGNED TO MEET A SET OF SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES. AND THESE OBJECTIVES WERE TAKEN AS GIVEN -- THAT IS, THE AIR QUALITY STANDARDS, THE RATHER QUALITATIVE WATER STANDARDS, AND SO FORTH.

I THINK THE FIRST THING THAT -- FROM A FEDERAL POINT OF VIEW THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IS TO ASSURE OURSELVES AND TO GENERATE SOME REASONABLE DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE THAT THE STANDARDS ARE, IN FACT, APPROPRIATE OBJECTIVES FOR SUCH A PLAN.

THE IDEA OF TAKING VERY SPECIFIC QUANTITATIVE POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IS IN THE AIR ON THE BASIS OF A NO RISK PHILOSOPHY -- THAT IS, THAT THE MOST SENSITIVE PERSON IN SOCIETY, NOT ON ANY OCCASION, BE SUBJECTED TO A LEVEL OF POLLUTANT WHICH MIGHT POSSIBLY AFFECT THEM -- I THINK NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED.

THE EVIDENCE WHICH I HAVE SEEN -- AND I'VE READ AS MUCH MATERIAL AS I CAN ASSIMILATE AND GET MY HANDS ON -- INDICATES THAT THE FEDERAL STANDARDS ARE VERY, VERY CONSERVATIVE, WHICH, I PRESUME, WAS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THEY WERE JUST RECENTLY ALTERED.

THE STANDARD WHICH WE HAVE THE MOST DIFFICULTY WITH IN ATTEMPTING TO GENERATE A PLAN TO MEET THESE OBJECTIVES, IS THE OXIDANT STANDARD. AS YOU UNDOUBTEDLY KNOW, OXIDANTS IN THE AIR CONSIST PRIMARILY OF OZONE, AND ARE PRODUCED THROUGH A PHOTOCHEMICAL PROCESS THROUGH THE COMBINATION OF HYDROCARBONS, NITROGEN OXIDES REACTING IN THE PRESENCE OF SUNLIGHT. THE HYDROCARBONS AND OXIDES AND NITROGEN ARE GENERATED PRIMARILY FROM EXHAUST OF MOTOR VEHICLES.

SO THAT REALLY LEADS INTO THE SECOND POINT THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE. AND THAT IS THAT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF WE ARE REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT REACHING AIR QUALITY STANDARDS, WHATEVER THEY MAY BE IN THIS COUNTRY -- AND IF WE ARE REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT CLEAN AIR, THEN WE OUGHT TO GO TO THE SOURCE OF THE PROBLEM.

THE 1982 MANDATED EMISSION STANDARDS AND EMISSIONS CONTROLS ARE AVAILABLE TODAY. THE TECHNOLOGY IS IN HAND. TO GO BEYOND THAT IS GOING TO TAKE, I THINK, A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

NOW, WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM MEETING THE STANDARDS THROUGHOUT THE 1980'S. WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM INTO THE 1990'S. COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY, REALLY, HAS A LONG WAY TO GO, IF IT IS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEETING OF THOSE STANDARDS, AND, THEREFORE, IN THE ATTAINMENT OF CLEAN AIR AS DEFINED BY THOSE STANDARDS.

WE'VE NEVER HAD TO DEVELOP TECHNOLOGY IN TERMS OF PROPULSION AND COMBUSTION PRIOR TO THIS TIME, IN NEARLY AS RIGOROUS A MANNER. WE'VE ALWAYS HAD A GREAT SURPLUS OF FUEL. WE'VE NEVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH DIRTY AIR. AND, NOW, WE HAVE BOTH OF THOSE PROBLEMS. THE COMBUSTION ENGINE, AS IT EXISTS TODAY, IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST INEFFICIENT DEVICES KNOWN TO MAN. THERE IS A GREAT DEAL THAT I BELIEVE CAN BE DONE IN DEVELOPING CLEAN ENGINE TECHNOLOGY AND IN DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVE FUELS.

STATEMENT OF HASSELTINE E

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 003 OF 7

HASSELTINE E SUPERVISOR

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA, CALIFORNIA

103724

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

THE COMMITMENT THAT IS NECESSARY, IN MY OPINION, IS GOING TO HAVE TO COME FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. IN 1960, WE DECIDED THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THIS COUNTRY TO MOVE INTO SPACE. THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE WAS TO PUT A MAN ON THE MOON. WE ACCOMPLISHED THAT IN 8 YEARS. IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT STARTING IN 1978, OR THEREABOUT, LOOKING AHEAD TO THE 1990'S AND THE YEAR 2000, WHEN WE DO NOT FEEL THAT WE CAN ANY LONGER MEET THE STANDARDS AS THEY NOW EXIST, THAT WITH A SIMILAR COMMITMENT ON A NATIONAL SCALE, SUFFICIENT RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT COULD BE DONE IN THIS AREA TO MEET THOSE STANDARDS AND TO DEVELOP CLEAN ENGINES AND ALTERNATIVE FUELS.

THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY, IN A TECHNOLOGICAL SENSE, HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MEET, AND, IN FACT, EXCEED TECHNOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES. AND I THINK THAT THE AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC AND ENGINEERING COMMUNITY IS EQUIPPED AND PREPARED TO DEAL WITH THAT. WHAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE IS THE NECESSARY FUNDING AND THE NECESSARY PRIORITY ASSIGNMENT FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

THE THIRD POINT IS THAT THERE IS A CONCERN HERE OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT THAT THE PLANNING PROCESS, WHICH HAS ALWAYS BEEN A LOCALIZED PROCESS IN WHICH WE ATTEMPT TO PLAN FOR THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE OF OUR COMMUNITIES, OUR CITIES, AND OUR COUNTIES IN AN INTELLIGENT, COMPREHENSIVE WAY, IS MOVING TOWARD INCREASED PARTICIPATION AND INCREASED CONTROL BY REGIONAL, STATE, OR FEDERAL AGENCIES.

MY OWN FEELING IS THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CONSIDERATIONS NEED TO BE A COMPONENT AND A FACTOR IN ANY PLANNING DECISION THAT WE MAKE, AND A DEFINITE FACTOR IN THE OVERALL PROCESS.

BUT THE PROCESS ITSELF SHOULD NOT BE SO SUBVERTED THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS BECOME THE PRIMARY GOAL OF THE ENTIRE PROCESS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ENVIRONMENT CONSIDERATIONS ARE ONE OF THE FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED ALONG WITH SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ON WHAT WE ARE DOING IN OUR LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND AS WE PROGRESS TOWARD FUTURE GROWTH OF OUR COMMUNITIES. IT IS NOT THAT THE ENTIRE LAND USE PLANNING PROCESS IS BEING CONDUCTED SIMPLY TO MEET CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIVES.

THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL ASPECT THAT WE GOT INTO IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARTICULAR PLAN, OF COURSE, WAS WHETHER OR NOT LAND USE CONTROLS WERE AN APPROPRIATE INGREDIENT OF THE PLAN.

OUR CONCLUSION WAS THAT THEY WERE NOT. ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE FELT THEY WERE NOT WAS THAT WE FIGURED THAT, PHILOSOPHICALLY, THE CONTROL OF DEVELOPMENT BELONGED AT THE LOCAL LEVEL. THE SECOND WAS THAT IN DEVELOPMENT OF OUR OVERALL ANALYTICAL TOOL -- A VERY SOPHISTICATED, COMPUTERIZED, PREDICTIVE MODEL, WHICH ALLOWED US TO MAKE SOME FAIRLY SPECIFIC NUMERICAL PROJECTIONS AS TO THE AMOUNT OF POLLUTANTS TO BE FOUND IN THE AIR IN THE FUTURE -- INDICATED THAT BY THE YEAR 2000 THAT IN TERMS OF THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS EMITTED AT THAT TIME WOULD REDUCE THE TOTAL BY ABOUT 3 PERCENT IF ALL THE LAND USE CONTROLS SUGGESTED WOULD BE INTRODUCED. OUT OF THE AMOUNT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO REDUCE THE TOTAL HYDROCARBONS TO GET BACK TO MEET THE OXIDANT STANDARDS -- AGAIN, WITHIN THE ACCURACY OF OUR CALCULATIONS -- IT CONTRIBUTED ONLY 5 PERCENT OF THAT JOB THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE.

SO, THOSE CONTROLS WERE NOT ACCEPTED AS PART OF THE FINAL PLAN, IN MY OPINION, FOR TWO REASONS:

ONE IS THAT PHILOSOPHICALLY THEY ARE NOT APPROPRIATE. BUT, SECOND, THE BEST AVAILABLE PREDICTIVE, ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES INDICATED THEN TO BE LARGELY INEFFECTIVE IN HELPING TO MEET THAT OBJECTIVE.

STATEMENT OF HASSELTINE E

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 004 OF 7

HASSELTINE E SUPERVISOR

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA, CALIFORNIA

103725

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

NOW, MANY PEOPLE HAVE ESPOUSED SUCH CONTROLS FOR VARIOUS REASONS. AND, THAT'S FINE. AND, IF LAND USE CONTROLS, FOR SOME REASON, ARE FELT BY THE STATE OR FEDERAL AGENCIES TO TO BE IMPORTANT, THEN I THINK THEY OUGHT TO BE ADDRESSED IN AN INDEPENDENT SENSE. AND, THEY OUGHT TO BE ADDRESSED ON WHATEVER BASIS THEY ARE FELT TO BE APPROPRIATE OR NECESSARY.

BUT, IT'S CERTAINLY NOT IN MEETING AIR QUALITY STANDARDS. BECAUSE, AS I SAY, ACCORDING TO THE BEST TOOL YET KNOWN TO MET IN TERMS OF ANALYTICALLY PREDICTING, THE EFFECT OS SUCH CONTROLS HAS SHOWN THAT BY THE YEAR 2000 THEY ARE NOT VERY EFFECTIVE AT ALL.

I THINK OVERALL THE MAJOR POINT THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE IS THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THIS AREA HAVE RESPONDED VERY WELL TO THE MANDATES OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS IN DEVELOPING THIS PALN AND MEETING THE OBJECTIVES THAT WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO MEET.

WE ASK THAT THE PLAN TO ACCEPTED AS IT IS, AND NOT SUBVERTED TO MEET OTHER PURPOSES, OR OTHER GOALS AND OBJECTIVES. WE BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN MET.

IN THE EVENT THAT IT CAN BE SHOWN BY SOMEONE ELSE THAT IN SOME WAY THE PLAN IS INADEQUATE OR FAILS TO MEET THOSE OBJECTIVES, THEN WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT DEMONSTRATED. AND, WE WOULD ALSO ASK THAT ABAG HAVE THE FIRST RIGHT TO AMEND OR RECONSIDER THE PLAN. THAT IS PRECISELY THE REASON WHY A CONTINUOUS PLANNING PROCESS HAS BEEN SET UP TO ADDRESS THAT POSSIBILITY AND THAT EVENTUALITY; THAT IS, IF FURTHER NOTIFICATIONS SHOULD BE NEEDED. OR, IF THE UNCERTAINTY ASSOCIATED WITH OUR PREDICTIVE APPROACH ARE DEMONSTRATED TO NOT MEET THE OBJECTIVES, THEN WE WILL HAVE TO UNDERTAKE OTHER MEASURES AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES.

SO, WE HAVE A CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS TO EVALUATE WHICH OF THOSE MIGHT BE THE MOST EFFECTIVE AND THE MOST DESIRABLE.

SO, IN SUMMATION -- FIRST OF ALL, LET ME JUST SAY THAT I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HERE AND TO OFFER MY OPINIONS ON THE SUBJECT TO YOU.

BUT, I SEE TWO THINGS AS BEING -- WELL, REALLY, ALL THREE OF THEM -- AS BEING ESSENTAIL ACTIONS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.

THE FIRST IS THAT WE'VE GOT TO INSURE OURSELVES, AND RAISE OUR DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE THAT THE STANDARDS, AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST, ARE BOTH REALISTIC AND PRACTICAL. I THINK IT STANDS TO REASON THAT AIR POLLUTION IS SUCH A DIFFICULT SUBJECT TO TREAT ANALYTICALLY, THAT OUR MEASURES OF PREDICTING DO HAVE UNCERTAINTIES IN THEM. AND, THE MEASURES TAKEN ARE DIFFICULT TO ASSESS.

THE IDEA THAT AT ANY ONE POINT IN THE BAY AREA, ON ANY ONE DAY, A CERTAIN LEVEL MIGHT BE EXCEEDED. TO DEVISE A PLAN TO MEET THAT KIND OF A GOAL, I AM NOT SURE, IS REALLY A PRACTICAL GOAL TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WITH ALL THE OTHER CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE IN SOCIETY TODAY.

SO, WE NEED SOME CONFIDENCE ON THE STANDARDS.

THE SECOND THING IS, SIMPLY, THAT THE NECESSARY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT TO ACCOMPLISH THE TECHNOLOCICAL ADVANCES NECESSARY TO DEVELOP CLEAN ENGINES AND OR ALTERNATIVE FUELS SEEMS TO ME TO BE VITAL.

AND, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT THE AMOUNT OF FUNDING THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD PUT INTO THAT EFFORT WOULD HAVE TO BE COMMENSURATE WITH, AND COMPATIBLE WITH, WHATEVER PRIORITY WE GIVE THE OVERALL OBJECTIVE OF CLEAN AIR.

AND THIRD, OF COURSE, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE LOCAL PLANNING PROCESS REMAIN UNDER LOCAL CONTROL. AND, WE WOULD LIKE TO MAAINTAIN THE ABILITY TO DEAL WITH THAT AS WE SEE FIT WITHIN OUR OWN JURISDICTIONS.

STATEMENT OF HASSELTINE E

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 005 OF 7

HASSELTINE E SUPERVISOR

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA, CALIFORNIA

103726

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

THAT WOULD CONCLUDE MY REMARKS, THEN. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.

MR. RYAN. LET'S TAKE THAT LAST POINT FIRST. DO YOU BELIEVE

THAT THIS PLAN ALLOWS YOU TO DETERMINE FOR YOURSELF WHAT YOU WANT?

MR. HASSELTINE. WITHIN

MR. RYAN. GIVEN THE FEDERAL STATEMENT THAT WE NEED TO CLEAN UP OUR AIR AND CLEAN UP OUR WATER, DID THE ACT THAT THE CONGRESS PASSED ALLOW YOU THE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY TO MAKE THAT EFFORT YOURSELF?

MR. HASSELTINE. WELL, I BELIEVE SO. WE HAVE SOME PROBLEMS AT TIMES, WHEN WE ARE RESTRICTED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF LOCAL FACILITIES BY GENERALIZED POPULATION PROJECTIONS -- ZERO POPULATION ASSUMPTIONS, FOR EXAMPLE -- THAT, OBVIOUSLY, IS NOT GOING TO WORK IN AN AREA WHICH IS RAPIDLY GROWING. IT IS, OEVIOUSLY, VERY EASY TO MEET IN AREAS WHICH HAVE A DECLINING GROWTH.

IT'S ONE THING TO TALK ON THE AVERAGE, IN TALKING GENERALITIES. BUT, WHEN YOU COME DOWN TO SPECIFICS OF PLANNING IN A LOCAL COMMUNITY, YOU ARE NEVER GOING TO FIND THE AVERAGE COMMUNITY. YOU ARE ALWAYS SOMEWHERE OFF THE AVERAGE. AND, THEREFORE, YOUR PROBLEM EITHER BECOMES MORE DIFFICULT OR MORE EASY, DEPENDING ON WHAT PROBLEM YOU HAVE AT HAND.

MR. RYAN. ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THIS PLAN?

MR. HASSELTINE. I AM COMFORTABLE WITH IT

MR. RYAN. IS YOUR BOARD?

MR. HASSELTINE. YES. BECAUSE, I RECOGNIZE THE EFFORT THAT WAS MADE. IT WAS A COOPERATIVE EFFORT. THERE WERE THINGS SUGGESTED THAT I FOUND, PERSONALLY, OBJECTIONABLE; THAT MY BOARD FOUND OBJECTIONABLE. MOST OF THOSE HAVE BEEN REMOVED. I THINK THAT THE PHILOSOPHY OF HOW APPEALING IT IS HAVE TO BE TRADED OFF FOR HOW EFFECTIVE IT IS. IF SOME OF THE MORE OBJECTIONABLE COMPONENTS HAD BEEN SHOWN TO BE HIGHLY EFFECTIVE IN ACHIEVING THE OVERALL GOALS, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE COULD HAVE BACKED OFF ON THAT. AND, IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE INFLUENCED OUR THINKING A GREAT DEAL.

