Eisenberg, Olivieri, & Associates
Environmental and Public health Engineering, September 18, 1992
Mr. Jack Lindley Water Resources Manager Alameda County Public Works Agency
399 Elmhurst St. Hayward, CA 94544
Subject: Summary of Results of September 16, 1992 Policy Level Subcommittee
Dear Jack:
This provides a summary of this recent Policy Level Subcommittee meeting which was held to discuss three main issues. The first issue discussed was the proposed Public Participation Policy. The second issue discussed was the process for evaluating proposals submitted to implement pilot storm water management projects. Lastly, the third issue involved the review of a draft letter from the Program requesting that the draft Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan be changed.
The following people attended this meeting: Richard Wetzig Alameda County Robert Hale Alameda County Dick Asimus City of Fremont Michael Neary City of Oakland Robert Marek City of Berkeley Scott Wiley Alameda County Shelly Sack WCC Ken Susilo WCC Lee Thompson City of Dublin Jack Lindley Alameda County Joe Lucia City of Hayward Diane Heinze EOA. Inc. Fred Jarvis EOA, Inc.
Proposed Public Participation Policy
Changes to the bylaws to incorporate a public participation policy were discussed at the August Policy Level Subcommittee meeting and copies of the draft policy were distributed at the August Management Committee meeting for comment by September 11. The only comment received was from a citizen named L A Wood. Mr. Wood believes the proposed policy is too restrictive. The Policy Level Subcommittee chose to postpone making any recommendation on the public participation policy until they have had an opportunity to review Mr. Wood's letter. A copy of his letter will be distributed at the September Management Committee meeting.
Draft policy statement on public participation
To: Jack A. Lindley Water Resources Manager, ACURCWP
L A Wood, September 11, 1992
The Alameda County CWP Management Committee is reviewing a draft policy statement on public participation. (Please refer to Agenda Item No. 6 from the August 25,1992 Management Committee Meeting.) The Bancroft Guardian Coalition would like to contribute a PUBLIC perspective to this discussion on citizen participation in the Urban Runoff Clean Water Program.
As you will recall, in early June of 1992 the Bancroft Guardian Coalition released a video concerned with municipal government activities. "Portal to the Bay" was our group's attempt to highlight several of the problems found in our Public Work's Corporation Yard in Berkeley and that we suspected exists within the other municipal maintenance yards of Alameda County's CWP.
The CWP Maintenance Subcommittee scheduled a showing of "Portal to the Bay" for August 5,1992. Our Coalition responded to this notice by suggesting to this subcommittee that we would like to contribute to the discussion by attending the August meeting. We were not invited. The fact is, a majority of the members of the Maintenance Subcommittee specifically voted to not invite the Bancroft Guardian Coalition. (Please refer to the minutes of the Maintenance Subcommittee August 5.)
The Maintenance Subcommittee's intent has been to silence the debate concerning disposal priority by excluding those who raise the question. At present, both the public and the Bancroft Guardian Coalition are the target of this exclusionary maneuvering. By mid June our Coalition had approached all the program's municipalities. We offered each a video and simply asked what their particular practices were with regard to disposal. Here again a majority of the participating cities chose not to respond.
Our first encounter with the administrative tactic of non response was from Public Works in Berkeley. It was no surprise to the coalition that twelve of the thirteen other municipalities were not open to our public survey or ideas. At this point, our group began written correspondence with the Maintenance Subcommittee through E.O.A. Our group expressed concern over the integrity of a environmental cleanup program that fails to include a conscientious disposal policy with adequate implementation.
The Maintenance Subcommittee released its Best Management Practices on June 23,1992. This document contained no Tier I for municipal disposal. This was in contrast to our group's call for a minimum standard to reflect the seriousness of the disposal problem. It was our coalition's efforts that caused the Maintenance Subcommittee to update its BMP's on July 28,1992 for disposal. Unfortunately, this change has only resulted in a brief discussion on proper disposal and has left implementation only as a matter of discretion.
Alameda's CWP followed our public lead by also surveying its municipal membership. Over half of this survey was directed at the issue of priority assessment for disposal. Our group had hoped that the survey could look beyond this point and recognize the need for immediate operational changes in some of its participants' municipal activities. Instead, the survey was calculated to divert the discussion away from the issue of disposal. This is also the intent of the program's draft statement on public participation.
In regard to public participation, a major shortcoming has been the failure of both Alameda County and Berkeley's Public Works Department to respond to our written correspondences in a substantive or timely manner. This idea is central to the public's ability to participate. Written exchanges form the basis of constructive discourse. Handshaking and accommodation do little more than obfuscate public participation. Citizen access to agency information and, most importantly, to critical policy meetings represents a considerable part of public participation. When an institution fails to respond to public inquiry and interest, it fails the public trust.
Our coalition recognizes the need for outside scrutiny of Alameda's CWP. Regulators generally have problems regulating themselves. This can easily be seen in both the policy development of the program and in our presentation, "Portal to the Bay." I think this need is made even more apparent by the Alameda program's attempts to restrict our group from subcommittee participation. The program has failed to acknowledge the public contributions that can and have been made to the CWP at this subcommittee level. If a subcommittee chooses not to consider an issue (such as has been done with disposal), then the public is excluded from any review of the issue. In this context, the Management Committee represents an obstacle to what we have demonstrated to be constructive public input.
