BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, April 20, 2018 12:30 p.m. EBRPD – Administrative Headquarters 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California 94605
The following agenda items are listed for Committee consideration. In accordance with the Board Operating Guidelines, no official action of the Board will be taken at this meeting; rather, the Committee’s purpose shall be to review the listed items and to consider developing recommendations to the Board of Directors.
A copy of the background materials concerning these agenda items, including any material that may have been submitted less than 72 hours before the meeting, is available for inspection on the District’s website (www. ebparks.org), the Headquarters reception desk, and at the meeting.
Public Comment on Agenda Items If you wish to testify on an item on the agenda, please complete a speaker’s form and submit it to the recording secretary. Your name will be called when the item is announced for discussion.
Accommodations and Access District facilities and meetings comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If special accommodations are needed for you to participate, please contact the Clerk of the Board at 510-544-2020 as soon as possible, but preferably at least three working days prior to the meeting.
AGENDA
TIME ITEM STATUS STAFF 12:30 I. STATE LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION R Doyle/Pfuehler 1. AB 1918 – Office of Sustainable Outdoor Recreation (Garcia D-Coachella) 2. AB 2126 – California Conservation Corps Forestry Corps Program (Eggman D-
Stockton)
3. AB 2434 – Strategic Growth Council Health in All Policies Program (Bloom D-Santa Monica) 4. AB 2534 – Environmental Education Grant Program (Limon D-Santa Barbara) 5. AB 2615 – Safe Routes to Parks (Carrillo D-Los Angeles) 6. AB 2916 – Financially Challenged Fire
Districts (Grayson D-Concord)
7. AB 3160 – Conveyance of Federal Defense
Base Closure Lands (Grayson D-Concord)
8. SB 835 – Smoking Ban in State Parks
(Glazer D-Orinda)
9. SB 836 – Smoking Ban at State Beaches
(Glazer D-Orinda)
10. SB 1301 – State Environmental Permitting Processes (Beall D-San Jose) 11. SB 1335 – Disposable Food Service Packaging (Allen D-Santa Monica) Doyle/Pfuehler 12. SR 100 – 100th Anniversary of Save the Redwoods League (McGuire D-Healdsburg) I
B. OTHER MATTERS 1. Prop. 68 Park Bond 2. Other matters
II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS R Pfuehler A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. H.Res. 799 – Cesar Chavez Day (Cardenas D-CA) 2. S. 2603 – Complete America’s Great Trails Act (Blumenthal D-CT)
B. OTHER MATTERS I Pfuehler 1. Other Matters
III. REGIONAL MEASURE 3 R Pfuehler/Doyle
IV. STRATEGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRACKING I Pfuehler INSTRUMENT
V. CONSIDERATION OF MEASURE CC R Doyle/Pfuehler EXTENSION
VI. ARTICLES
VII. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT Individuals wishing to address the Committee on a topic not on the agenda may do so by completing a speaker’s form and submitting it to the recording secretary.
VIII. BOARD COMMENTS
(R) Recommendation for Future Board Consideration (I) Information (D) Discussion Legislative Committee Members Future Meetings: Dee Rosario (Chair); Dennis Waespi, Beverly Lane January 8 & 26 July 20 Colin Coffey, Alternate February – NO MTG August – NO MTG Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager *March 9 September 21 April 20 October 19 May 18 November – NO MTG June – NO MTG *December 14
TO: Board Legislative Committee (Chair Dee Rosario, Dennis Waespi, Beverly Lane, Alt. Colin Coffey)
FROM: Robert E. Doyle, General Manager Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager
SUBJECT: Board Legislative Committee Meeting WHEN: Friday, April 20, 2018 12:30 PM Lunch will be served
WHERE: Board Room, Peralta Oaks ______
Items to be discussed:
I. STATE LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. AB 1918 – Office of Sustainable Outdoor Recreation (Garcia D-Coachella) Assembly Member Garcia’s bill would establish the Office of Sustainable Outdoor Recreation (OSOR) within the Natural Resources Agency. The OSOR would promote economic development and job growth in the outdoor recreation economy of the state. In 2012, District staff convened with some of the major outdoor industry association members to discuss working more collaboratively on increasing market share for park and open space use, as well as growing their industry. Those efforts led to the District’s participation in an Outdoor Industry Association (OIA) conference in Washington, D.C. in 2016. Despite the engagement – and the fact that the outdoor recreation economy is $92 billion and supports 691,000 jobs in California – the OIA and their companies have had little involvement in Sacramento or in California policy. District staff and Advocate Houston have been working for several years to establish an OSOR to strengthen the link between the OIA and state government. AB 1918 is similar to AB 907 which the District supported last year. The key difference is the OSOR, under AB 907, would have been housed in the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development. AB 1918 would house the OSOR within Resources.
