CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS GOVERNORS : Feinstein Is Cautious on Environment

Into the Earth Day public relations fusillade on Thursday came Dianne Feinstein, unfurling an environmental agenda that conformed to the middle-of-the-road strategy she has crafted in her race for governor and carefully avoiding a stand on the so-called Big Green initiative co-sponsored by her Democratic competitor, John K. Van de Kamp.

The former San Francisco mayor, surrounded by children from a South-Central Los Angeles elementary school, reiterated already-announced positions--opposing offshore oil drilling, developing a state water policy and a growth-management plan--and introduced new and largely sketchy goals for issues raised in the initiative.

In most cases, she refused to go as far or be as specific as the initiative and Atty. Gen. Van de Kamp, whose campaign on Thursday criticized Feinstein’s approach as too tentative.

The sweeping initiative has posed a political dilemma for Feinstein, torn between environmentally minded Democrats likely to support it and Central Valley supporters who oppose the measure because they fear that its strictures against pesticide use will decimate California’s agriculture industry.

Feinstein declined Thursday to announce her position on the environmental initiative, which supporters hope will be on the November ballot. More than 630,000 signatures have been collected on petitions seeking the ballot measure. Proponents need 375,000 valid signatures and have until next week to turn them in to the secretary of state’s office for certification.

Feinstein did confirm, however, that her indecision thus far stems from concerns over the pesticide regulations. She said she will not decide whether to endorse the initiative until it makes the ballot.

“I think the pesticide items, what it does to agriculture in the state of California,” Feinstein replied when asked what parts of the initiative troubled her. “You talk to different people and different people will tell you different things.”

But she also praised the initiative, if in limited fashion.

“The initiative, I think, has to be looked at as a major effort to say, ‘Wake up, California, we’ve got to change our lifestyles,’ ” Feinstein said. “The initiative sets some goals--whether they can all be reached or not I don’t know, but they’re certainly worthy goals.”

As for her own program, Feinstein said she would seek to stem the use of pesticides by accelerating research by the University of California into replacements for materials now used. The initiative, in contrast, would ban all cancer-causing pesticides within five years, with a three-year extension possible under some circumstances.

Feinstein also called on the state to “pursue standards to reduce atmospheric emissions” that contribute to global warming. The initiative--without specifically saying how the goal could be accomplished--orders a 40% cut in such emissions within 20 years.

“I don’t have a precise measure,” Feinstein said when asked her timetable.

The former mayor said she would establish an oil spill contingency plan to be funded by oil companies, but she declined to specify what the price tag for that plan should be. Van de Kamp and the initiative call for a $500-million, company-funded plan.

Both Feinstein and her aides said that her proposals will be filled out in future weeks. “Some of these are goals and some are specific programs,” said Feinstein’s press secretary, Dee Dee Myers.

Feinstein’s announcement drew immediate derision from Van de Kamp’s campaign.

“She’s talking about a lot of goals and we’re talking about a commitment to change. She’s talking about vague promises,” said Vicky Rideout, Van de Kamp’s deputy campaign manager.

Rideout also accused Feinstein of delaying her support of the environment initiative to please Central Valley politicians.

“Completely incorrect,” said Myers, Feinstein’s spokeswoman. “It has nothing to do with political pressure from anyone. As we’ve said, she will take a position. It’s not the Van de Kamp campaign’s decision to make.”

Representatives of environmental groups offered a mixed response to Feinstein’s proposals.

“It’s safe and it’s nice,” said Bob Hattoy, Southern California director for the Sierra Club. “It’s as safe as mom and apple pie, but her apples will still have pesticides in them. The reality is the pesticides have to be dealt with.”

But Lucy Blake, executive director of the 30,000-member state League of Conservation Voters, another sponsor of the initiative, applauded the direction of Feinstein’s agenda.

CALIFORNIA ELECTIONS: THE TV CAMPAIGN

The race: Governor. Whose ad? Democratic candidate Dianne Feinstein.

A new 30-second TV commercial airing today focuses on Feinstein’s two terms as mayor of San Francisco and follows the current maxim in politics--never let an opponent’s charge go unanswered. The commercial seeks to refute accusations of mismanagement that rival John K. Van de Kamp voiced in an earlier commercial.

Her advertisement is scheduled to run for at least a week in the Los Angeles-Orange County area and in San Francisco.

Elements of the ad, with an analysis by Times political writer John Balzar:

Ad: This woman’s leadership triumphed over the fiscal trauma of Proposition 13. Despite millions in federal cuts, she balanced nine budgets in nine years.

Analysis: True, Feinstein balanced all of her budgets while she was in office, but the issue is the condition in which she left the city. Van de Kamp and Feinstein’s successor, Mayor Art Agnos, say she is responsible for freely spending budget surpluses in her final years, leaving Agnos to grapple with a huge $180-million shortfall after he took office. Feinstein says all mayors face ups and downs in meeting the budget.

Ad: (She was responsible for) adding police, cutting crime 20%.

Analysis: Feinstein’s records show there were 292 more officers on duty when she left City Hall in 1987 than when she took office in 1978. Van de Kamp notes that in 1979 the city agreed in a affirmative action lawsuit to increase the size of the police force by 331 officers to achieve a better racial balance. As for the drop in crime, Feinstein cites FBI reports of major felony crimes. If lesser crimes are added in and Police Department statistics are used, Van de Kamp says, the overall San Francisco crime reduction is 2.2%.

Ad: (She was responsible for) creating a modern sewer system so San Francisco will no longer pollute the bay.

Analysis: This has become the subject of heated rhetoric. Van de Kamp charged in a commercial that Feinstein’s administration was cited for dumping sewage into the bay. It was, but because of the sewer system she inherited.

In this counter-ad, Feinstein refers proudly to a $1.4-billion new sewer system that is 99% complete. This system provides secondary treatment for all effluent discharged into the bay, meeting federal clean water standards. But it does not provide such secondary treatment for sewage dumped in the ocean off San Francisco and the city remains out of compliance with federal standards in that regard.

Like other coastal mayors, Feinstein sought and received waivers from clean water standards. Van de Kamp’s researchers note that her administration also sought a change in the Clean Water Act to eliminate the requirement for secondary treatment of sewage dumped both in the bay and offshore.