Our group recognizes that we have interfered with the apparent objectives of the Maintenance Subcommittee. Their recent actions reflect an avoidance of policy development that would cause its membership to change their disposal practices. It should be noted that in a program whose central focus is cleanup, it would appear to be fraudulent for a given municipality or county to levy funds from the public and then fail to embrace an adequate policy development and implementation to secure that same cleanup.
In the name of the public, we ask that the Management Committee reconsider the restrictive measures it is proposing with regard to public participation and access to policy development. We would like the current Maintenance Subcommittee to be eliminated and/or a new Maintenance Subcommittee created to readdress the priority for implementation of municipal disposal activities, Tier I.
To the program's municipalities, cost is the major consideration in the implementation of Tier I for disposal. We see this as the sole rationale for the Maintenance Subcommittee's adopted disposal policies. Our public group senses the shortsightedness of this policy position. The associated costs of proper disposal are little compared to the escalating costs of future environmental cleanup if our current actions are not sound. The changes that we have suggested are beneficial to both the public interest and that of the ecology of the region.
Being a regulator, you are afforded the opportunity to set many of the rules and standards that govern your relationship to the public. The regulatory role is an important one. Those in private industry look to you for guidance. The success of the runoff program will be measured by Alameda's ability to establish meaningful standards and to draw consensus from all those concerned, including the public.
Respectfully, L A Wood
cc: Tom Bates, Assemblyman, District 12 Nancy Nadel, EBMUD Board President Mayor Hancock, City of Berkeley Robert Marek, Engineer, City of Berkeley
Public Access to meetings of the Maintenance Subcommittee
Eisenberg, Olivieri, & Associates, October 20, 1992 October 20, 1992
Re: Reference is made to your letter of September 11, 1992 to Mr. Jack Lindley concerning access to meetings of the Maintenance Subcommittee.
Dear Mr. Wood:
I have read your letter which discusses the decision of the Maintenance Subcommittee to restrict attendance at regular meetings of the subcommittee to persons who have direct technical influence on the methods and equipment being used by Alameda County, and the other public agencies in the County, to clean streets and storm drains. I am sorry you chose to disagree with the decision, but we feel there is ample basis for the decision. It certainly was not made to attempt to insulate or isolate the subcommittee from the scope of the problem we are attempting to solve. I am certain that not one member of any public agency participating in the Clean Water Act process wants to contribute in any way to continuing any level of pollution of San Francisco Bay, or your neighborhood for that matter.
None of the participants in the Clean Water Act program would prefer to continue outmoded, crude and ineffective methods of collecting and disposing of waste materials. Until the Clean Water Act there was little or no political (read "economic") support to help the people in the field find solutions to some really hard problems. It is my hope that what the activities of the Clean Water Act participants produce is exactly what you want in your community, and on a County wide scale.
The Subcommittee has carefully viewed the video tape you produced, based on your experience with the City of Berkeley, and can fully appreciate your concern with what you documented. Your tape did not elicit any questions from any member of the subcommittee which the members felt could have been better answered by your appearance in person. I don't think that any of the Subcommittee members felt a need to further identify the problems to be addressed - we all have first hand knowledge of the situation. Frankly, none of the members of the subcommittee were greatly surprised by what they saw, and most were more than a little bit embarrassed. Historically the problems you identified have not been given the priority they perhaps should have had, for a variety of reasons - none of them very good.
Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean Water Program Management Committee Meeting
Draft Minutes, November 17, 1992
Jack Lindley called roll and determined that all municipalities were present except the following: Albany, Emeryville, Livermore, Piedmont, and San Leandro.
2. Introduction of Public Present and Public Comments
The following people introduced themselves: L A Wood from the Bancroft Guardian Coalition; Carolyn Erbele from the Bancroft Guardian Coalition; Kathy Kramer from the Aquatic Habitat Institute; Deborah Rex and Hank Ackerman from Alameda County; and Annie Fong from the City of Oakland.
Mr L A Wood thanked the Management Committee for reorganizing the meeting format so that he does not have to wait until the end of the meeting to speak. He also thanked Bill Copeland for his extensive letter which, while it was too late in coming, was appreciated. These developments are encouraging according to Wood. He also thanked the Maintenance Subcommittee, and he appreciates their using the "Portal to the Bay" video, which Carolyn Erbele and he produced, at the upcoming maintenance workshop.
Wood stated that he is concerned about the implementation of the Program as regards the municipal maintenance activities. In particular he would like to see a policy determination by the Management Committee and the Maintenance Subcommittee on the opt out program being implemented in Berkeley. The City of Berkeley views street cleaning as a litter control activity; street cleaning is done for more than litter control. In Berkeley many people can opt out of having street sweeping and thus there is no assurance that BMPs are being conducted. Wood stated that he will provide copies of Berkeley's street sweeping program and a copy of Berkeley's opt out program. He would like to see the opt out program discontinued in Berkeley.
Carolyn Erbele elaborated further on the opt out program. According to Erbele, 60 percent of the residents on a block can opt out of street sweeping if they agree that they will take care of removing leaves and trash. This does not replace street sweeping which does pick up metals, oils, and asbestos according to Erbele.