Staff Recommendation: Support
2. AB 2126 – California Conservation Corps Forestry Corps Program (Eggman D-Stockton) Assembly Member Eggman’s bill would require the California Conservation Corps, within the Natural Resources Agency, to establish a forestry corps program. The forestry corps crews would be trained to work on reducing wildfire hazards, planting trees, forestry conservation and wildlands forest firefighting. Currently, AB 2126 calls for two crews to be established: (1) in the Delta, and (2) in the Inland Empire. The District is working with Assembly Member Quirk’s office to ask to amend the bill to include a crew for the East Bay.
Staff Recommendation: Support, but work to amend
1 3. AB 2434 – Strategic Growth Council Health in All Policies Program (Bloom D-Santa Monica) Assembly Member Bloom’s legislation would establish a Health in All Policies Program within the Strategic Growth Council (SGC). The SGC, in collaboration with the State Department of Public Health, will work to incorporate health, equity and sustainability considerations into decision-making across sectors and policy areas. The program would advance the SGC’s goals of improving air and water quality, protecting natural resources and agricultural lands, increasing the availability of affordable housing, improving infrastructure, promoting public health, planning resilient sustainable communities and meeting the State’s climate change goals. The City of Richmond has had a Health in All Policies Strategy and Ordinance in place since 2015. Access to parks and trails, for the purposes preventing illnesses long before an individual needs to see a physician, is a key component of Richmond’s strategy. There is also a nexus between Health in All Policies and the Healthy Parks, Healthy People initiative.
Staff Recommendation: Support
4. AB 2534 – Environmental Education Grant Program (Limon D-Santa Barbara) Assembly Member Limon’s bill would require the Director of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to establish the Outdoor Equity Grants Program, to increase environmental educational experiences for disadvantaged communities. The bill would establish the California Outdoor Equity Account in the State Parks and Recreation Fund, which could accept private funds to support the program. The legislative bill specifically states the DPR Partnerships Office may partner with “regional open-space districts” to implement the program. It is a goal of the state, especially in relation to parks and access to the outdoors, that all people, including those that have historically not benefited from these experiences, have an opportunity to do so. This is especially encapsulated in the work done by the Parks Forward Commission. According to the Parks Forward Commission report, released in February 2015, improving access to parks, outdoor experiences and recreational opportunities, particularly for youth and young adults in disadvantaged communities, will lead to healthier lifestyles, better educational outcomes, and improvements to the overall well-being of California’s citizens and communities, as well as our natural environment. Groups supporting AB 2534 include Audubon California, California League of Conservation Voters, California State Parks Foundation, Latino Outdoors, Save the Redwoods League and The Trust for Public Land.
Staff recommendation: Support
5. AB 2615 – Safe Routes to Parks (Carrillo D-Los Angeles) Assembly Member Carrillo’s legislation seeks to incorporate safe, non-motorized routes to parks within Caltrans planning processes for the state highway system. The author states, Caltrans often does not consider issues relating to safe park access when planning for transportation projects. This bill would make such considerations more prominent in infrastructure planning, and appears to be consistent with Caltrans’ Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. Groups supporting AB 2615 include California Park and Recreation Society, Latino Outdoors, Outdoor Afro, the Outdoor Industry Association, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority and the Trust for Public Lands.