BUT, WHAT WE FOUND WAS THAT THE MOST OBJECTIONABLE WERE, IN FACT, NOT PARTICULARLY EFFECTIVE IN MEETING THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PLAN. AND, SO, THE PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENTS PREVAILED.

MR. RYAN. MR. CUNNINGHAM?

MR. CUNNINGHAM. IF YOU WEREN'T UNDER A FEDERAL MANDATE TO COMPLY WITH SOME OF THESE AREAS, WOULD YOU HAVE THIS SAME PLAN?

MR. HASSELTINE. WE WOULD HAVE THIS SAME PLAN IN SEVERAL OF THE AREAS, MR. CUNNINGHAM.

FIRST OF ALL, THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN WAS EXACTLY THE PLAN THAT OUR COUNTY HAD ADOPTED, AND THEN OUR SECTION OF IT GOES INTO THAT.

OUR WATER SUPPLY, WE'VE BEEN VERY CONCERNED WITH. AND, IN FACT, I THINK OUR COUNTY HAS GONE BEYOND WHAT ACTUALLY IS WITHIN THE PLAN ITSELF.

WATER QUALITY IS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE CERTAINLY CONCERNED WITH. AND, WE'VE COMPLIED WITH THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT ALREADY. WE HAVE NEW TREATMENT FACILITIES, AND SO FORTH, ALREADY GOING AHEAD IN OUR COUNTY.

IF YOU ARE ASKING ME WHETHER OR NOT THE VOTERS OF OUR COUNTY WOULD HAVE APPROVED THOSE BOND ISSUES HAD IT NOT BEEN MANDATED TO PROVIDE SECONDARY TREATMENT, I WOULD HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT THEY PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE. IT WAS HARD ENOUGH TO GET THEM TO VOTE, EVEN THOUGH WE WERE MANDATED TO DO IT.

STATEMENT OF HASSELTINE E

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 006 OF 7

HASSELTINE E SUPERVISOR

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA, CALIFORNIA

103727

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

IN TERMS OF THE AIR QUALITY, IT'S DIFFICULT TO TELL. BECAUSE, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR A LOCAL AGENCY TO TELL HOW YOU FIT INTO THE OVERALL PROBLEM.

ONE REAL BENEFIT OF THIS ANALYSIS WAS TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY. I THINK, THE POTENTIAL VALUE OF VARIOUS APPROACHES TO HELPING TO ALLEVIATE THE AIR QUALITY PROBLEM -- IMPROVE THE AIR QUALITY, ALLEVIATE THE AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM.

MANY TIMES IN CONSIDERING DEVELOPMENT REQUESTS AND GROWTH PATTERNS, YOU HEAR FROM PEOPLE: WELL, WE ALREADY HAVE AN AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM HERE, YOU SHOULD NOT COMPOUND IT BY DOING THIS; OR, THIS WILL LEAD TO THIS DETERIORATION OF AIR; OR WHATEVER.

THERE'S NO WAY TO ASSESS, REALLY, WHAT, IN YOUR OWN SMALL AREA, YOU ARE GOING TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE OVERALL PROBLEM. AN AWFUL LOT OF AIR POLLUTION, PROBABLY, GENERATED BY AUTOMOBILES IN OUR COUNTY, DOES NOT APPEAR AS POLLUTION -- OR DOES NOT APPEAR IN A DETERIORATION OF STANDARDS RIGHT IN THAT LOCAL AREA, IF ANYWHERE.

SO, I THINK, THE EXERCISE WAS VERY GOOD FOR US IN BEING ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION FOR THE REGION. AND, HOW VARIOUS CONTROL MEASURES MIGHT IMPACT ON AN OVERALL AIR QUALITY EFFORT.

SOME OF THE MEASURES PROPOSED NEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY US. BUT, OF COURSE, THEY WERE DROPPED OUT OF THE PLAN, TOO -- AS I SAID, THE MOST OBJECTIONABLE ONES. THE ONES THAT WERE FINALLY ADOPTED, I THINK WERE SATISFACTORY TO US, AND SEEMED TO BE REASONABLE THINGS TO DO IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM. WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD HAVE ASSESSED THEM TO HAVE BEEN ESSENTIAL, OR IMPORTANT, IN DOING OUR SHARE TO MEET THAT OVERALL OBJECTIVE, I CAN'T TELL YOU.

MR. CUNNINGHAM. THERE HAVE BEEN TWO THINGS SUGGESTED. ONE IS THAT THIS IS SIMPLY ANOTHER LAYER OF GOVERNMENT. AND, TWO, THAT IT IS THE POTENTIAL OF ERODING LOCAL CONTROL FOR LOCAL SOLUTIONS. WOULD YOU ADDRESS YOURSELF TO THOSE?

MR. HASSELTINE. I THINK THAT'S BEEN A FEAR, AND SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT. I THINK, AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS, THAT IS NOT REALLY THE CASE.

I FIND A GREAT DISTINCTION BETWEEN RECIONAL COOPERATION ON PROBLEMS OF A REGIONAL NATURE AND WHAT YOU WOULD CALL REGIONAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH I WOULD CALL ANOTHER LAYER OF GOVERNMENT.

THUS FAR, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN THE BAY AREA HAVE RESISTED THE FORMATION OF WHAT I WOULD TERM REGIONAL GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE AGREED TO COOPERATE AND WORK TOGETHER ON PROBLEMS THAT ARE BEYOND JUST THE LOCAL SCOPE. WE'VE AGREED TO WORK TOGETHER TO COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER'S ACTIVITIES IN LEARNING MORE AND UNDERSTANDING THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM, AS WELL AS THE VALUE OF VARIOUS APPROACHES TO MEETING THAT PROBLEM.

WHERE WE ARE NOW WITH THIS PARTICULARLY ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IT CAN BE SAID THAT IT INTRODUCES ANOTHER LAYER OF GOVERNMENT.

MR. CUNNINGHAM. THIS MORNING WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE AREA SUPPORTING THE REGIONAL GOVERNMENT. DO YOU SEE A POTENTIAL CONFRONTATION DOWN THE ROAD?

MR. HASSELTINE. BETWEEN HIMSEL AND ME ON THAT POINT?

MR. CUNNINGHAM. WELL, I DON'T LIKE TO PUT IT BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS. BUT, SAY, BETWEEN THE EXECUTIVE BOARD OF ABAG AND THE VARIOUS LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES, BE THEY COUNTY OR CITY?

STATEMENT OF HASSELTINE E

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 007 OF 7

HASSELTINE E SUPERVISOR

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CONTRA COSTA, CALIFORNIA

103728

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

MR. HASSELTINE. THERE ARE REGIONAL ADVOCATES ON THE EXECUTIVE BOARD. MY GUESS WOULD BE THAT THE MAJORITY OF LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS IN THIS BAY AREA ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE REGIONAL FORM OF GOVERNMENT. CERTAINLY, I AM NOT.

MR. CUNNINGHAM. THANK YOU.

MR. RYAN. SHOULD CONGRESS PROHIBIT HAND USE CONTROLS? SHOULD WE ADD THAT TO THE ACT?

MR. HASSELTINE. I AM NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. IT WAS MY

MR. RYAN. WELL, THE REALLY BIG OBJECTION RAISED WAS OVER THE SECTION THAT HAD TO DO WITH LAND USE CONTROLS, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN AMENDED OUT.

MR. HASSELTINE. THAT WAS, CERTAINLY, THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL.

MR. RYAN. YES.

MR. HASSELTINE. WELL, I WOULD PREFER TO SAY THAT IT WASN'T AMENDED OUT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD PREFER TO SAY THAT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS CONSIDERED AND NEVER ENTERED INTO THE PLAN.

MR. RYAN. NEVER PUT IN? ALL RIGHT.

MR. HASSELTINE. RIGHT.

MR. RYAN. WHICHEVER WAY YOU GO. SHOULD CONGRESS PROHIBIT THAT?

MR. HASSELTINE. PROHIBIT NOT HAVING

MR. RYAN. SPECIFICALLY, EXPLICIT IN THE BAY AREA, SHOULD IT PROHIBIT IT IN THE SACRAMENTO PLAN, OR THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PLAN?

MR. HASSELTINE. I THINK SO. I THINK THAT OUR EXPERIENCE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT IT'S NOT EFFECTIVE. AND, I BELIEVE THAT AGAIN, I PHILOSOPHICALLY FEEL THAT IT IS NOT THE WAY TO GO, TO HAVE THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ENTER INTO LAND USE CONTROLS.

IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT CONGRESS IN ADOPTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT, AND SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS, IN FACT, HAS SPECIFICALLY RULED THAT EPA DID NOT HAVE THE POWER OR AUTHORITY TO INTRODUCE INDIRECT SOURCE CONTROLS. AND, I AGREE WITH THAT 100 PERCENT.

MR. RYAN. WHAT ABOUT CONTROL AT THE LOCAL LEVEL? DO YOU BELIEVE YOU MAINTAIN THAT NOW?

MR. HASSELTINE. YES. WITHIN -- ANYTHING WE DO, OF COURSE, IS ONLY WHAT WE ARE AUTHORIZED TO DO BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.

MR. RYAN. YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT, DO YOU THINK THAT YOU MAINTAIN THAT CONTROL WITH THIS PLAN?

MR. HASSELTINE. I THINK SO, YES.

MR. RYAN. DO YOU THINK THAT'S SHARED BY OTHER COUNTY BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS?

MR. HASSELTINE. I AM SURE THAT IT IS SHARED BY SOME OTHER BOARDS OF SUPERVISORS, YES. I COULD NOT SAY THAT IT'S UNANIMOUS. BUT, I BELIEVE THAT IT IS. I'M NOT CONCERNED WITH ANY EROSION OF CONTROL AS REPRESENTED BY THE PLAN WHICH WE CURRENTLY HAVE VOLUNTARILY ENTERED INTO.

AND, LET ME SAY THAT, IF MY BOARD HAD FELT THAT THERE WAS ANY SERIOUS EROSION OF CONTROL I AM SURE THEY WOULD HAVE OBJECTED TO IT.

MR. RYAN. YES.

MR. HASSELTINE. AND, THE FACT THAT ALL NINE COUNTIES OF THE BAY AREA, WHO ARE MEMBERS OF ABAG, ALL VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE PLAN, WOULD INDICATE TO ME THAT THEY ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH ANY REAL EROSION CONTROL.

MR. CUNNINGHAM. MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING THAT RIGHT NOW IN THE SENATE, THERE IS LEGISLATION PENDING, SPONSORED BY A SENIOR SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, MAGNUSON, TO AUTHORIZE FUNDS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO BUY UP THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS. IT GETS INTO LAND-USE PLANNING. YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT THAT SNAKE IS ALIVE.

MR. HASSELTINE. YES. WELL. MR. CUNNINGHAM, THAT WOULD BE THE SAME AS ANY OTHER FEDERAL GRANT, OR FEDERAL PROGRAM, INTO WHICH LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTERS, IN THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH SUCH FUNDS WOULD BE ACCEPTED, TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE APPEALING TO US.

THE ACQUISITION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CAN, OBVIOUSLY, BE USED TO THE BENEFIT OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES IN SOME CASES. THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS THAT, AT TIMES, WE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO PROTECT, TO PRESERVE, FOR SOME REASON. BUT, WHICH -- UNDER NORMAL PRACTICE, AND NORMAL APPROACH TO LAND-USE PLANNING, IN WHICH WE USUALLY TRY TO DO WHAT IS EQUITABLE AND WHAT IS REASONABLE. AND, THEREFORE, ALLOWING ONE PERSON TO DO WHAT OTHERS HAVE DONE IN A CONSISTENT WAY. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT SOMETIMES TO PRESERVE SOMETHING OF SOME VALUE TO THE COMMUNITY FOR ANOTHER PURPOSE. PARTICULARLY, IF THE LOCAL PEOPLE WILL NOT BAN TOGETHER COLLECTIVELY TO PURCHASE IT THEMSELVES.

THE ACQUISITION OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, SCENIC EASEMENTS, OPEN SPACE EASEMENTS, AND SO FORTH, I THINK IS A VERY APPEALING TOOL, IF USED PROPERLY. THE PROBLEM HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE ACQUISITION OF FUNDS.

MR. CUNNINGHAM. AND THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT'S PROPER FOR YOU, OR MINE.

MR. RYAN. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, MR. HASSELTINE. WE APPRECIATE YOUR APPEARANCE.

WE HAVE MAYOR ILENE WEINREB, I BELIEVE, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES. IT'S VERY IMPRESSIVE. WOULD YOU GIVE YOUR NAME?

MS. WEINREB. I AM ILENE WEINREB. I AM THE MAYOR OF HAYWARD. I AM A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, COMMITTEE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. I AM THE FORMER CHAIRMAN OF THAT COMMITTEE.

MR. RYAN. YOU FOLLOW IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF A VERY DEAR FRIEND OF MINE IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE. HE WAS AT ONE TIME MAYOR OF HAYWARD.

MS. WEINREB. CARLOS BEE?

MR. RYAN. CARLOS BEE.

MS. WEINREB. YES.

MR. RYAN. REST HIS SOUL. HE WAS CERTAINLY A VERY EFFECTIVE SPOKESMAN FOR YOUR AREA.

MS. WEINREB. YES, HE WAS.

MR. RYAN. WE ARE GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE. AND IF YOU CAN SUMMARIZE, IN ANY WAY, YOUR STATEMENT, WE'LL HAVE MORE TIME FOR QUESTIONS.

MS. WEINREB. OK. IT WILL BE CONSIDERABLY LESS THAN 10 MINUTES.

MR. RYAN. FINE. THANK YOU. (WITNESS SWORN).

STATEMENT OF WEINREB I

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 001 OF 8

WEINREB I MAYOR

HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA

103729

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

MS. WINREB. I COME BEFORE THE COMMITTEE TODAY WEARING TWO HATS; THAT OF THE MAYOR OF HAYWARD, AND AN ACTIVE PARTICIPANT IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA'S ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN; AND AS THE SPOKESPERSON FOR THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES, THE NATION'S LARGEST ORGANIZATION REPRESENTING SOME 15,000 CITIES AND TOWNS ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

STATEMENT OF WEINREB I

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 002 OF 8

WEINREB I MAYOR

HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA

103730

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

AS A MEMBER OF THE LEAGUE'S COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, THE GROUP RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING NATIONAL MUNICIPAL POLICY ON ENVIRONMENTAL ISSURES. I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO DELIVER OUR CURRENT VIEWS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXPERIENCES WITH WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT EFFORTS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 208, OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM.

I HAVE HAD VERY LITTLE CONTACT WITH THE NATIONAL LEAGUE OFFICE ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BAY AREA'S ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, OR "208" PLAN THAT I'LL REFER TO IN THE FUTURE AS THE EMP.

THEREFORE, WHEN I READ THE NATIONAL LEAGUE'S COMMENTS ON EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, I WAS ASTONISHED TO FIND HOW CLOSE THOSE EXPERIENCES WERE TO OURS HERE IN THE BAY AREA. IF I DIDN'T KNOW BETTER I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT NLC'S TESTIMONY WAS WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY WITH THE BAY AREA EXPERIENCE IN MIND.

THEREFORE,ALL I SHALL ADD, AT THE END, IS SOME COMMENT ABOUT THE THREE MAJOR AREAS OF CONTROVERSY HERE IN THE BAY AREA. FOR THE NLC, I SHALL ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING POINTS:

FIRST, ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE 208 PROGRAM TO DATE; AND, SECOND, PROSPECTS FOR IMPLEMENTING INITIAL PLANS.

THE AREAWIDE WASTE TREATMENT CONCEPT CALLED FOR IN THE 1972 ACT

WAS A SIGNIFICANT STEP TOWARD RATIONALIZING METROPOLITAN EFFORTS

IN WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE IMPOUNDMENT OF AUTHORIZED FUNDS AND THE COMPLEXITY AND AMBIGUITY OF FEDERAL AND STATE RUGLATIONS AND ADMINISTRATION RESULTED IN A FAULTY AND SOMEWHAT CHECKERED STARTUP OF THE 208 PROGRAM.

IN MOST AREAS OF THE COUNTRY, INDIVIDUAL FACILITY PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION UNDER THE 201 PROGRAM WAS UNDERWAY PRIOR TO METROPOLITAN PLANNING, WHICH, FOR THE MOST PART, WENT INTO FULL SWING IN 1975.