Staff recommendation: Support
2 6. AB 2916 – Financially Challenged Fire Districts (Grayson D-Concord) Assembly Member Grayson’s bill, as amended on March 22nd, would have opened the door for re-adjusting the percentages of the ad valorem tax each local governmental entity in a county receives. The March 22nd version of the bill was specific to “qualified fire protection districts.” This appeared to be another attempt to readjust allocations in Contra Costa County to improve the financial situation for the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD). The District’s Sacramento Advocate, Doug Houston, subsequently checked-in with Assembly Member Grayson’s staff and learned this bill will be amended to require the State auditor to study the scope of local fire districts that are financially deficient. Subsequent conversations with staff indicate language to redirect $3 million from the state Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) to ECCFPD may be added. Given the legislative history of seeking to improve the situation for ECCFPD, staff is recommending the District watch this legislation.
Staff recommendation: Watch
7. AB 3160 – Conveyance of Federal Defense Base Closure Lands (Grayson D-Concord) Assembly Member Grayson’s legislation is intended to ensure the Concord Naval Weapons Station, and potentially other Federal Defense Base Closure Lands, can be conveyed without triggering the provisions of SB 50, which was Chaptered on October 6, 2017. SB 50 established a state-wide policy to discourage conveyance of federal public lands in California to third parties, and outlined a process for the State Lands Commission to implement or waive this policy. SB 50 was adopted to resist the Trump Administration’s efforts to reduce and/or eliminate existing National Monuments. Assembly Member Grayson’s bill would exempt, from SB 50, the sale or lease of land which is authorized for disposal or realignment by the federal government during the base realignment and closure process, pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510).
Staff recommendation: Support
8. SB 835 – Smoking Ban in State Parks (Glazer D-Orinda) Senator Glazer’s bill would make it an infraction to smoke in a unit of the state park system, punishable by a fine up to $25. Senator Glazer attempted to enact similar legislation last year, but Governor Brown vetoed it. In his veto message, he stated, “the fine prescribed in this bill for lighting one cigarette is excessive: $485.” He also vetoed similar legislation by Assembly Member Levine which reduced the maximum fine to $50, hence Senator Glazer’s $25 fine in this legislation. The Governor also stated in his veto message, “If people can’t smoke even on a deserted beach, where can they? There must be some limit to the coercive power of government.” Groups supporting this legislation include California Park and Recreation Society, Mount Diablo Audubon Society, Save the Bay and the Trust for Public Land. Given the District has its own smoking ban under Ordinance 38, it would be consistent to support this legislation as a member of the East Bay delegation.
Staff recommendation: Support
3 9. SB 836 – Smoking Ban at State Beaches (Glazer D-Orinda) Senator Glazer’s bill would make it an infraction to smoke on a state coastal beach, punishable by a fine up to $25. Senator Glazer attempted to enact similar legislation last year, but Governor Brown vetoed it. In his veto message, he stated “the fine prescribed in this bill for lighting one cigarette is excessive: $485.” He also vetoed similar legislation by Assembly Member Levine which reduced the maximum fine to $50, hence Senator Glazer’s $25 fine in this legislation. The Governor also stated in his veto message, “If people can’t smoke even on a deserted beach, where can they? There must be some limit to the coercive power of government.” Groups supporting this legislation include California Park and Recreation Society, Mount Diablo Audubon Society, Save the Bay, and The Trust for Public Land. Given the District has its own smoking ban under Ordinance 38, it would be consistent to support this legislation as a member of the East Bay delegation.
Staff recommendation: Support
10. SB 1301 – State Environmental Permitting Processes (Beall D-San Jose) Senator Beall’s bill will require the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the California Coastal Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, and a California regional water quality control board to keep an accurate record of permit processing times. It also requires the Office of Planning and Research to develop a joint multiagency pre-application and model fee-for-service agreement process for permits. The bill is intended to provide a transparent measurement of state environmental permitting for dam safety and flood risk reduction projects. It is sponsored by the Santa Clara Valley Water District. It is being looked at as a model for streamlining the permitting process for projects which receive funding from the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority.
Staff recommendation: Support
11.SB 1335 – Disposable Food Service Packaging (Allen D-Santa Monica) Senator Allen’s bill would help ensure disposable food service packaging is compostable. The legislation is specific to food service facilities in state agencies and large state facilities. Among the goals is to reduce the use of Styrofoam. The Ocean Protection Council estimates the current cost of cleaning up marine debris, including take-out food packaging, annually may exceed $1 billion. District shoreline properties experience a fair bit of debris, and this effort will help reduce those impacts. This legislation is consistent with the District’s environmental ethic and sustainability efforts. In addition, the District is currently composting at one level or another in 17 of the 73 parks and at three staff facilities. The bill is supported by California League of Conservation Voters, National Parks Conservation Association, Save the Bay, Sierra Club, and The Trust for Public Land.
Staff recommendation: Support
12.SR 100 – 100th Anniversary of Save the Redwoods League (McGuire D-Healdsburg) Senator McGuire’s resolution recognizes 2018 as the 100th Anniversary of Save the Redwoods League (STRL) and urges the people of California to share in this event by celebrating California’s redwoods. It encourages support for redwood conservation and restoration into
4 the future. This year, the District plans to partner with STRL on commemoration events in the East Bay. The proposed Measure CC extension commitment list also calls for a redwood management plan, expanding the partnership with STRL and increasing interpretation of redwood natural history.
Staff recommendation: Support
B. OTHER MATTERS 1. Prop. 68 Park Bond Proposition 68 is a general obligation bond that invests $4 billion in the coming years to address some of California’s most important park and natural resource needs. The state legislature passed the California Clean Water and Parks Act (SB 5) with bipartisan support, and it will appear on the June 5 statewide ballot. The District has been working on enacting a “true” statewide park bond for six years, and Prop. 68 is the culmination of those efforts. The General Manager, staff, and Advocate Houston will provide a verbal update.
2. Other matters
II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. H.Res. 799 – Cesar Chavez Day (Cardenas D-CA) Representative Cardenas from San Fernando Valley introduced this resolution to recognize March 31 as national “Cesar Chavez Day.” Currently, ten states, including California, honor the life and legacy of Cesar Estrada Chávez on March 31st of each year. The resolution also encourages the people of the United States to commemorate the legacy of César Estrada Chávez and to always remember his great rallying cry, “¡Sí, se puede!”, which is Spanish for “Yes, we can!”.
Staff recommendation: Support
2. S. 2603 – Complete America’s Great Trails (Blumenthal D-CT) Senator Blumenthal has re-introduced his legislation similar to Representative Connolly’s bill H.R. 1015, which the District supported in 2017. The Complete America’s Great Trails Act has the potential to significantly benefit some of the most spectacular trails in America. This proposed legislation would grant a tax credit to private landowners who provide conservation easements to certified National Scenic Trails – resulting in a low-cost incentive for willing landowners to donate easements which would increase trail connectivity. This means private landowners have a new incentive to allow hikers to pass through their property, and trails get a guaranteed corridor that protects the connectivity and continuity of the hiking experience for years to come. The Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail could benefit from this legislation. While it may be a challenge to pass this legislation in the current political climate, it is a positive precedent and the District should encourage our delegation to support.
Staff recommendation: Support
B. OTHER MATTERS 1. Other Matters
5
III. REGIONAL MEASURE 3 SB 595 (Beall D-San Jose) was signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown in the fall of 2017. Voters in each of the nine Bay Area counties will consider Regional Measure 3 (RM 3) on the June 5 ballot. If approved, it would raise tolls on the region’s state-owned toll bridges by $3 over the next six years. Toll revenues would be used to finance $4.45 billion in highway and transit improvements. RM 3 includes $150 million for the San Francisco Bay Trail and Safe Routes to Transit. The District took a support position on SB 595 and is now being asked to support the ballot measure.
Staff recommendation: Support
IV. STRATEGY RESEARCH INSTITUTE TRACKING INSTRUMENT Strategy Research Institute fielded a survey in the Measure CC zone from March 28-31. The survey has a sample size of 408 likely voters and has a margin of error between four and five percent. Dr. Gary (George) Manrsoss, Ph.D. Chairman/CEO will present the findings.