WE ARE NOW AT THE END OF THE INITIAL PLANNING PHASE OF 208. NEARLY 200 METROPOLITAN AREAS ARE APPROACHING COMPLETION OF THEIR INITIAL 208 PLANS.

IT IS THE LEAGUE'S VIEW THAT THE 208 PROGRAM AND PROCESS HAS FULFILLED ITS MAJOR OBJECTIVES BY CURBING THE INHERENT DEFICIENCIES IN THE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM, AND RATIONALIZING WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT.

NLC BELIEVES THAT THE LIMITED INVESTMENT IN 208, THUS FAR, HAS ALREADY PAID FOR ITSELF IN DISCOURAGING UNNECESSARY AND OVERDESIGNED TREATMENT FACILITIES.

IN A RANDOM SAMPLE CONDUCTED LAST MONTH, THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGIONAL COUNCILS DOCUMENTS SAVINGS TO LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS IN EXCESS OF $150 MILLION.

IN ITS INITIAL PHASE, 208 HAS SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATED THAT CONTINUING PLANNING AND CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE SOLUTIONS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL IS THE KEY TO COST EFFECTIVENESS IN WATER POLLUTION ABATEMENT.

BEYOND THE APPEALING COST SAVINGS IN CAPITAL OUTLAYS FOR WASTE TREAT MENT FACILITIES, THE 208 PROGRAM HAS BROUGHT ABOUT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN POLICIES AND PROGRAMS RELATED TO WATER POLLUTION CONTROL.

COMMUNITIES ARE TAKING STEPS TO PROTECT CRITICAL WATER RESOURCES, AND ARE EVALUATING THEIR LAND-USE POLICIES FOR THEIR IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY AND FUTURE WATER QUALITY AND FUTURE WASTE WATER SERVICE NEEDS.

THEY ARE ENACTING REGULATORY PROGRAMS TO CONTROL ONSITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS AND ALLEVIATE THE NEED FOR MORE SOPHISTICATED AND COSTLY TREATMENT.

STATEMENT OF WEINREB I

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 003 OF 8

WEINREB I MAYOR

HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA

103731

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

IN SHORT, THE 208 PROGRAM, BEYOND PRODUCING A LOCALLY ACCEPTED AND COST EFFECTIVE REGIONAL FACILITY PLAN, HAS DRAMATICALLY INCREASED LOCAL SOPHISTICATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF POLLUTION AND CONTROL.

A GLANCE AT COMPLETED 208 PLANS, FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY, PROVES THE FACT THAT THE METROPOLITAN WASTE TREATMENT SOLUTIONS VARY WIDELY, AND THAT THE NEED FOR GOOD REGIONAL PLANNING AND LOCAL SOLUTIONS, RATHER THAN UNIFORM STRATEGIES IS REAL.

THERE HAS BEEN SOME CRITICISM OF INITIAL 208 PLANS FOR THEIR LACK OF DRAMATIC INSTITUTIONAL SOLUTIONS TO REGIONAL WATER QUALITY PROGRAMS. THE LEAGUE STRONLY DISAGREES WITH THIS LINE OF CRITICISM. IT IS THE LEAGUE'S HOPE THAT THE INTENT OF CONGRESS WAS NOT TO MANDATE FEDERAL PRESCRIPTIONS FOR THE NATURE AND FORM OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

THE THRUST OF AREAWIDE PROGRAMS, THUS FAR, HAS BEEN TO CREATE REGIONAL MECHANISMS UTILIZING EXISTING INSTITUTIONS. MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED, FOR THE MOST PART TO GENERAL PURPOSE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, CREATING THE LEAST AMOUNT OF DISRUPTION TO EXISTING AGENCIES. IN OUR VIEW, THIS IS NOT A NEGATIVE RESULT, IT IS A POLITICALLY ACCURATE JUDGMENT THAT WILL INSURE SUPPORT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLANS.

THIS LEADS ME TO THE AREA OF MUCH INTEREST TO THIS COMMITTEE, THE ABILITY TO IMPLEMENT PLANS PREPARED UNDER SECTION 208. AS WE HAVE INDICATED, LOCAL AND REGIONAL AGENCIES ALREADY HAVE TAKEN MANY POSITIVE STEPS AS A RESULT OF 208 PLANNING. IN TERMS OF FORMAL IMPLEMENTATION OF MEASURES INDENTIFIED IN INITIAL PLANS, HOWEVER, THE JURY REMAINS OUT.

AT PRESENT, INITIAL AREAWIDE PLANS ARE EITHER IN PROCESS OF LOCAL

APPROVAL OR STATE CERTIFICATION. VERY FEW PLANS HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED

BY THE STATES AND APPROVED BY EPA.

IN MANY REGIONS, COMMUNITIES ARE HANING DIFFICULTY ASSESSING THEIR PRECISE IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES. THERE IS GENERAL CONCERN ON THE PART OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS ABOUT THE STATE CERTIFICATION PROCESS.

OBTAINING LOCAL APPROVAL OF AREAWIDE PLANS HAS NOT BEEN AN EASY TASK, EITHER POLITICALLY OR TECHNICALLY. STATES, WHICH FOR THE MOST PART HAVE YET TO COMPLETE THEIR STATEWIDE PLANS, ARE NOT INDICATING A RESPONSIVENESS TO REGIONAL PLANS, AND LOCAL OFFICIALS ARE CONCERNED THAT STATES WILL DISRUPT CAREFULLY WROUGHT COMPROMISES REACHED IN THE REGION.

THERE IS FURTHER UNEASINESS BECAUSE OF RECENT AMENDMENTS TO CLEAN WATER ACT, AS WELL AS PROPOSALS BY THE EPA TO FURTHER DELEGATE RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TO THE STATES. CITIES ARE CONCERNED THAT THESE NEW INITIATIVES MAY ENCOURAGE STATES TO SIGNIFICANTLY TAMPER WITH AREAWIDE PLANS. IF THIS OCCURS, THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AREAWIDE PLANS WILL BE SERIOUSLY JEOPARDIZED.

ABILITY TO PAY REMAINS ONE OF THE CRITICAL IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES OF LOCAL CONCERN - OBVIOUSLY SO IN CALIFORNIA, IN THE FACE OF INCREASING LIMITATIONS ON LOCAL SPENDING. WATER CLEANUP MEASURES WILL BE FORCED TO COMPETE WITH OTHER SERVICES WHICH HAVE LARGE AND ARTICULATE CONSTITUENCIES.

I AM HAPPY TO REPORT THAT HERE IN CALIFORNIA, AT LEAST ON A STATEWIDE LEVEL, EVEN IN THE FACE OF PUBLIC RESISTANCE TO EXISTING TAXES, THE STATE WATER FINANCE MEASURE TO BUILD WASTEWATER FACILITIES NARROWLY PASSED ON THE JUNE BALLOT. PROBABLY, IT PASSED BECAUSE PEOPLE PERCEIVED, QUITE CORRECTLY, THAT IF IT FAILED, THEIR LOCAL COSTS WOULD HAVE TO INCREASE.

STATEMENT OF WEINREB I

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 004 OF 8

WEINREB I MAYOR

HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA

103732

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

IN CONTRAST TO THE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM, WHICH IS LARGELY SUPPORTED BY STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDS, NONPOINT SOURCE CLEANUP IS PRESENTLY PREDICATED ON LOCAL SUPPORT. FURTHERMORE, THE COST OF CONTROLLING NONPOINT SOURCES WAS GROSSLY UNDERESTIMATED BY THE DRAFTERS OF THE WATER QUALITY LEGISLATION. THE UNEXPECTED HIGH LOCAL COST RESULTED IN LIMITED RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE INITIAL 208 PLANS.

FURTHERMORE, ALTHOUGH 208 DRAMATICALLY INCREASED PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENT ATTENTION TO THE WATER QUALITY IMPACT OF NONPOINT SOURCES, THE RESEARCH WAS NOT ALWAYS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE SIGNIFICANT NEED. AND HENCE, THE DRAFTERS OF THE 208 PLANS WERE UNABLE TO GENERATE A CONSTITUENCY FOR THE PROGRAM.

THE CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS THESE AND OTHER ELEMENTS, SUCH AS ADVANCES WASTE TREATMENT, AND DEMONSTRATE THAT MORE THAN MARGINAL BENEFIT TO WATER QUALITY WILL BE OBTAINED IF ADDITIONAL LOCAL FUNDS ARE TO FORTHCOMING.

EPA HAS RECENTLY RELEASED A 5-YEAR FUNDING AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR STATE AND AREAWIDE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS. THE EPA STRATEGY CORRECTLY RECOGNIZES MANY OF THE FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH 208 PLANS: AND OUTLINES CONCRETE STEPS TO IMPROVE THE CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS, AND CLARIFY EPA'S IMPLEMENTATION EXPECTATIONS. THE EPA STRATEGY IS IMPORTANT, BECAUSE IT DEMONSTRATES THE COMMITMENT OF THE AGENCY FOR CONTINUING FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR STATE AND LOCAL PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION.

HOWEVER, EVEN AS WE TALK TODAY OF PLANS MOVING TI IMPLEMENTATION, THERE IS A REAL DOUBT THAT CONGRESS WILL APPROPRIATE ADEQUATE FUNDS TO DO THE JOB. AS AREAWIDE AGENCIES RUN OUT OF MONEY, STATES DO NOT APPEAR READY TO REPLACE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT FUNDS FOR REGIONAL AND LOCAL AGENCIES. WITHOUT SUCH FUNDS FOR THE CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS, THE MOMENTUM FOR IMPLEMENTATION WILL BE LOST.

THE LEAGUE IS CONVINCED THAT THE AREAWIDE WASTEWATER TREATMENT CONCEPT ENVISIONED BY THE CONGRESS IS SOUND, AND THAT THE INITIAL 2-YEAR PLANNING PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY SUCCESSFUL.

THE KEY TO THE FUTURE AND SUCCESS OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS WILL BE THE CONTINUED RELIANCE OF BOTTOMS-UP PLANNING TO MEET WATER QUALITY STANDARDS. IN SUCH PLANS LIE THE ANSWERS TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 208.

NOW, TO COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE BAY AREA'S SITUATION. OUR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN. EMP, COMBINES PLANNING FOR WATER SUPPLY, WATER QUALITY, AIR QUALITY, AND SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL. EPA AND THE STATE ENCOURAGED ABAG, AS THEY DID COG'S IN SOME OTHER REGIONS, TO COMBINE THESE ELEMENTS. ALL OF THESE ELEMENTS ARE SO OBVIOUSLY INTERRELATED THAT OUR WATER QUALITY PLAN WOULD NOT BE NEARLY AS GOOD WITHOUT THIS KIND OF INTEGRATED PLANNING.

FIRST, LET ME SAY THAT ABAG'S EMP FULFILLS LEGISLATIVE INTENT AS IT MEETS ALL FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS. IN THE PLAN, ITSELF, THERE WERE THREE MAJOR AREAS OF CONTROVERSY. THEY WERE: LAND-USE CONTROLS, TRANSPORTATION CONTROLS, AND BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY -- SOMETIMES CALLED BACT -- VERSUS REASONABLY AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY, RACT.

THE FIRST TWO ITEMS, LAND-USE CONTROLS AND TRANSPORTATION CONTROLS, IN THE ORIGINAL STAFF DRAFT WOULD PROMOTE THE SO-CALLED "COMPACT GROWTH" STRATEGY. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT STRATEGIES CONSIDERED AN1 DISCARDED IN THE FINAL PLAN -- IN BOTH THE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION AREAS -- WILL BE REEXAMINED IN FUTURE UPDATES, WHEN "FINE-TUNING" WILL TAKE PLACE.

STATEMENT OF WEINREB I

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 005 OF 8

WEINREB I MAYOR

HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA

103733

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

THE TASK FORCE AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY MADE A POLITICAL JUDGMENT NOT TO INCLUDE REGIONAL LAND-USE CONTROLS IN THE INITIAL IN THE INITIAL PLAN, BECAUSE THEY FELT SUCH CONTROLS COULD SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE BAY AREA. AND, AS THE SUPERVISOR JUST SAID, AT NOT A VERY GREAT COST EFFECTIVENESS.

A NUMBER OF TRANSPORTATION CONTROLS WERE INCLUDED, BUT, SOME SIGNIFICANT ONES WERE NOT BECAUSE THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION, OR MTC, THE BODY RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING THE TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES, FELT THE COST OF THE ADDITIONAL MEASURES WAS UNACCEPTABLY HIGH. EVEN THOSE TRANSPORTATION CONTROLS REMAINING IN THE PLAN WILL REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING.

WHAT WAS LEFT IN WAS MTC'S POLITICAL JUDGMENT AS TO THOSE MEASURES THAT WOULD INVOLVE ACCEPTABLE LOCAL INCREASES IN COST, PLUS THEIR BEST GUESTIMATES ABOUT STATE AND FEDERAL SUPPORT. MTC RECENTLY WENT THROUGH A MAJOR CONTROVERSY WHEN IT RAISED BRIDGE TOLLS FAIRLY MODESTLY. AFTER THAT EXPERIENCE, I BELIEVE MTC CAN JUDGE, AS WELL AS ANY GROUP, AND BETTER THAN MOST, THE ADDITIONAL COST THE PUBLIC WILL TOLERATE.

THE ARGUMENT OVER BACT VERSUS RACT WAS IN LARGE PART DUE TO A MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT DEFINITIONS. THAT MISUNDERSTANDING HAS NOW BEEN CLEARED UP. WHAT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY BAY AREA INDUSTRIES AND WHAT IS IN AN EMP IS THE COMMITMENT TO PRO-ID- ANY PO-LUTION ABATEMENT EQUIPMENT AND TECHNIQUE THAT IS AVAILABLE COMMERCIALLY AND AT THE APPROPRIATE SCALE.

ONE PROMINENT SPOKESPERSON FOR THE INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITY HAS TOLD ME THAT HE BELIEVES THE CONTROLS ON INDUSTRY IN THE EMP PRECLUDE MOST NEW LARGE-SCALE BASIC INDUSTRIES FROM LOCATING IN THE BAY AREA. HE IS WILLING TO ACCEPT THIS SITUATION, AS HE BELIEVES THAT THE EMP AT LEAST ALLOWS MODERNIZING AND SMALL ADDITIONS TO PRESENTLY EXISTING BAY AREA INDUSTRIES.

I WAS PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE WHICH FELT -- AND OF THE ABAG GENERAL ASSEMBLY, WHICH ALSO FELT -- THAT THE MAXIMUM CONTROL STRATEGIES THAT WOULD RECEIVE PUBLIC ACCEPTANCE, WERE INCLUDED IN THE EMP.

THE PLAN DOES MEET FEDERAL AND STATE STANDARDS. AND IT DOES REPRESENT A GENUINE POLITICAL COMPROMISE BETWEEN ENVIRONMENTALISTS AND THOSE WHO FEAR THWARTING OF ECONOMIC GROWTH.

WE WHO SUPPORTED THE EMP ARE WORRIED ABOUT THREE THINGS:

ONE, THAT EITHER THE STATE OR EPA WILL TAMPER WITH OUR CAREFULLY REACHED CONSENSUS.

TWO, THAT THE STATE WILL NOT IMPLEMENT AN AUTO EMISSION INSPECTION PROGRAM COMPARABLE TO NEW JERSEY, AND, HENCE, STRINGENT ENOUGH TO MEET THE EMP STANDARDS. AND, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU CONGRESSMEN, WHO ARE FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AID US IN CONVINCING OUR STATE LEGISLATORS OF THE NEED FOR A GOOD AUTO EMISSION INSPECTION PROGRAM.

AND THREE, THAT EPA WILL NOT EQUITABLY ADMINISTER THE CLEAN AIR AND CLEAN WATER ACTS, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT THE BAY AREA WOULD BE PLACED AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE WITH THE OTHER METROPOLITAN REGIONS.

STATEMENT OF WEINREB I

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 006 OF 8

WEINREB I MAYOR

HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA

103734

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

IF THESE THREE FEARS ARE NOT BORNE OUT, WE FEEL THE 208 PROCESS IN THE BAY AREA WILL BE A RESOUNDING SUCCESS.

MR. RYAN. WITH THOSE RESERVATIONS, I THINK, THAT'S VERY OPTIMISTIC.

IN REGARD TO YOUR LAST COMMENT, I MIGHT BE MORE PRONE TO TAKE UP YOUR SUGGESTION ABOUT TALKING TO STATE LEGISLATORS WERE I NOT AWARE OF PROPOSITION 9. HAVING BEEN A STATE LEGISLATOR FOR 10 YEARS, I AM WORRIED ABOUT THAT.

I THINK THAT STATEMENT THAT YOU'VE JUST MADE, MADAM MAYOR, IS CERTAINLY AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ONE. AND, I THINK, VERY SIGNIFICANT, VERY COMPREHENSIVE. AND YOU ARE TO BE COMMENDED FOR THE SUCCINCT QUALITY OF WHAT YOU SAY.

THERE'S ONLY A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE. ON THAT LAST PAGE YOU PLUCKED A VERY SENSITIVE STRING. AND I QUOTE: "HE BELIEVES THE CONTROLS ON INDUSTRY IN THE EMP PRECLUDE MOST NEW, LARGE-SCALE, BASIC INDUSTRIES FROM LOCATING IN THE BAY AREA."

MS. WEINREB. AND, I WOULD SAY, THAT FOR THE INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITY TO ACCEPT THAT IS GOING QUITE A WAYS TO IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENT. IT'S QUITE AN ACCEPTANCE.

MR. RYAN. SO YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT'S TRUE?

MS. WEINREB. THAT THE EMP WILL -- YES, I DO. I FEEL THAT IT IS SO STRINGENT IN THE CONTROLS ON STATIONARY SOURCES

MR. RYAN. THE PRESENT EMP ADOPTED BY ABAG, DID YOUR CITY COUNCIL VOTE FOR IT?

MS. WEINREB. YES, WE DID. AS DID THE MAYOR'S CONFERENCE IN ALAMEDA COUNTY.

MR. RYAN. DID YOU SUPPORT IT?

MS. WEINREB. YES, I DID.

MR. RYAN. IN SPITE OF WHAT YOU SAID THERE?

MS. WEINREB. IN SPITE OF IT. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO MEET THE FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS. AND, I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER WAY.

MR. RYAN. WELL, THERE ARE THINGS THAT ARE MORE IMPORTANT THAN MEETING FEDERAL AND STATE REQUIREMENTS -- WHICH IS TO STAY ALIVE.

I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN, REASONABLY, TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE ANY PLACE, AND ANY TIME WE CAN. BUT, IF YOU TALK ABOUT BALANCING A DOW CHEMICAL PLANT -- ONE-HALF A BILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF INDUSTRIAL INVESTMENT, AND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS IN AN AREA WHERE THE UNEMPLOYMENT HAS BEEN A CONSISTENT AND CHRONIC PROBLEM, ESPECIALLY IN YOUR AREA, RIGHT IN HAYWARD

MS. WEINREB. THAT'S RIGHT. ABSOLUTELY. HIGHER THAN THE REGIONAL AVERAGE.

MR. RYAN. PRECISELY, IS HIGHER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.

MS. WEINREB. THAT'S RIGHT.

MR. RYAN. IF YOU ARE WILLING TO SAY THAT THAT MANY PEOPLE MUST BE CONDEMNED TO UNEMPLOYMENT, TO A KIND OF SAGGING ECONOMIC CONDITION, IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY TO THE POINT OF NO RISK -- I AM GIVING YOU THE ARGUMENT NOW OF THOSE WHO ARE FLATLY OPPOSED

MS. WEINREG. YES.

MR. RYAN. AND, NO RISK MEANING, IF THERE IS ONE PERSON WHO HAS A COUGH BECAUSE OF SEVERE ALLERGIES FROM BIRTH, THE EXISTENCE OF THAT ONE PERSON MUST BE CONSIDERED BEFORE THE JOB OF OTHERS, WHO ALSO NEED TO LIVE.

I GUESS WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT WE ARE STRUGGLING TO FIND SOME KIND OF BALANCE. HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE THERE IN THE NO-RISK CATEGORY, WHOM WE SUGGEST VERY GENTLY, HOPEFULLY, THAT THEY MOVE TO A DIFFERENT KIND OF CLIMATE -- IN SUSANVILLE, PERHAPS, HIGH AND DRY, AND WARM? INSTEAD OF IMPACTING ALL THOSE JOBS, AND ALL THOSE PEOPLE'S LIVES, ALL THOSE CHILDREN WHOSE PARENTS CANNOT LIVE DECENTLY. WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?

STATEMENT OF WEINREB I

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 007 OF 8

WEINREB I MAYOR

HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA

103735

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

MS. WEINREB. WELL, YOU'VE TOUCHED SOMETHING THAT I FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT. WE, IN HAYWARD, HAVE WORKED VERY HARD

MR. RYAN. PEOPLE IN HAYWARD WORK FOR A LIVING?

MS. WEINREB. THEY NOT ONLY WORK FOR A LIVING, WE'VE WORKED VERY HARD TO INCREASE THE GROWTH IN OUR INDUSTRIAL AREA. AND, WE'VE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL AT IT. AND, WE WORK VERY CLOSELY WITH OUR INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITY.

AND, FOR ME TO HAVE TO ACCEPT THIS IS NOT A HAPPY KIND OF THING. BUT, IF THAT IS WHAT THE STATE AND FEDERAL STANDARDS ARE, THEN WE HAVE

MR. RYAN. ARE THEY?

MS. WEINREB. YES, INDEED.

MR. RYAN. SHOULD THEY BE?

MS. WEINREB. WELL, WHAT WE HAVE ASKED IS THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORIZE AND FINANCE SOME FURTHER STUDIES OF THE STANDARDS TO SEE IF THEY ARE TRULY HEALTH BASED.

MR. RYAN. YES. BUT, BASICALLY, MADAM MAYOR, WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS, WHO WRITES THE RULES.

AND, WE'RE FROM THE CONGRESS, AND WE WRITE THE RULES, ULTIMATELY, I SUPPOSE. OR, HAVE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY. BUT, THERE ARE SERIOUS DOUBTS ABOUT OUR CAPACITY TO DO SO. I EXPRESS THEM NOW FOR MYSELF, AND FOR OTHERS, TOO. DO WE DO THEM AS WELL AS YOU DO?

MS. WEINREB. WELL, I THINK WE CAN IN THE LCOAL AREA -- ONCE YOU HAVE SET STANDARDS -- COME UP WITH THE BEST WAYS TO MEET THOSE STANDARDS.

MR. RYAN. WELL, ALL RIGHT. WE ARE A LITTLE CIRCULAR THERE, I THINK. I APPRECIATE YOUR CAPACITY, YOUR APPARENT WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT FEDERAL MANDATE. BUT

MS. WEINREB. IT IS THE INDUSTRIAL COMMUNITY THAT IS WILLING TO ACCEPT THE EMP AS THE MAJOR SPOKESPEOPLE HAVE TOLD ABAG. AND, I THINK IT IS, YOU KNOW, A MAJOR CONCESSION ON THEIR PART.

MR. RYAN. WELL, WE'LL HEAR FROM THEM, TOO. BUT, YOU ARE THE MAYOR OF HAYWARD. SOME TIME BACK, CARLOS BEE WAS THE MAYOR OF HAYWARD. ABOUT THE SAME TIME, I WAS THE MAYOR OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO. AND, WHEN I WAS MAYOR OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO AND HE WAS MAYOR OF HAYWARD, WE WERE CONCERNED ABOUT OUR OWN PEOPLE. AND, I WAS CONVINCED THEN, AND I AM STILL CONVINCED NOW -- AND I KNEW MORE THEN AND THE WAY THEY THOUGHT, THAN I DO NOW IN CONGRESS. AND, I DEPEND ON YOU, AND OTHERS LIKE YOU, TO BE RESPECTFUL, I SUPPOSE, OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY -- THAT'S ALWAYS NICE -- BUT, TO PROVIDE RESISTANCE WHERE YOU THINK YOUR OWN PEOPLE ARE NOT HELPED.

MS. WEINREB. ALL RIGHT. LET ME SAY THAT, IN THIS RESPECT, HAYWARD WILL NOT BE SERIOUSLY HURT. BECAUSE, WE DO NOT HAVE THE LARGE TRACTS OF LAND THAT A DOW CHEMICAL

MR. RYAN. BUT, WILL IT BE HURT?

MS. WEINREB. IT'S HARD TO KNOW, EXACTLY. I THINK -- FRANKLY, I THINK OTHER THINGS THAT I AM WORKING ON WILL HELP US MORE. I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH SOME OF THE

MR. RYAN. GRANTED THE NEED TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT AT ALL TIMES, INCLUDING POLLUTION, AND WATER, AND AIR. BUT, WE NEED TO ASSESS THE DAMAGE INCURRED, AND TO RATE IT AGAINST THE VALUE RECEIVED IN IMPROVED QUALITY.

STATEMENT OF WEINREB I

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 008 OF 8

WEINREB I MAYOR

HAYWARD, CALIFORNIA

103736

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

MS. WEINREB. ALL RIGHT. I GUESS. I HAVE TO SAY THAT IF THESE STANDARDS ARE TRULY HEALTH BASED -- AND, I DO NOT MEAN TO THE EXTENT THAT IF ONE PERSON, WHO HAS EXTREMELY SENSITIVE LUNGS IS HURT, THAT THE STANDARD SHOULD BE BASED I DON'T MEAN THAT. BUT, I DO MEAN, IF THEY ARE BASED ON WHAT IS HEALTHY FOR YOUNG CHILDREN.

MR. RYAN. IN GENERAL? MS. WEINREB. YES, IN GENERAL. THAT -- YES, I DO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT IF SOME LIMIT ON SOME INDUSTRIAL GROWTH IS NEEDED YOU KNOW, FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF THE HEALTH OF THE COMMUNITY THAT'S THE PRICE WE HAVE TO PAY.

MR. RYAN. LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER THING, JUST VERY QUICKLY. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THE FEDERAL SUPPORT OF 208 PLANNING OUGHT TO BE CONTINUED?

MS. WEINREB. I HOPE IT WILL BE CONTINUED.

MR. RYAN. WHAT IF IT IS NOT?

MS. WEINREB. I DO NOT KNOW, PARTICULARLY, IN CALIFORNIA, AT THIS POINT, WHERE WE WOULD GET THE RESOURCES TO CONTINUE IT. AND THAT IT REALLY WOULD BE SAD. BECAUSE, WE HAVE BUILT A VOLUNTARY, COOPERATIVE EFFORT WITH SEGMENTS OF THE BAY AREA COMMUNITY THAT WAS NOT HERE BEFORE. AND, I WOULD HATE TO LOSE THAT MOMENTUM.

MR. RYAN. DO YOU FAVOR THE CONTINUATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF 208 PLANS?

MS. WEINREB. YES, I DO, VERY STRONGLY.

MR. RYAN. WHAT IF THEY DON'T?

MS. WEIREB. I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD CONTINUE IT. WE WOULD CERTAINLY TRY.

MR. RYAN. WHAT ABOUT IF THE CONGRESS IS INFECTED BY, OR REACTS TO, PROPOSITION 13, AND CUTS OFF THE MONEY?

MS. WEINREB. WE WOULD TRY

MR. RYAN. THE JARVIS-BROWN INITIATIVE

MS. WINREB. JARVIS-BROWN. (LAUGHTER.)

MR. RYAN. THAT'S MR. CUNNINGHAM'S REFERENCE, NOT MINE.

MS. WEINREB. ALL I CAN SAY IS -- BECAUSE I FEEL THAT WE ALL ALL THE CITIES IMPACT ON EACH OTHER AND THE BEST PLANNING WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WATER QUALITY AND AIR QUALITY, IS THAT PLANNING WHICH IS REGIONAL. IF THE PLANNING IS DONE JOINTLY. I WOULD DO MY BEST TO PROVIDE OUR SHARE OF THE COST. THAT'S ALL I CAN TELL YOU. BECAUSE, I THINK IT'S TERRIBLY IMPORTANT.

MR. RYAN. DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU WERE UNDER PRESSURE TO APPROVE?

MS. WEINREB. ONLY IN THE SENSE THAT -- AS I UNDERSTAND THE FEDERAL ACT -- THERE DOES HAVE TO BE A PLAN. AND, IF WE DID NOT, THEN EITHER THE STATE, OR EPA, WOULD, OF NECESSITY, HAVE TO COME UP WITH A PLAN. AND, I AM MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE DID THAN WITH SOMETHING THAT THEY MIGHT DO.

MR. RYAN. IS IT FAIR TO SAY, THEN, THAT YOU FELT A KIND OF FEDERAL PRESSURE TO APPROVE THIS PLAN?

MS. WEINREB. I WOULD -- THAT WOULD BE FAIR.

MR. RYAN. OK. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. MS. WEINREB, YOU'VE BEEN AN EXTREMELY EXCELLENT WITNESS IN THE TRADITION OF GREAT MAYORS OF HAYWARD.

MS. WEINREB. OH, THANK YOU.

I WONDER IF I MIGHT ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE OF THE SUPERVISOR? BECAUSE, I DID HAVE, I THINK, A LITTLE MORE DETAIL?

MR. RYAN. PLEASE DO, YES.

MS. WEINREB. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS ASKED WAS: WHAT DOES THIS 208 PLANNING DO THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DONE BEFORE? I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE OF YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION.

WITHOUT THE 208 LEGISLATION, I DO NOT FEEL THAT WE WOULD BE PUSHING AN AUTO EMISSION INSPECTION PLAN. AND I DO KNOW THAT THAT WILL BE VERY SIGNIFICANT IN REDUCING THE TONNAGE OF HYDROCARBON.

AND I DO NOT BELIEVE WE WOULD HAVE EXAMINED, IN DETAIL -- AND WE HAVE IN ALAMEDA COUNTY -- A STREETSWEEPING PROGRAM. AND WE HOPE TO IMPLEMENT IT ON AN EXPERIMENTAL BASIS, TO SEE WHAT BETTER STREETSWEEPING WILL DO TO REDUCE THE POLLUTION OF OUR STREAMS.

AND SO WE ARE TAKING A MORE SERIOUS, MUCH MORE SERIOUS, LOOK AT THESE THINGS.

AND YOU ASKED -- SOMEONE ASKED -- SHOULD CONGRESS PROHIBIT LAND-USE CONTROLS AS AN ACCEPTABLE STRATEGY? I DON'T BELIEVE CONGRESS SHOULD. BECAUSE, EVEN THOUGH WE ELIMINATED THEM FROM THE EMP AND I DID NOT FEEL THAT THEY SHOULD BE IN THIS PLAN. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD BE TRUE OF EVERY REGION. AND SO I FEEL THAT CONGRESS SHOULD REALLY ALLOW THE MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY FOR A REGION TO COME UP WITH ITS OWN SOLUTIONS.

MR. RYAN. VERY GOOD.

MS. WEINREB. AND THEN YOU ASKED ABOUT ANOTHER LAYER OF GOVERNMENT. IS THIS ANOTHER LAYER OF GOVERNMENT? IS THIS INCREASING REGIONAL GOVERNMENT? AND MY ANSWER IS: WE HAVE A MULTITUDE, NOW, OF REGIONAL GOVERNMENTS. AND THIS

MR. RYAN. YES. THIS WOULD CONSOLIDATE THEM.

MS. WEINREB. AND I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM CONSOLIDATED. BUT I THINK I AM A MINORITY VIEW IN THAT RESPECT.

MR. RYAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

MS. WEINREB. YOU'RE VERY WELCOME. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.

MR. RYAN. MADAM MAYOR, YOU ARE A VERY EXCELLENT WITNESS.

MS. WEINREB. THANK YOU.

MR. RYAN. THE NEXT WITNESS WILL BE ALAMEDA COUNTY SUPERVISOR FRED COOPER.

MR. COOPER. DO YOU WANT ME TO PROCEED?

MR. RYAN. PLEASE, SIR.

(WITNESS SWORN).

STATEMENT OF COOPER F F

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

COOPER F F SUPERVISOR

ALEMEDA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ALEMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

103737

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

MR. COOPER. I AM FRED COOPER, COUNTY SUPERVISOR, FROM ALAMEDA COUNTY. THE DISTRICT I REPRESENT CONSISTS OF THE MIDDLE-CLASS CITY OF ALAMEDA AND THE FLATLANDS OF EAST OAKLAND, WHICH ARE PREDOMINANTLY MINORITY AND WORKING CLASS.

AND IT IS IN EAST OAKLAND THAT WE HAVE GROUPS WITH UNEMPLOYMENT RATES OF 20 TO 40 PERCENT, PARTICULARLY YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE MEMBERS OF VARIOUS MINORITIES.

MR. RYAN. THAT'S ROBERT CROWN COUNTRY, THE LATE ROBERT CROWN.