V. CONSIDERATION OF MEASURE CC EXTENSION April 20th is the last Legislative Committee meeting prior to the scheduled proceedings for the establishment of a community facilities district for the possible extension of Measure CC at the May 1, 2018 Board Meeting. At the January 16, 2018 Board Meeting, the Board reviewed and accepted a draft list of commitments to the voters in the CC zone. Adoption of the list was a public commitment by the District to the future expenditure of funds on listed projects and tasks, should a 2018 Measure CC extension be placed on the ballot by the Board and approved by voters. Since the January 16, 2018 action was taken, a research survey was conducted to provide information critical to the Board’s deliberations.
The testing standard by which staff generally recommends proceeding with a measure is the go/no- go threshold of 2/3 plus margin of error of the survey, in this case 4-5%. Based on the results of the survey, as they will be presented at this meeting, the Board Legislative Committee will be requested to discuss and make a recommendation on proceeding with the measure.
Staff recommendation: The Board Legislative Committee is requested to review the available information and make a go-no-go recommendation to the full Board regarding placing a 20-year extension of Measure CC on the November 6, 2018 General Election ballot.
VI. ARTICLES
VII. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT
VIII. BOARD COMMENTS
6
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI April 20, 2018
National Park Service drops plan for $40 fee hike — $5 instead
By Kurtis Alexander ; Updated 4:57 pm, Thursday, April 12, 2018
Photo: Michael Macor / The Chronicle The cost of a seven-day vehicle pass at Yosemite National Park will increase from $30 to $35, starting June 1.
The National Park Service is abandoning its plan to more than double entrance fees at its most popular parks after strong public backlash, announcing Thursday more modest, yet broader price increases instead. Starting June 1, the cost of a seven-day vehicle pass will increase by $5 at 117 parks, officials said. The parks now charge $15 to $30 for admission. Yosemite’s entrance fee will rise to $35. Last year, Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke, who oversees the Park Service, proposed raising entrance fees to $70 at 17 popular parks, including Yosemite, Sequoia-Kings Canyon and Joshua Tree, in an effort to shore up an $11.6 billion backlog of maintenance work across the agency. The plan prompted more than 100,000 public comments, the bulk of which opposed the rate hike. Many worried that it would price Americans out of the nation’s iconic monuments and landscapes. Several critics praised the Park Service’s change of course.
“The public spoke, and the administration listened,” said Theresa Pierno, president of the National Parks Conservation Association. “The administration’s move to abandon its original proposal in favor of more measured fee increases will put additional funds into enhancing park experiences without threatening visitation or local economies.” The new fee hike is expected to boost annual admissions revenue, which was $199 million in the 2016 fiscal year, by about $60 million. The earlier plan would have increased annual revenue by an estimated $70 million. The money raised from the $5 fee increase will remain within the Park Service, with 80 percent of it staying at the park that collects the money. It will be used to upgrade visitor services, officials said, with much of it going to deferred maintenance. “I want to thank the American people who made their voices heard through the public comment process on the original fee proposal,” Zinke said, in a statement. “This is just one of the ways we are carrying out our commitment to ensure that national parks remain world class destinations that provide an excellent value for families from all income levels.” Still, some panned the fee hike, saying the Trump administration should be raising revenue for the Park Service by increasing the agency’s budget, not burdening park users. “Secretary Zinke’s decision to raise all national park entrance fees will barely make a dent in the $11.6 billion maintenance backlog,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D- Calif. “Instead, this drastic fee hike will make visiting their national parks unaffordable for too many families.” The prices for both the America the Beautiful National Parks and Federal Recreational Lands Annual Pass and the Lifetime Senior Pass will remain $80, according to the new plan. Those passes gain entrance into all national parks. Annual passes for individual parks will increase $5 to $10, depending on the park. The seven-day price of admission for pedestrians, currently $7 to $15, will increase $3 to $5. The seven-day price of admission for motorcyclists, currently $10 to $25, will increase $5. Most of the Park Service’s 417 historical, cultural and ecological sites, such as Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San Francisco, are free to enter. These areas will remain free. Kurtis Alexander is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @kurtisalexander
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI April 20, 2018
Haley Britzky Mar 24 How Trump delivered on Obama promises — big time
Photo: Cheriss May / NurPhoto via Getty Images The $1.3 trillion spending deal that President Trump signed on Friday expands many of President Obama's priorities, despite his previous proposals to do the exact opposite, Politico's Michael Grunwald notes.