MR. COOPER. YES. RIGHT. I FIRST RAN WHEN HE WAS IN THE ASSEMBLY AND OUR DISTRICTS WERE LARGELY COTERMINOUS.

THE PEOPLE IN EAST OAKLAND, WHICH HAS CLEAN AIR, ARE NATURALLY CONCERNED MUCH MORE ABOUT JOBS THAN THEY ARE ABOUT CLEANING UP THE AIR IN LIVERMORE ANS SAN JOSE.

AND, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS CONGRESS NEEDS TO LOOK AT PARTICULARLY, SINCE THE PRESIDENT RECENTLY CAME OUT WITH HIS URBAN STRATEGY, IS THE CONFLICT BETWEEN JOBS AND THE ENVIRONMENT, AND THE IMPACT OF SOME OF THE RULES ON POLLUTING THE ENVIRONMENT OF URBAN CORE CITIES CITIES WITH UNEMPLOYMENT INORDER TO CONCERN OURSELVES WITH POLLUTION IN OTHER PARTS OF THE AREA.

ONE OF OUR CONCERNS, NATURALLY, HAS TO BE FEDERAL MANDATES, SUCH AS THE CLEAN AIR ACT, WHICH IMPOSE MAJOR COSTS ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT, IN THE WAKE OF JARVIS-GANN. AND, I AM SURE THAT'S A SUBJECT YOU'VE ALREADY CONSIDERED. WE HAVE BEEN FIGHTING UNFUNDED MANDATES ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN CALIFORNIA. AND, I, IN PARTICULAR, HAVE BEEN FIGHTING MANDATES FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE FOR THE PAST 5 YEARS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN FUNDED. AND, TO THE EXTENT WE GET THEM FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IN THE WAKE OF PROPOSITION 13, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR US TO MEET THEM WITHOUT SERIOUSLY JEOPARDIZING GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES.

WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE STANDARDS. ONE OF THE CONCERNS IS BACKGROUND HYDROCARBONS. I SENT CONGRESSMAN RYAN A COPY OF AN ARTICLE OF MAY 31, FROM THE SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE, WHICH INDICATES THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A CORRELATION BETWEEN RAINFALL AND SMOG. AND, THAT WINTERS WITH HEAVY RAINFALL RESULT IN MORE VEGETATION, AND SEEM TO RESULT IN MORE SMOG. AND, I THINK, THERE WAS A STUDY OF LAKE TAHOE WHICH INDICATED THAT ANY AREA WITH LARGE PINE FORESTS, AS THAT HAS, CAN NEVER REACH THE FEDERAL STANDARDS, BECAUSE OF THE HYDROCARBONS FROM THE VEGETATION.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT, UNLESS WE MAKE MAJOR CHANGES IN THE STANDARDS, TO TIE THAT DOWN AND DETERMINE JUST WHAT NATURAL BACKGROUND HYDROCARBONS ARE, AND ADJUST THE STANDARDS TO FIT ACTUAL REALITY.

ANOTHER OF MY CONCERNS HAS BEEN THAT WE APPEAR TO BE SETTING THE STANDARDS -- OH, I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO SAY, EPA RECENTLY ADJUSTED THE STANDARDS, AND I THINK THAT'S A STEP IN THE DIRECTION OF REALITY. AND, IT'S ALSO A STEP IN RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT THE STANDARDS ARE NOT REALLY PERFECT, OR CANNOT REALLY BE OBJECTIVELY ESTABLISHED. BUT, TO HAVE 1 HOUR A YEAR, OR 1 DAY A YEAR, AS A MINIMUM, IS JUST TOTALLY UNREALISTIC AT LEAST, IF THE BACKGROUND OF THE HYDROCARBON PROBLEM IS A REAL ONE. AND, IT SEEMS TO BE.

SECOND, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IN THE BAY AREA, FOR EXAMPLE, WE MAY BE SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECTING AND WORSENING THE LIVES OF 99.9 PERCENT OF OUR POPULATION, IN ORDER TO PROTECT, PERHAPS, ONE-TENTH OF 1 PERCENT OR ONE-HUNDREDTH OF 1 PERCENT OF THE POPULATION. AND, IN A TIME OF PHYSICAL LIMITS, WE OUGHT TO CONSIDER, AT LEAST, STUDYING THE POSSIBILITY OF DETERMINING WHO THE ONE-TENTH OR ONE-HUNDREDTH OF 1 PERCENT ARE, AND PROVIDEING THEM WITH HOMES AND CARS THAT HAVE AIR-CONDITIONING, RATHER THAN US SPENDING HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO INCONVENIENCE AND JEOPARDIZE THE JOBS, AND THE BASIC GOVERNMENTAL STURCTURE FOR EVERYONE ELSE. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT WOULD WORK. IT SEEMS TO ME, THOUGH, THAT IF WE HAVE PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS, WE OUGHT TO, AT LEAST, EXPLORE THAT. AND, I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE PEOPLE CAN BE IDENTIFIED. BUT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SOMEBODY MUST HAVE IDENTIFIED THEM TO SET ANY KIND OF STANDARDS.

AND, I AM NOT ADVOCATING WE DO THAT, I AM ADVOCATING THAT WE EXPLORE THAT. AND, THAT EPA BE ASKED TO LOOK AT THAT AND WHAT ARE THE PROS AND CONS OF THAT KIND OF APPROACH. SPECIAL PROTECTION FOR THE PEOPLE THAT NEED IT, RATHER THAN CHANGING THE WHOLE ECONOMY, AND THE WHOLE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT OF WHAT APPEARS, AT LEAST, TO BE A FAIRLY SMALL GROUP.

ANOTHER OF OUR CONCERNS WITH THE STANDARDS IS LOWEST ACHIEVABLE EMISSION RATE (LABR), WHICH TENDS TO IGNORE THE ECONOMICS. AND, IF YOU LOOK AT OUR BALANCE OF PAYMENTS, AND OUR UNEMPLOYMENT RATES IN THE CORE CITIES, WE HAVE TO ASK THE QUESTION: HOW MANY JOBS CAN WE CONTINUE EXPORTING TO OTHER COUNTRIES? AND, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING CONGRESS HAS TO LOOK AT -- NOT ONLY IN RELATION TO THE CLEAN AIR ACT, BUT IN RELATION TO A LOT OF OTHER PROGRAMS.

AND, I HAVE TO CONFESS ONE OF THE REASONS I'VE NEVER RUN FOR CONGRESS IS TO BE ABLE TO AVOID SOME OF THOSE PROBLEMS THAT ARE SIMPLY TOO TECHNICAL, OR TOO MANY PROPOSED SOLUTIONS OR TOO INTERWOVEN WITH OTHER PROBLEM SOLUTIONS, TO REALLY ADDRESS REASONABLY.

MR. RYAN. ANOTHER REASON IS THE WEATHER; 90-PERCENT HUMIDITY IS ROTTEN.

MR. COOPER. I ALWAYS ENJOY GOING TO WASHINGTON, BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE OF PACE. BUT, THE ENJOYMENT IS ENHANCED BY THE FACT THAT I KNOW I AM NOT GOING TO BE THERE VERY LONG, ESPECIALLY DURING THE SUMMER.

MR. RYAN. OH, HOW THAT HURTS.

MR. COOPER. THE FINAL CONCERN I'D LIKE TO EXPRESS IS WHAT YOU'VE RAISED IT WITH THE PREVIOUS WITNESS. AND, THAT IS OUR CONCERN ABOUT FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS, STATE REQUIREMENTS VERSUS LOCAL.

I AM TOLD THAT I SHOULD SERVE ON THE ABAG ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE AND THA BAY AREA POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT IN ORDER THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN SET THE RULES. AND IF, WE DON'T DO THAT, THEN THE STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL DO IT FOR US. AND, TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT AT THE EXPENSE OF A GREAT DEAL OF MY TIME AND EFFORT, AND A GREAT DEAL OF INVOLVEMENT IN THINGS EXTRANEOUS TO BE TOLD THAT THE STATE IS GOING TO CHANGE IT ANYWAY, OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WILL CHANGE IT ANYWAY, KIND OF DISHEARTENS ONE. AND, AT SOME POINT, YOU'D HAVE TO SAY, WELL, WHY TELL ME TO COME DOWN HERE AND HAVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT GET INVOLVED, AND SET RULES THAT WE THINK WE CAN LIVE WITH. AND, THEN, BE TOLD THAT, WHILE YOU ARE DOING IT, IF YOU DON'T DO A, THAT YOU'RE GOING -- OR B, THAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO IT TO YOU. AND, THEN AFTER YOU FINISH YOU FIND THAT THEY ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE RULES. AND, I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT, AS WELL AS THE QUESTION OF ENFORCEMENT AND UNIFORMITY OF RULES.

MR. RYAN. DO YOU SUPPORT THE PLAN AS PRESENTLY VOTED?

MR. COOPER. YES, I THINK, LIKE MOST PEOPLE, I SUPPORT IT, BUT NOT OVERLY ENTHUSIASTICALLY, I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE COMPROMISE. AND, I SUPPORT IT ONLY IF I CAN BE SURE THAT CONGRESS AND EPA ARE GOING TO PROVIDE SIMILAR ENFORCEMENT IN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO BE AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE WE'VE GONE, FURTHER, FASTER, THAN OUR COMPETITORS IN THE REST OF THE COUNTRY.

MR. RYAN. THEN YOU BELIEVE THAT, LACKING OTHER KINDS OF PRESSURES ELSEWHERE, IT WOULD PUT US AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE IN AN ECONOMIC SENSE?

MR. COOPER. YES. WE ARE, EVEN WITH THIS PLAN; BECAUSE WE HAVE GONE FURTHER, FASTER, IN CALIFORNIA THAN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. WE DO NOT HAVE TRADE-OFFS THAT OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY ARE ALLOWED.

I THINK OKLAHOMA CITY JUST GOT A TRADE-OFF IN TERMS OF PROVIDING FLOATING LIDS ON OIL STORAGE TANKS. WELL, WE'VE REQUIRED THAT. NOW, UNLESS YOU GIVE US A RIGHT TO RETROACTIVE TRADE-OFFS, WE ARE AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE IN THE SENSE THAT MOST OF OUR RULES ARE AHEAD OF THE REST OF THE REST OF THE COUNTRY. AND, EVEN IF WE CAN WORK OUT A REASONABLE TRADE-OFF RULE, BECAUSE WE ARE AHEAD ON THE REGULATIONS, IT'S NOT GOING TO DO MUCH GOOD, BECAUSE WE ARE AHEAD ON THE REGULATIONS, IT'S NOT GOING TO DO MUCH GOOD.

ON THE OTHER HAND, ONE OF THE POINTS WE NEED TO REMEMBER IS THAT LAST YEAR, 1977, WAS THE CLEANEST AIR YEAR IN THE BAY AREA ON RECORD.

WE ARE CONTINUING, AT THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT WARD, OF WHICH I AM A MEMBER, TO ADOPT ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS, ADDITIONAL TIGHTENING OF THE RULES, PARTICULARLY FOR SOLVENTS AND PAINTS. AND, WE CONTINUE TO IMPROVE THE AIR, EVEN WITHOUT THE EMTF PLAN.

MR. RYAN. THE OTHER THING UNDER THE QUESTION I HAVE IS YOUR REFERENCE TO NO-RISK ATTITUDES, THE ONE-TENTH OF 1 PERCENT AGAINST THE 99.9. WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE?

MR. COOPER. I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S WHY I AM SAYING IT SHOULD BE STUDIED. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT APPROACH IS A VALID ONE, OR NOT. BUT, I DON'T SEE THAT IT'S BEEN STUDIES. AND, FROM WHAT I'VE READ OF THE EPA STUDIES OF THE STANDARDS, IT APPEARS THAT THEIR CONCERNS FOR HEALTH APPLY TO A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE POPULATION, WHEN YOU GET DOWN

MR. RYAN. OF COURSE, PART OF OUR PROBLEM IS THE FACT THEY DIDN'T COUNT THAT WELL. NOW, WE NEVER USED TO BE ABLE TO SAY WHO IT IS THEY ARE TRYING TO PROTECT, AND IDENTIFY THOSE PEOPLE. AND, THEN

MR. RYAN. DO 17 PEOPLE IN THE BAY AREA, WHO HAVE ASTHMA BECAUSE OF SOME RARE EMISSION, PRODUCE ENOUGH TO TRIGGER THE LOSS OF 2,000 JOBS?

MR. COOPER. WELL THAT MAY BE THE FIGURE. IT MAY BE HIGHER; IT MAY BE LOWER. I DON'T KNOW.

MR. RYAN. WHATEVER IT IS. YES.

MR. COOPER. IT MAY BE THAT ANOTHER APPROACH WOULD BE TO, YOU KNOW, IF THERE ARE FIVE OF THOSE PEOPLE IN LIVERMORE TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'LL AIR-CONDITION YOUR HOUSE AND YOUR CAR. OR, WE'LL PAY IF YOU WANT TO MOVE TO SAN FRANCISCO, WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE THE PROBLEM. BUT, I, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT ADVOCATING IT. BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT IT, I THINK IT OUGT TO BE STUDIED.

MR. RYAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. COOPER. SUPERVISOR, MAY I ASK YOU IF YOU BELIEVE YOU WERE SUBJECTED TO INORDINATE PRESSURES FROM THE STATE OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

MR. COOPER. WELL, I TEND TO RESIST PRESSURE MORE THAN SOME OTHER LOCALLY ELECTED POLITICIANS.

MR. RYAN. I THINK I'VE HEARD THAT YOU HAVE THAT REPUTATION.

MR. COOPER. I THINK THAT THE ARGUMENT IS MADE CONTINUALLY: UNLESS YOU DO A OR B, THEY ARE GOING TO RAM IT DOWN OUR THROATS. AND, TO THAT EXTENT, THERE IS PRESSURE ON EVERYBODY. I GENERALLY I HAVE SAID -- MADE THE SAME SPEECH AT THE AIR BOARD FREQUENTLY. WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS, WELL, WE OUGHT TO ADOPT THIS: OR, WE OUGHT TO APPROVE THIS BECAUSE THE STATE ARB SAYS WE SHOULD; OR THEY ARE GOING TO REQUIRE IT OF US; OR, THEY'LL ADOPT IT IF WE DON'T. AND, I AUTOMATICALLY, NOW, AFTER SOME PRACTICE, BOUNCE BACK AND SAY: LISTEN I CAME DOWN HERE BECAUSE I AM TOLD THAT IF WE DON'T DO IT HERE, THEY'LL DO IT. NOW, IF YOU ARE GOING TO USE THAT AS AN ARGUMENT THAT I SHOULD DO SOMETHING, THEN I'D JUST AS SOOM DISBAND THIS AGENCY, AND LET THEM DO THE WHOLE THING.

MR. RYAN. YES.

MR. COOPER. AND, I, YOU KNOW, I AM SURE OUR STAFF CAN GIVE YOU A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES, LIKE: NOZZLES IN GAS STATIONS, FLOATING TANK -- PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SEALS ON OIL STORAGE TANKS. WHERE WE'VE HAD DISPUTES WITH THE STATE AND FELT THAT THEY WERE WRONG.

MR. RYAN. I WONDER WHY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOESN'T PURSUE THEIR OWN KINDS OF CLEANUP AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY IN THE BUILDINGS THEY OWN, AND IN THE ENCOURAGEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT OF SOLAR ENERGY, WHICH IS A CONSTANT SOURCE ONCE THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT IS MADE. WELL, THAT'S, I GUESS, AN IDLE CONJECTURE

MR. COOPER. I SUSPECT THE CONGRESSMAN CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION BETTER THAN I CAN.

MR. RYAN. IF WE COULD. I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, SUPERVISOR COOPER, FOR A VERY EXCELLENT STATEMENT.

MR. COOPER. THANK YOU.

MR. RYAN. OUR NEXT WITNESS IS FROM THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, MR. ANGELO SIRACUSA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OF THE BAY AREA COUNCIL.

(WITNESS SWORN).

STATEMENT OF SIRACUSA A J

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 001 OF 7

SIRACUSA A J EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

BAY AREA COUNCIL, INC. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

103741

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

MR. SIRACUSA. MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE. I AM ANGELO SIRACUSA, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BAY AREA COUNCIL. THE COUNCIL IS A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION FORMED IN 1945. IT WAS SUPPORTED BY ABOUT 300 BUSINESS FIRMS, PRIMARILY MAJOR FIRMS HEADQUARTERED IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA.

OUR MISSION IS TO BRING ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS TO BEAR ON PUBLIC POLICY ISSUE AT THE BAY AREA LEVEL, AND TO INVOVLE THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, HOPEFULLY, IN A POSITIVE WAY, IN THE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS.

WE WERE THE OFFICIAL BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVES ON THE ABAG ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE. WE DEVOTED CONSIDERABLE TIME OF OUR STAFF TO THIS EFFORT, AND ATTEMPTED TO SERVE AS A CATALYST FOR CORPORATE TECHNICAL INPUT INTO THIS PROCESS.

I INTEND TO FOCUS MY REMARKS TODAY ON THE AIR QUALITY ELEMENT OF THE EMP, AS WELL AS THE CLEAN AIR ACT, BECAUSE THE AIR ISSUE IS THE ONE WHICH HAS THE GREATEST IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND ON THE ECONOMIC, SOCIAL, FISCAL, AND POLITICAL VITALITY OF THE REGION.

I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR, GENERALLY, IS NOT PARTICULARLY HAPPY WITH THE MANDATE OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT. WE SUSPECT THE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED, PARTICULARLY THE OXIDANT/OZONE STANDARD, FAR EXCEED WHAT IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH.

BUT, MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE FEAR THAT THE ACHIEVEMENT OF AIR QUALITY STANDARDS, ESPECIALLY WITHIN THE TIME DEADLINE CONTAINED IN THE 1977 AMENDMENTS, WILL VERY LIKELY CREATE UNACCEPTABLE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DISRUPTION IN MANY OF THE NONATTAINMENT AREAS. THIS DOESN'T EVEN SPEAK TO THE PROBLEM OF SOME NONATTAINMENT AREAS THAT PROBABLY CANNNOT ACHIEVE THOSE STANDARDS UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. I SPEAK SPECIFICALLY TO THE LOS ANGELES AIR BASIN.

STATEMENT OF SIRACUSA A J

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 002 OF 7

SIRACUSA A J EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

BAY AREA COUNCIL, INC. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

103742

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

BUT, GIVEN THE FEDERAL CHARGE, WE ARE RELATIVELY PLEASED WITH THE OUTCOME OF OUR OWN AIR QUALITY MAINTENANCE PLAN. WE PROBABLY WOULD NOT HAVE EMBODIED THIS, EXCEPT AS A RESULT OF THE FEDERAL MANDATE. WE RECOGNIZE, OF COURSE, THAT IT IS A FIRST ATTEMPT, AND THAT THERE MUST BE AN ONGOING ASSESSMENT OF THE COSTS AND IMPACTS, AS WELL AS THE AIR QUALITY BENEFITS.

THE ASSUMPTIONS, THE METHODOLOGY, AND THE DATA GATHERING, ARE SOMEWHAT SUSPECT, AND, YET, ARE PROBABLY TE BEST THAT IS AVAILABLE ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY. THE SCIENCE OF AIR QUALITY MODELING IS STILL IN ITS VERY PRELIMINARY STAGES. THE CAUSE AND EFFECT RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN EMISSIONS AND SUBSEQUENT AIR QUALITY ARE STILL NOT COMPLETELY CLEAR.

BUT, AGAIN, WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE DEVELOPED SOMETHING THAT IS A REASONABLY GOOD FIRST STEP IN A LOCAL RESPONSE TO A FEDERAL MANDATE.

THE CHARGE TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE WAS TO DEVELOP A PLAN WHICH MET FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS, BUT WAS NOT SO ECONOMICALLY AND SOCIALLY DISRUPTIVE AS TO BE UNIMPLEMENTABLE. PART OF THE WORK PROGRAM, THEN, WAS TO EVALUATE THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COSTS AND IMPACTS OF SUCH AN ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

FRANKLY, WE BELIEVE THAT THE COST FIGURES ARE GROSSLY UNDERSTATED.

SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO THE DIRECT COSTS IMPOSED ON EXISTING INDUSTRY, THE PLAN ESTIMATES THAT AN ANNUAL OUTLAY BY INDUSTRY -- ANNUAL, THAT IS -- OF 18 MILLION DOLLARS OVER THE 23-YEAR PLANT PLANNING PERIOD.

THESE-FI.URES-WERE-DEVELOPED USING AN-UNREALIS;;CALLY LONG 25-YEAR EQUIPMENT LIFE, AND A 6 3/8-DISCOUNT RATE, THE RATE WHICH IS USED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO CALCULATE FINANCING COSTS ON MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS. THESE RATES DO NOT REFLECT THE MARKETPLACE. USING A MORE REALISTIC AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE OF 10 YEARS ON SUCH EQUIPMENT, AND THE CURRENT ESTIMATED DISCOUNT RATE OF 15 PERCENT, THOSE COSTS WOULD BE AN ANNUAL OF 43 MILLION DOLLARS. AND, FRANKLY, WE THINK THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE TOTAL PRICE TAG WILL BE ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR IN THE BAY AREA.

NEVERTHELESS, WE MUST ADMIT TO YOU, THAT THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW WHAT THE EFFECT WILL BE WITH RESPECT TO THE CLOSING DOWN OF INDUSTRY, OR THE RETARDING OF THE EXPANSION OF INDUSTRY. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROJECT WHAT THOSE EFFECTS WILL BE.

WE ARE WILLING TO PROJECT THAT SOME OF THE, ROUGHLY, 5,000 EXISTING BUSINESSES AFFECTED BY THE PLAN CAN'T, OR WILL NOT, ASSUME THE COST OF RETROFITTING THEIR FACILITIES WITH POLLUTION A0ATEMENT EQUIPMENT, AND WILL CLOSE DOWN.

WE ARE ESPECIALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE OBSTACLES CREATED FOR INDUSTRIES THAT WISH TO, OR NEED TO, EXPAND. OR, FOR INDUSTIRES NOT NOW LOCATED IN THE REGION, BUT CONSIDERING NEW FACILITY SITES. MANY OF THESE FIRMS MAY BE FORCED TO SERVE OUR GROWING MARKET OPPORTUNITITES FROM OTHER LOCATIONS.

AT THE PRESENT TIME, THE PLAN ONLY CALLS FOR A CASE-BY-CASE OFFSET PROGRAM. ADDED TO THE ALREADY HIGH COST OF DOING BUSINESS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA, AND WHAT IS COMMONLY ACCEPTED IN THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AS A POOR ECONOMIC CLIMATE IN CALIFORNIA, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT MOST INDUSTRIES ARE WILLING TO BUY UP POLLUTION RIGHTS IN ORDER TO HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF CONSTRUCTING OR ENLARGING A MANUFACTURING PLANT IN THE BAY REGION.

IT IS IRONIC THAT WE HAVE PENALIZED OURSELVES BY DOING SUCH A GOOD JOB OF REDUCING EMISSIONS.

STATEMENT OF SIRACUSA A J

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 003 OF 7

SIRACUSA A J EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

BAY AREA COUNCIL, INC. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

103743

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

THE MOST RESTRICTIVE LIMITS ON FUTURE ECONOMIC GROWTH TEND TO BE IMPOSED ON AREAS, SUCH AS OURS, THAT ENFORCE THE MOST RESTRICTIVE EMISSION LIMITS. BECAUSE, SUCH AREAS NOW HAVE THE LOWEST BASELINE FROM WHICH TO SEEK FURTHER REDUCTIONS TO PROVIDE EMISSION OFFSETS.

THIS MEANS THAT JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE NOT ACTED AGGRESSIVELY TO CURB AIR POLLUTION PROBLEMS WILL NOW BE REWARDED BY OBTAINING AN ADVANTAGE IN ATTRACTING NEW INDUSTRIES THAT RESULT IN FUTURE ECONOMIC GROWTH.

A LOT OF THIS, OF COURSE, WILL DEPEND UPON WHAT OTHER NONATTAINMENT AREAS DO. BUT, AS LONG AS WE ARE THE FIRST TO HAVE AN OFFSET PROGRAM THAT IS CONSIDERABLY MORE STRINGENT THAN REQUIRED IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY, WE BELIEVE THAT INDUSTRY, WHICH, OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS, WILL HAVE TO COMPLETE THE ABATEMENT OF POLLUTANTS FROM CURRENT OPERATIONS, WILL LOSE THE AVAILABILITY OF INTERNAL OFFSETS. AND, THUS, WILL HAVE GREAT DIFFICULTY MODIFYING AND EXPANDING THEIR PLANTS.

ONLY SMALL, UNCONTROLLED AREA FACILITIES, SUCH AS CORNER DRYCLEANERS, WILL REMAIN AS SOURCES FOR OFFSETS AFTER JANUARY 1980.

THE EPA HAS INDICATED THAT IT INTENDS TO CONDUCT A STUDY OF TECHNIQUES FOR INCLUDING GROWTH INCREMENTS FOR NEW INDUSTRY IN STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS. WE URGE YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE TO PROMOTE THIS CONCEPT AND TO MONITOR EPA'S EFFORTS TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVES TO THE CASE-BY-CASE OFFSET APPROACH. EPA ASSISTANCE WILL BE CRITICAL IN VIEW OF THE LIMITED LOCAL RESOURCES THAT CAN BE EXPECTED DURING THE FIRST STAGE OF THE CONTINUING PLANNING PROCESS.

WITHOUT AN INCREMENT FOR INDUSTRIAL GROWTH, OR WITHOUT OTHER THAN THE CASE-BY-CASE OFFSET PROGRAM, THE CURRENTPLAN WILL NOT ALLOW FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT OF FIRMS NOW SUBJECT TO THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW RULE.

I THINK THERE IS ONE THING THAT WE REALLY OUGHT TO EMPHASIZE. THERE HAVE BEEN ARTICLES IN THE PRESS -- AND YOU WILL YEAR TESTIMONY TODAY -- THAT THE PLAN IS ANADEQUATE, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCLUDE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION CONTROLS.

WHILE THOSE MEASURES HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED LARGELY ON POLITICAL GROUNDS -- NOT A BAD REASON IN ITSELF -- THERE WAS, IN OUR OPINION, INSUFFICIENT TECHNICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR THEIR INCLUSION IN THE PLAN. THE NEGLIGIBLE AIR QUALITY BENEFITS WERE OUTWEIGHTED BY THE UNCERTAINTIES AND RELATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH CONTROLS.

IN THE FUTURE WE MAY HAVE TO REVERT TO MORE INDIRECT CONTROLS, BUT WE HAVE DEVELOPED IN OUR FIRST PLAN THE MOST REASONABLE APPROACH, AND HAVE ADOPTED THE MEASURES WHICH SHOW THE MOST SIGNIFICANT AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENTS.

TO ADD THE OTHERS AT THIS TIME WOULD CONTINUE TO EMBROIL THIS PLAN IN POLITICAL CONTROVERSY FOR NO PURPOSE HAVING TO DO WITH AIR QUALITY. THE PLAN IS TECHNICALLY, STATUTORILY, PROCEDURALLY, AND POLITICALLY, DEFENSIBLE. IT IS NOT DEFICIENT TO MEET THE SPIRIT AND LETTER OF THE FEDERAL LAW.

I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DOWNPLAY THE EFFECTS OF THE JARVIS-GANN INITIATIVE, AND THE VERY REAL TAXPAYER REVOLT, ON THIS PLANNING PROCESS AND ON OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS. WE ARE NOT IN ANY WAY ADVOCATING THAT WE ABANDON OUR EFFORTS TO CLEAN UP THE ENVIRONMENT. HOWEVER, IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT WE DO A BETTER JOB OF BALANCING COSTS AND BENEFITS.

STATEMENT OF SIRACUSA A J

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 004 OF 7

SIRACUSA A J EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

BAY AREA COUNCIL, INC. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

103744

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

THIS IS WHAT PRESIDENT CARTER'S ECONOMIC ADVISERS HAVE BEEN SAYING IN RECENT WEEKS, AND WE STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS STATEMENT. WE QUESTION WHETHER CONGRESS HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY SENSITIVE TO THE INFLATIONARY EFFECTS AND THE DIRECT COSTS THAT STEM FROM IMPLEMENTING THE CLEAN AIR ACT.

LET ME, IN THE BRIEF TIME I HAVE THIS AFTERNOON, CITE ONE OF THE CENTRAL PROBLEMS INHERENT IN THE POLICIES OF THE FEDERAL ACT, WHICH CONGRESS MUST ADDRESS IN SHORT ORDER, IF THE ACT IS TO BE WORKABLE.

I REFER TO THE BASIS FOR SETTING STANDARDS. THE ACT INSTRUCTS THE EPA ADMINISTRATOR TO SET NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE PUBLIC, ALLOWING FOR ADEQUATE MARGIN OF SAFETY. A.D, OF COUSE, YOU'VE BEEN HEARING SOME TESTIMONY ABOUT WHAT THAT STANDARD OUGHT TO BE. THIS IS INTERPRETED BY EPA TO MEAN THAT EVEN THE EXTREMELY SMALL PART -- AS SUPERVISOR COOPER SAID, THE 0.001 -- PART OF THE POPULATION WHOSE CHRONIC ILLNESS MAKES THEM SENSITIVE TO THE SLIGHTEST DEGRADATION OF PRISTINE AIR, MUST BE PROTECTED.

AND, THE MARGIN OF SAFETY FACTOR RESULTS IN SETTING STANDARDS CONSIDERABLY BELOW THE THRESHOLD WHERE EFFECTS CAN BE OBSERVED UNDER LABORATORY CONDITIONS.

REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE INDICATES THAT ADVERSE PHYSIOLOGICAL CHANGES CANNOT BE DETECTED BELOW A THRESHOLD OF 0.15 PART PER MILLION. YET, THE ADMINISTRATOR RECENTLY DECIDED TO SET THE STANDARD AT 0.10, A 33-PERCENT MARGIN OF SAFETY. EACH 100TH PART PER MILLION, REPRESENTS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF INVESTMENT, WHICH HAVE AN INFLATIONARY EFFECT, AND WHICH COULD BE USED ELSEWHERE, BOTH IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS.

IN A WORLD WHERE RESOURCES MUST BE ALLOCATED TO ACCOMPLISH MANY WORTHWHILE SOCIAL GOALS, WE DOUBT THAT THE COUNTRY CAN AFFORD TO SATISFY THIS MANDATE.

WE RECOMMEND THAT YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE BEGIN TO CONSIDER A MORE REALISTIC OBJECTIVE FOR AIR QUALITY. THE ADMINISTRATOR SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO PREVENT LEVELS OF POLLUTIONS, WHICH WILL CUASE AN UNACCEPTABLE HEALTH RISK TO A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE PUBLIC, USING A MARGIN OF SAFETY THAT VARIES ACCORDING TO THE DAMAGE ASSOCIATED WITH DIFFERENT POLLUTANTS. IN THE CASE OF OZONE, FOR EXAMPLE, THE MARGIN OF SAFETY NEED NOT BE AS CONSERVATIVE AS THE MARGIN FOR TOXIC POLLUTANTS.

I CANNOT TELL YOU, REALLY, WHAT THE STANDARDS OUGHT TO BE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH. OUR ORGANIZATION DOES NOT HAVE THE SCIENTIFIC COMPETENCE TO DOTHAT. HOWEVER, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU ASK EPA TO DEFEND ITS TECHNICAL ANALYSIS, WHEN THEY HAVE SUCH STAGGERING IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL WELL-BEING.

IT IS PARAMOUNT THAT CONGRESS LOOK AT THE UNDERLYING PHILOSOPHY OF THE CLEAN AIR ACT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SO-CALLED NO RISK PHILOSOPHY IS A VALID ONE IN LIGHT OF ALL THE CONFLICTING PUBLIC NEEDS AND GOALS, AND THE LIMITED RESOURCES.

WE, FRANKLY, DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS, BUT WE THINK THAT CONGRESS HAS PASSED A LAW WITHOUT, ITSELF, ANSWERING THEM -- ANSWERS WHICH, I BELIEVE, ARE ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL, IF PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE TO ACT RESPONSIBLY ON SUCH IMPORTANT PUBLIC POLICY.

I'LL BE VERY HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

MR. RYAN. THAT'S AN EXCELLENT STATEMENT, ANGELO. I APPRECIATE IT.

MR. CUNNINGHAM?

MR. CUNNINGHAM. WELL, I'D LIKE TO AS A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

STATEMENT OF SIRACUSA A J

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 005 OF 7

SIRACUSA A J EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

BAY AREA COUNCIL, INC. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

103745

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

WELL, I ALWAYS TAKE A LITTLE UMBRAGE WHEN BUSINESS RUNS THIS SCARETACTIC OF SAYING THAT THEY ARE GOING TO SHUT DOWN. AND, YOU'VE MENTIONED THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN BUSINESSES WITHIN 5,000 THAT COULD SHUT DOWN BECAUSE OF THIS. WOLD YOU LIKE TO ELABORATE ON THAT?

MR. SIRACUSA. YES. I THINK I'D BE VERY PLEASED TO. I MIGHT ALSO TAKE UMBRAGE AT BUSINESSES WHO SAY THEY ARE GOING TO SHUT DOWN. AND THAT'S WHY I REFUSE TO MAKE ANY PARTICULAR PROJECTIONS AT THE NUMBER OF INDUSTRIES THAT WILL, OR THE NUMBER OF THE JOBS THAT WE'VE LOST. BUT, I AM WILLING TO SAY, WITHOUT ANY FEAR OF CONTRADICTION, THAT AS A RESULT OF THIS, CERTAIN INDUSTRIES WILL HAVE TO SHUT DOWN.

I AM NOT SAYING THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE THE SOLE CAUSE. BUT IT IS A FACT THAT THE BAY AREA IS ALREADY AT SOMEWHAT OF A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE, AS A RESULT OF OTER FORCES WHICH ARE NOT NECESSARILY GOVERNMENT IMPOSED -- EITHER HIGH LABOR COSTS, OR OTHER EFFECTS ON THE MARKETPLACE, AS WELL AS LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGULATION.

ADD THIS TO THAT -- AND THERE ARE ALREADY INDUSTRIES THAT ARE CLOSING DOWN FOR VARIOUS REASONS -- I BELIEVE THAT THERE WILL BE A TOLL TAKEN.

MR. CUNNINGHAM. WELL, I'M JUST GOING TO PURSUE THIS A BIT. I'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS ALL MY LIFE. AND, I AM NEW TO POLITICS. SO I JUST -- YOU HAVE HIGH LABOR; YOU HAVE HIGH TRANSPORTATION; YOU HAVE HIGH UTILITIES; YOU HAVE A LOT OF HIGH COSTS, RULES, AND REGS.

YOU SAY THAT THE CLEAN AIR STANDARDS ARE TOO STRINGENT, AND TOO TOUGH. IF YOU ARE QUALIFIED TO SAY THAT, WHY AREN'T YOU QUALIFIED -- AND I AM TALKING ABOUT YOUR ASSOCIATION, NOT YOU, PERSONALLY -- WHY AREN'T YOU QUALIFIED TO SAY WHAT THE STANDARDS SHOULD BE?

MR. SIRACUSA. I'M SORRY. THE PORTION OF MY TESTIMONY THAT DEALT WITH BAY AREA BUSINESSES CLOSING DOWN HAD TO DO WITH OUR ADOPTING A PLAN HERE, BEFORE OTHER AREAS HAVE ADOPTED THEIR OWN PLANS. I CAN'T -- I HONESTLY CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT THE NATIONAL EFFECTS WILL BE, IF THIS THING IS UNIFORMLY ENFORCED AROUND THE COUNTRY. I DON'T KNOW THAT.

BUT WE HAVE -- BY VIRTUE OF OUR BEING THE FIRST TO GO WITH THIS PLAN -- I BELIEVE, HAVE PLACED OURSELVES AT SOMEWHAT OF A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE WITH OTHER AREAS. NOW, I CAN DOCUMENT. AND I WOULD BE FOOLISH TO YOU TO SAY THAT.

MR. CUNNINGHAM. MY SECOND QUESTION IS THAT IN YOUR TESTIMONY YOU SAY THAT THE STANDARDS ARE TOO HIGH; THEY ARE TOO STRINGENT. BUT, THEN, YOU ALSO SAY YOU'RE NOT QUALIFIED TO SAY WHAT THEY SHOULD BE. WHAT GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO SAY THEY ARE TOO HIGH, IF YOU'RE NOT QUALIFIED TO SAY WHAT THEY SHOULD BE?

MR. SIRACUSA. WELL, WHAT I SAID IN THE TESTIMONY WAS THAT WE WERE QUOTING FROM SOME SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS THAT SAID THAT THEY WERE TOO HIGH. AND, I GUESS. I WOULD HAVE TO BELIEVE THAT SCIENTISTS, AS WELL AS POLITICIANS, AND BUSINESSESSMEN WILL TEND TO DISAGREE.

MR. CUNNINGHAM. YES.

MR. SIRACUSA. BUT THERE SEEMS TO BE SOME SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT THEY CAN BE HIGHER. AND THAT WAS THE CITATION I WAS MAKING. I CANNOT TELL YOU WHETER THEY OUGHT TO BE 0.10, 0.00 0.12, 0.13, 0.14, 0'15. BUT WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT, I THINK, THAT THERE PROBABLY COULD BE FOR MEDICAL HEALTH REASONS, A HIGHER STANDARD WITHOUT JEOPARDIZING OUR POPULATION, IF I AM TO BELIEVE THE SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS THAT WE'VE BEEN SEEING.

MR. CUNNINGHAM. BUT, DO YOU FEEL THE DETERMINATION ON CLOSING OF A PLANT WOULD BE MADE SOLELY ON THE COMPLIANCE WITH THAT STANDARD; OR WOULD IT NOT BE MADE ON WHETHER OR NOT HTE PLANT, ITSELF, WAS ECONOMICALLY VIABLE; WHETHER OR NOT THE DEPRECIATION HAD BEEN USED: WHETHER THER WOULD BE AN ADEQUATE TIME TO RELOCATE? I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD SAY THAT ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY IS A SOLE CONCERN FACTOR IN PLANT CLOSING.

STATEMENT OF SIRACUSA A J

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 006 OF 7

SIRACUSA A J EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

BAY AREA COUNCIL, INC. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

103746

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

MR. SIRACUSA. I DIDN'T SAY THAT.

MR. CUNNINGHAM. BUT YOU'VE IMPLED IT.

MR. SURACUSA. NO, I'M NOT. I'M HOPING I'M NOT.

MR. CUNNINGHAM. BUSINESS SAYS THIS ALL THE TIME.

MR. SIRACUSA. MY TESTIMONY SAID THAT, COUPLED WITH OTHER CONDITIONS IN THE BAY AREA, THE MEETING OF THE STANDARDS WILL ADD ONE MORE BURDEN THAT WILL PROBABLY BE ONE OF THE STRAWS THAT WILL MAKE CERTAIN INDUSTRIES CLOSE DOWN IN THE BAY AREAS. AND. I'M

MR. CUNNINGHAM. YOU SAY, THAT. "WE ARE WILLING TO PROJECT THAT CERTAIN OF THE ROUGHLY 5,000 EXISTING BUSINESSES AFFECTED BY THE PLAN CAN'T OR WILL NOT ASSUME THE COST OF RETROFITTING THEIR FACILITIES WITH POLLUTION ABATEMENT EQUIPMENT AND WILL CLOSE DOWN."

MR. SIRACUSA. WHAT -- WHERE ARE YOU READING FROM?

MR. CUNNINGHAM. THAT'S ON PAGE 3, SECOND PARAGRAPH.

MR. SIRACUSA. "ADDED TO THE ALREADY HIGH COST OF DOING BUSINESS IN THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA * * * WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT MOST INDUSTRY ARE WILLING TO BUY UP POLLUTION RIGHTS."

MR. CUNNINGHAM. BUT, THAT'S A SECOND -- THAT'S

MR. SIRACUSA. IT'S IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH SIR. I'M TRYING TO PUT THIS IN CONTEXT. I HOPE THAT I AM ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION. THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT POLLUTION CONTROL, IN ITSELF, WILL BE THE STRAW THAT BREAKS THE CAMEL'S BACK.

MR. CUNNINGHAM. YOU DON'T. OK.

MR. SIRACUSA. BUT, ADDED TO ALL THE COST OF DOING BUSINES, IT WILL BE ONE OF THE FACTORS.

MR. CUNNINGHAM. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT POINT. BUT, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT YOUR STATEMENT ISN'T THAT THERE ARE SOME 5,000 FIRMS SOLELY BECAUSE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY COULD SHUT DOWN.

MR. SIRACUSA. THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE HERE IS THAT WITH THE NEW REGULATION, WE HAVE ABOUT 250 FIRMS IN THE BAY AREA THAT ARE NOW SUBJECT TO WHAT IS CALLED NEW SOURCE REVIEW RULE BECAUSE OF THE THRESHOLD LIMITS. WITH THE NEW REGULATION, THAT NUMBER WILL INCREASE TO 5,000. I AM NOT TRYING TO EVEN HINT THAT THERE WILL BE 5,000 CLOSURES. IF THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE GETTING AT?

MR. CUNNINGHAM. WELL, YES. I WOULD IMAGINE THAT 43 MILLION DOLLARS IN COST AGAINST SOME 12 BILLION DOLLARS IN CAPITAL INVESTMENT IS NOT GOING TO JEOPARDIZE THAT CAPITAL INVESTMENT.

MR. SIRACUSA. I THINK IT WILL JEOPARDIZE SOME OF IT.

MR. RYAN. WOULD IT BE FAIR TO CHARACTERIZE YOUR TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN AS KIND OF RELUCTANT "YES"?

MR. SIRACUSA. WELL, WE ARE PRETTY ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT THE PLANT IN LIGHT OF THE MANDATES. BUT, THE MANDATE MAKES US A RELUCTANT BRIDEGROOM, YES. I WOULD SAY SO.

I NOTICE THAT YOU ASKED MAYOR WEINREB, YOU KNOW, WHETHER IF WE HAD OUR DRUTHERS, WHETHER WE WOULD HAVE GONE INTO THIS VOLUNTARILY. I DON'T THINK WE WOULD HAVE. I AM NOT SPEAKING JUST FOR THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. I THINK I'M SPEAKING FOR THE CADRE OF PEOPLE IN ALL AREAS IN PUBLIC LIFE, WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THIS, I THINK THAT THEY LOOKED UPON THIS AS A MANDATE THAT CONGRESS HAD ACTED WITH, OR WITHOUT, WISDOM, AND, THAT WE HAD TO COME UP WITH A PLAN THAT MET THAT.

STATEMENT OF SIRACUSA A J

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

PART 007 OF 7

SIRACUSA A J EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

BAY AREA COUNCIL, INC. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA

103747

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

I THINK IT WAS MADE FAIRLY CLEAR TO US THAT IF WE DIDN'T, THAT THE FEDERAL SANCTIONS, PRIMARILY THE WITHOLDING OF FUNDS, WERE GOING TO BE AUTOMATIC. AND, I THINK THAT EVERYBODY WAS PRETTY RELUCTANT IN THIS PROCESS. BUT, IT IS THE FEDERAL LAW.

MR. RYAN. YES, WELL, THE FEDERAL LAW ISN'T NECESSARILY ALWAYS PURE PERFECTION.

IT'S ALWAYS SEEMED RATHER STRANGE TO ME THAT THE FEDERAL LEVEL CAN FORCE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS TO COMPLY WITH STANDARDS, WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ITSELF IS SO RELUCTANT TO PROVIDE THE BEST EXAMPLE.

I THINK THAT WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT MIGHT DO IN THE SAVING OF ENERGY, FOR EXAMPLE, BY SIMPLY RETROFITTING ALL OF ITS BUILDINGS TO STORE HEAT, AND COOL IT. AND THEREBY REDUCE THE LEVEL OF ENERGY CONSUMPTION. WHEN ENERGY, ITSELF, IS THE LARGEST SINGLE FORCE BEHIND INFLATION. THEREFORE, A NEGATIVE EFFECT ON BUSINESS AND GROWTH.

IT SEEMS TO ME A STRANGE KIND OF CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WOULD URGE THE CONSUMPTION OF NONRENEWABLE NATURAL RESOURCES -- COAL, OIL, AND THE REST -- AND AT THE SAME TIME DISCOURAGE THE GROWTH OF SOLAR ENERGY, WHICH IS ONCE INVESTED, A PERMANENT SOURCE FROM THEN ON.

I GUESS I SAY THESE THINGS BECAUSE IN THESE HEARINGS, AT LEAST SO FAR, THE WITNESSES WE'VE HEARD SEEM TO SAY: "RIGHT, WE SHOULD DO WHAT WE ARE TOLD TO DO; AND, WE WILL TRY TO DO THE BEST WE CAN, LIKE THE GOOD SOLDIERS, WITHOUT ANY MORE BITING BACK," WHEN YOU SEE THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS AND YOU SEE THE LACK OF CAPACITY OF THE FEDS TO CLEAN UP THEIR OWN HOUSE.

I DON'T INVITE YOU TO ENGAGE IN ANY KIND OF BROAD-RANGING CRITICISM OF WHAT WE ARE NOT DOING, BUT -- WHILE YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELL TAKEN -- I AM IMPRESSED. I GUESS, BY THE ALMOST UNIVERSALITY OF THE COMMENT THAT, "WELL, IT'S THE BEST WE CAN DO, GIVEN THE CHOICE" -- WHEN, ACTUALLY, THERE IS NO CHOICE.

I WONDER WHAT WILL HAPPEN -- AND, IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT, OR IF YOU HAVE STUDIED AND CONSIDERED IN THE BAY AREA COUNCIL -- WHAT MAY HAPPEN IF THE STATE AIR AND RESOURCE BOARD AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, OR THE FEDERAL AUTHORITIES, THROW IT OUT, AND SAY: "HERE'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO NOW WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT."

MR. SIRACUSA. I FRANKLY, DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING. I THINK THAT THE STATE AIR RESOURCES BOARD HAS MADE SOME NOISES THAT IT WOULD LIKE TO STRENGTHEN THE PLAN. I THINK THAT WOULD BE UNFORTUNATE. BECAUSE, I BELIEVE THAT IN SPITE OF THE FEDERAL MANDATE, WHICH WE MIGHT BE CRITICAL OF, THERE WAS ALSO A VERY GOOD OPPORTUNITY. AND, THAT WAS: HERE IS HOW YOU GET FROM POINT A TO POINT B -- I MEAN, HERE IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO TO GET FROM POINT A TO POINT B. YOU GET THERE THE WAY YOU WANT. AND, WE DID IT. I THINK, THROUGH A FAIRLY ACCEPTABLE TECHNICAL AND POLITICAL PROCESS.

AND, I THINK THAT THE FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT INTERVENING AND SAYING THAT WHAT WE'VE DONE IS INADEQUATE WOULD NOT LIKELY BE DONE ON A TECHNICAL GROUND, MORE ON POLITICAL. AND, I THINK THAT WOULD BE UNFORTAUNATE. BECAUSE, WE HAVE A VERY GOOD PLAN, THAT I THINK CAN GET US TO A STANDARD. I DON'T KNOU WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO IN OTHER NON-ATTAINMENT AREAS, WHERE I THINK IT IS GOING TO BE TECNICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO. BUT, I THINK, WE HAVE A PLAN THAT, AT LEAST, GETS US MOVING IN THAT DIRECTION, ANYWAY.

I THINK THAT THE EPA OUGHT TO BE PROUD OF WHAT'S HAPPENED HERE. IT'S BEEN A CASE STUDY, AND, I THINK, A VERY GOOD ONE.

MR. RYAN. ARE YOU WORRIED, AS SPOKESMAN FOR THE BAY AREA COUNCIL ABOUT LOSING WHATEVER COMPETITIVE EDGE YOU MAY HAVE WITH OTHER AREAS IN THE COUNTRY FOR BUSINESS?

MR. SIRACUSA. YES, WE VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THAT. AND, THIS IS REALLY WHAT MY ANSWER WAS INTENDED TO BE TO MR. CUNNINGHAM. THAT WE HAVE OFTENTIMES BY OUR OWN CHOICE AND OUR OWN ACTIONS CHOSEN TO ACCEPT STANDARDS THAT ARE HIGHER THAN THE FEDERAL STANDARD. AND, THAT, IN ITSELF, PROBABLY PLACES US AT A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE.

WE HAVE SEEN -- AND YOU TALKED EARLIER ABOUT THE DOW CHEMICAL PROBLEM -- WHERE WE OPENLY, AND PURPOSELY, REJECTED AN INDUSTRIAL COMPANY BECAUSE OF OUR INTERPRETATION OF A FEDERAL STATUTE. AN INTERPRETATION THAT WAS NOT BEING MADE IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. AND, SO, WE THINK THAT THIS WHOLE QUESTION OF UNIFORMITY NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. THAT THERE ARE OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY THAT ARE CLOSING THEIR EYES TO THESE KINDS OF PROBLEMS. AND, BECAUSE WE HAVE CHOSEN TO BE A LITTLE MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY AWARE, WE HAVE PLACED OURSELVES AT THAT SORT OF A COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE.

MR. RYAN. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH.

MR. SIRACUSA. THANK YOU.

MR. RYAN. GLAD TO HEAR FROM THE BAY AREA COUNCIL ANYTIME.

MR. CHARLES KINNEY. ASSOCIATED BUILDING INDUSTRY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA.

(WITNESS SWORN.)

MR. RYAN. IF YOU COULD LIMIT YOUR REMARKS IN ANY WAY, ALTHOUGH THEY ARE VERY SHORT HERE, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

STATEMENT OF KINNEY C

ENVIRONMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN SAN FRANCISCO

KINNEY C GENERAL COUNSEL

ASSOCIATED BUILDING INDUSTRY OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA

103748

HEARING

TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE

MR. KINNEY. I APPRECIATE BEING TAKEN OUT OF ORDER. AS YOU CAN SEE, MY COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO ABOUT FOUR PAGES.

I THINK THERE ARE SUFFICIENT COPIES FOR EVERYONE IN THE AUDIENCE.

MR. RYAN. GOOD.

MR. KINNEY. WE CAN JUST DISPENSE WITH GOING OVER THAT, AND GO STRAIGHT TO WHATEVER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

AS A PRELIMINARY STATEMENT, THE ABI BOARD OF DIRECTORS NEVER ENDORSED THE PLAN, AS EITHER DRAFTED BY STAFF OR AS CURRENTLY BEING SENT TO THE VARIOUS AGENCIES.

THAT IS NOT TO SAY WE FEEL THAT THE ABAG STAFF AND ALL THE

PARTICIPANTS, INCLUDING OURSELVES, DIDN'T DO A GOOD JOB. WE

THINK THAT EVERYONE DID DO A GOOD JOB. BUT, THERE ARE VARIOUS

REASONS WHY MY BOARD DID NOT ENDORSE THE PLAN. ONE REASON,

I THINK IS THAT SOME ARE NOT TOTALLY SOLD ON REGIONAL

GOVERNMENT.

MR. RYAN. MAYBE, WE CAN BEGIN THEN. WE WILL ACCEPT YOUR TESTIMONY AS PART OF THE RECORD.

AND, IF I CAN JUST ASK YOU A QUESTION, THEN. IF I CAN PROCEED AS I HAVE WITH OTHER WITNESSES.

DOES YOUR ASSOCIATION - DOES YOUR GROUP SPONSOR, OR ARE THEY IN SUPPORT, AND ARE THEY IN APPROVAL OF THE PRESENT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED BY ABAG?

MR. KINNEY. OUR ASSOCIATION HAS NOT ENDORSED THE PRESENT ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN.

MR. RYAN. OK. VERY GOOD.

SECOND QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH WHETHER YOU BELIEVE THERE WAS UNDUE PRESSURE PLACED UPON YOUR ORGANIZATION, OR ANY ORGANIZATION, TO SUPPORT THIS PARTICULAR VERSION?

MR. KINNEY. I THINK THERE WAS UNDUE PRESSURE IN LIGHT OF SOME OF THE LETTERS THAT WERE SENT TO THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ABAG OPERATION, BOTH AT THE STAFF LEVEL AND AT THE PUBLIC OFFICIAL LEVEL. IN PARTICULAR, FOR EXAMPLE, A FEBRUARY 6, 1978, LETTER TO DIANE FEINSTEIN, WHO WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE AT THE TIME, FROM MARY NICHOLS, THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE ARB, WHO NOW HAS LEFT TO BECOME INVOLVED WITH THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, I BELIEVE.

DO YOU HAVE A COPY OF THAT LETTER?

MR. RYAN. WE DO HAVE THAT, YES.

MR. KINNEY. THEN, THERE IS SOME CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN ASSEMBLYMAN DAN BOATRIGHT AND TOM QUINN. I ASSUME YOU HAVE COPIES OF THOSE.

MR. RYAN. AND WE HAVE THOSE, TOO.

MR. KINNEY. I ECHO SUPERVISOR COOPER'S STATEMENTS THAT AT CERTAIN LEVELS HERE, VARIOUS AGENCY STAFFS TEND TO INDICATE WHICH WAY THEY WOULD LIKE ELECTED OFFICIALS TO GO IN THE BAY AREA.

WE HAVE MADE A STRONG CASE FOR THE HOUSING INDUSTRY THAT WE ARE BEING REGULATED, ESSENTIALLY, OUT OF EXISTANECE, FOR VARIOUS REASONS.

THE PHRASE THAT I PARTICULARLY LIKE IS FROM TOM QUINN TO

DANIAL BOATRIGHT, OF APRIL 13, 1978, WHICH STARTS OUT:

DEAR DAN: THANK YOU FOR ADVISING ME OF YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT HOW CALIFORNIA INTENDS TO COMPLY WITH THE FEDERAL CLEAN AIR ACT REQUIREMENTS IN THE BAY AREA.

I DON'T KNOW IF TOM QUINN SPEAKS FOR ALL OF CALIFORNIA. I GUESS HE WAS GIVEN THAT POWER. BUT, I DO APPRECIATE THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENT WHICH ALLOWS REGIONAL JOINT POWER AGREEMENTS FOR GROUPS OF PEOPLE TO GET TOGETHER AND CREATE A PLAN. WHAT I DO NOT APPRECIATE IS THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS USED TO COMPREHENSIVELY PLAN. TO THAT EXTENT, AIR QUALITY AGREEMENTS - OR AGREEMENTS REACHED UNDER FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS ON AIR QUALITY, ARE BEING TURNED INTO "MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING" CURRENTLY BEING AGREED TO BY THE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT. ABAG, AND THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION.

I REFER YOU TO THE MOST RECENTLY APPROVED "MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING." I DON'T HAVE A DATE ON MINE. IT REFERS TO ABAG AS THE LEAD AGENCY. THIS IS FINE, IF YOU ACCEPT THAT. ULTIMATELY, ALL REGIONAL AGENCIES WILL BE COMBINED INTO ONE. I AM NOT SO SURE THAT THEY WILL BE. I AM NOT SO SURE THAT THE VARIOUS REGIONAL AGENCIES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN EXISTENCE, SUCH AS THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, HAVE BEEN SINGLE-PURPOSE AGENCIES.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE HOME BUILDING INDUSTRY HAS BEEN UNDER A MANDATE OF THE RWQCB OR HAS FELT THE EFFECTS OF A MANDATE, OF THE E-ZERO POPULATION PROJECTIONS THAT LIMITED SEWER GRANT FUNDING, AND, THUS, THE AVAILABILITY OF SEWER HOOKUPS FOR HOME BUILDING, FOR THE SAKE OF AIR QUALITY.

MR. RYAN. LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. YOU ARE THE BUILDING INDUSTRY, OR A PART OF THE BUILDING INDUSTRY, IN THE BAY AREA. HAS HUD CONTACTED YOUR INDUSTRY, YOUR ASSOCIATION, IN SPECIFIC TO RESPOND TO THE LEGISLATION PASSED BY CONGRESS, THE AIR QUALITY AND WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT?

MR. KINNEY. WE CONTACTED HUD, AND, WE DIDN'T GET MUCH HELP. RIGHT NOW, CURRENTLY BEING REVIEWED BY THE CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH, IS ABAG'S ANSWER TO THE HOUSING PROBLEM, WHICH WE DON'T FEEL IS MUCH OF AN ANSWER. THEY CALL IT THE REGIONAL HOUSING PLAN. IT HAS A LOT OF STATEMENTS ABOUT NEEDS AND ABOUT DATA COLLECTED. BUT, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY ASSURANCES THAT THE HOUSING IS GOING TO BE BUILT.

AS YOU ARE AWARE, THERE IS NO VESTED RIGHT TO BUILD A HOUSE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA TODAY, OR IN MOST OF THE PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. IF YOU OWN A PIECE OF LAND AND YOU WANT TO BUILD A HOUSE, YOU MUST GET PERMISSION TO BUILD THAT HOUSE. YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO AHEAD AND BUILD IT.

MR. RYAN. LET ME ASK YOU. AS AN UNEDUCATED OBSERVER, WHEN THE AVERAGE PRICE OF A HOUSE GOES FROM $35,000, $40,000 A YEAR IN 5 YEARS, TO ALMOST $100,000 A YEAR, CERTAINLY, ONE OF THE THINGS IT INDICATES IS THERE ISN'T A SUFFICIENT HOUSING SUPPLY. THERE'S AN ENORMOUS DEMAND FOR MORE HOUSING. WELL, NOW, IF WE COUPLE THE DEMAND FOR MORE HOUSING WITH THE FACT THAT WE ARE TRYING TO CUT DOWN ON THE NUMBER OF AUTO EMISSIONS, THAT IS, THE AMOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION BY PRIVATE VEHICLES, DOESN'T IT MAKE SENSE THEN, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND HUD TO GET INTO THE ACT, AND BEGIN TRYING TO ENCOURAGE THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSING IN THE CENTRAL CITY, WHERE THE JOBS ARE, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO TRAVEL?

MR. KINNEY. THAT WOULD HOLD TRUE IF PEOPLE WANTED TO LIVE IN THE CENTRAL CITY.

MR. RYAN. WELL, BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO LIVE THERE BECAUSE THE HOUSING IS ROTTEN.

MR. KINNEY. THAT'S TRUE.

MR. RYAN. WELL, WHAT IF WE HAD HOUSING THAT WAS ATTRACTIVE?

AS WE HAVE NOT, FOR INSTANCE, HERE IN SAN FRANCISCO, OUT THERE ON NORTH BEACH. I MEAN, THERE'S NO VACANCY FACTOR AT NORTH BEACH. THERE'S NO VACANCY FACTOR ALONG THAT NORTH BEACH AREA WHERE THEY'VE HAD ALL THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION.

MR. KINNEY. SINCE 30 PERCENT OF THE AUTOMOBILE TRAVEL IS FOR THE JOB-RELATED COMMUTE, AND 70 PERCENT IS FOR SHOPPING AND PERSONAL TRIPS, THE FACT THAT I WOULD LIVE IN SAN FRANCISCO ONLY TAKES CARE OF 30 PERCENT OF THE AIR POLLUTION PROBLEM CAUSED BY THE AUTOMOBILE.

MR. RYAN. WELL, DON'T YOU LIVE WHERE YOU SHOP?

MR. KINNEY. I TRY TO LIVE WHERE I WORK. I HAD TO PICK A SPOT IN BETWEEN, BECAUSE MY WIFE AND I ARE BOTH PROFESSIONALS. AND IT HAPPENS TO BE OAKLAND.

MR. RYAN. HARDLY TYPICAL.

MR. KINNEY. WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S HARDLY TYPICAL. MOST OF MY FRIENDS ARE ALSO YOUNG PROFESSIONALS.

MR. RYAN. WELL. I'M SPEAKING OF YOUR BUILDING INDUSTRY, AS SUCH.

WHEN YOU HAVE X NUMBER OF PERSONS IN A PARTICULAR MASS, THE RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS THE OCCUPATIONAL DEMAND BECOMES PRESENT. IF YOU BEGAN TO BUILD THE KINDS OF AREAS THAT THERE ARE NOW IN A FEW PLACES IN SAN FRANCISCO, AND A FEW PLACES AROUND THE BAY AREA, WHERE PEOPLE CAN LIVE AND SHOP, SUCH AS THE EMBARCADERO CENTER WHERE THE OLD PRODUCE MARKET USED TO BE ON THE EMBARCADERO. A GOOD EXAMPLE. THAT'S A COMPLETELY SELF-SUSTAINING AREA. BEFORE IT WAS SLUMS. IF WE HAD THAT KIND OF POLICY THAT ENCOURAGED THE BUILDING INDUSTRY TO BUILD HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF NEW UNITS IN THE BAY AREA ALONE, WOULDN'T THAT TEND TO RESOLVE, WITH THE SAME DEGREE OF EFFECTIVENESS, THE PROBLEMS THAT ARE BEING ADDRESSED BY EPA? WHERE THEY FINE, AND SHOVE, AND BULLY, AND PUSH, AND THREATEN THE EXISTING CITIES WITH THE LOSS OF LOCAL CONTROL, WITH LOSS OF AUTONOMY, WITH THE LOSS OF FUNDS, WOULDN'T THAT DO THE SAME THING?

MR. KINNEY. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE ANSWER TO THE HOUSING PROBLEM IN THE BAY AREA -- AT LEAST, FROM THE CONSUMER'S POINT OF VIEW, WHICH ARE THE PEOPLE WE ARE TRYING TO SATISFY -- IS TO STACK THE HOUSES ON TOP OF EACH OTHER, BY BUYING AN EXPENSIVE PIECE OF LAND IN DOWNTOWN, AND REDOING THE UTILITIES, TO ACCOMMODATE IT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE ANSWER.

MR. RYAN. WELL, WHAT DOES YOUR INDUSTRY SAY ABOUT IT?

MR. KINNEY. OUR INDUSTRY IS DIVIDED. THERE ARE SOME PEOPLE IN OUR INDUSTRY THAT ARE QUITE WILLING TO BUILD THE TOWNHOMES AND CONDOMINIUMS IN THE INNER-CITY AREA. THEY ARE WILLING TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY SECURITY, SO IT'S SAFE. THEY ARE WILLING TO REDO THE UTILITIES, WHICH MEANS TAKE OUT THE OLD CAST IRON SEWER PIPES.

MR. RYAN. BUT, YOUR INDUSTRY HAS NO POSITION ON IT, AS A WHOLE?

MR. KINNEY. AS A WHOLE, WE HAVE NO POSITION TO ENDORSE, OR NOT TO ENDORSE. WE DID MAKE A STATEMENT, FROM OUR CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, QUITE A WHILE BACK, THAT WE FELT THAT SINGLE-PURPOSE PLANNING WAS NOT APPROPRIATE.

AND SINGLE-PURPOSE PLANNING, AT THAT TIME, FOCUSED ON THE OXIDANT STANDARD, THE 0.08 PART PER MILLION, PER HOUR. I HAVE READ THE JANUARY 1978 EPA ADVISORY PANEL'S REPORT, AND ALL THE STUDIES THEY QUOTE. THESE STUDIES GET DOWN TO 0.15. THE ACTUAL, EASILY MEASURABLE EFFECTS START ABOUT 0.25 AND 0.20 PART PER MILLION, PER HOUR, OF OXIDANT. I BELIEVE THAT 0.15 STANDARD IS SUFFICIENT. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING FOR EPA TO ADDRESS. THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME CORRECTIONS IN THAT AREA, OR SOME GUIDANCE BY CONGRESS TO EPA IN THAT AREA, BECAUSE, EPA DOES NOT SEEM TO BE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DISRUPTION THAT THE CONSUMER, THE HOMEOWNER, IN THE CALIFORNIA AREA IS FACING. THEY ARE NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT HIS DESIRES.

MR. RYAN. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHEN WE KNOW FOR CERTAIN, WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY, THAT WE LIVE NOW WITH THE EXPECTATION OF THE DISAPPEARANCE OF OIL AS A NATURAL RESOURCE, THAT WE DON'T TAKE ANY MORE CONSIDERATION OF OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAN SIMPLY SNUFFING OUT LOCAL CONTROL IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE OUR CITIES OVER.

MR. KINNEY. IF I MAY, ONE OF THE RESPONSES TO INFILLING - WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE RECENT CRY BY BOTH HUD AND EPA AS THE SOLUTION TO ALL EVIL - IS THAT INFILLING CAN WORK BOTH WAYS.

IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT FROM ANOTHER VIEW. BART -- BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT -- WAS THE WORST THING TO HAPPEN TO PLACES LIKE WALNUT CREEK AND CONCORD, WHICH COULD HAVE BECOME INDEPENDENT CITIES ON THEIR OWN RIGHT. ESSENTIALLY, IT ALLOWED SAN FRANCISCO TO BE THE HUB AND THE CENTER OF ALL ACTIVITY, WHICH MAY NOT BE A WISE THING TO FOSTER.

IF YOU GO AND IGNORE PLACES LIKE WALNUT CREEK, CONCORD, AND SMALL TOWNS THAT WANT TO BECOME A WELL-BALANCED COMMUNITY, AND NOT LET THEM HAVE THOSE HEAVY INDUSTRIES THAT THE PLAN NOW ADMITS CANNOT COME INTO THE BAY AREA, I THINK YOU MAY EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM.

MR. RYAN. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH, MR. KINNEY.

MR. KINNEY. THANK YOU, SIR.

(MR. KINNEY'S PREPARED STATEMENT FOLLOWS:)