The big picture: Most of Congress didn't really read it; Trump threatened to veto the bill yesterday, and ended up signing it anyway. He said he would never sign a bill like that again, but it was too late: a White House official told Axios' Mike Allen that Trump's signing led to "the hardest I've ever seen the base turn on Trump over anything."
Show less What's in the bill:
• The U.S. Census saw a $1.34 billion increase, "double what the Trump administration requested," CBS reports. • Trump proposed last year to cut nonmilitary spending by $54 billion. That didn't happen, Politico reports. • It doesn't eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood, something conservatives were betting on, per the Daily Caller. • In July, the House Appropriations subcommittee on transportation voted to cut funding for TIGER, a grant program created by Obama. Under the new budget bill, its funding was tripled. • Per Politico, the bill doesn't "add new detention beds for undocumented immigrants," like Trump wanted. • Axios' Jonathan Swan and Stef Kight reported this week that Republicans failed to cut federal funds to sanctuary cities in the bill. • When Trump threatened a veto, he acknowledged that the "BORDER WALL, which is desperately needed for our National Defense, is not fully funded." • Trump proposed in February to replace food stamps with monthly boxes of nonperishable foods. Politico reports that didn't receive funding. • Per Politico, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Endowment for the Arts, and the Legal Services Corporation were provided with "modest funding increases," despite the plan to get rid of them. • Trump proposed cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and Pell Grants. Each of these saw an increase in funding. • The Department of Energy's renewables budget was raised by 14%, despite Trump's desired cuts.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI April 20, 2018
Republicans essentially opt out of California’s U.S. Senate race
By John Wildermuth March 26, 2018 Updated: March 27, 2018 6:00am
Photo: Denis Poroy / Associated Press Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., speaks at the 2018 California Democrats State Convention Saturday, Feb. 24, 2018, in San Diego. (AP Photo/Denis Poroy)
Republicans have virtually opted out of California’s U.S. Senate race, clearing the way for an all-Democratic contest in November. While the official list of candidates for the June 5 primary, released late Friday night by Secretary of State Alex Padilla, includes 11 Republicans among the 31 candidates challenging Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, there’s much less there than meets the eye.
None of those GOP hopefuls has reported raising a single dollar for a primary run, according to the Federal Election Commission. Compare that with the $9 million Feinstein had in her campaign account at the end of 2017 or the $359,000 Democrat Kevin de León, a state senator from Los Angeles, reported.
Even Democrat Alison Hartson, an Orange County progressive and the longest of long shots, is sitting on $164,000 for her primary campaign.
“If there was criminal malfeasance in politics, this is it,” said Tony Quinn, a former Republican consultant and an editor of the nonpartisan California Target Book, which analyzes state races. “There are plenty of Republicans looking to vote for someone with an ‘R’ after their name. ... Someone could have spent $1 million to get on slate cards and then finish second.”
The GOP’s candidate woes don’t end with the Senate race.
In the contest to replace termed-out state Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones, there’s not a Republican on the ballot, although Steve Poizner, who served in the post for four years as a Republican, is running as an independent.
The state treasurer’s race, which has a job open since Democrat John Chiang opted to run for governor, has Peninsula Republican Greg Conlon and Jack Guerrero, a GOP councilman from Cudahy in Los Angeles County, on the ballot, but neither has reported raising any money for the campaign. By contrast, San Francisco Democrat Fiona Ma, a member of the state Board of Equalization, has $1.6 million in the bank.
While the state superintendent of public instruction is ostensibly a nonpartisan job, it hasn’t worked out that way. Tom Torlakson, the current schools chief, is a former Democratic state legislator, just like his two most recent predecessors. The only candidates who have raised any money for the race, Richmond Assemblyman Tony Thurmond and charter school advocate Marshall Tuck of Novato, are both Democrats.
Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, Associated Press Republican Eric Early, a candidate for attorney general, speaks at a candidates’ debate in Sacramento on March 21, but he is little-known and underfunded.
Two Republicans, retired South Lake Tahoe Judge Steven Bailey and Los Angeles attorney Eric Early, are running for attorney general. But the little-known and underfunded candidates face an uphill battle against a pair of Democrats, appointed Attorney General Xavier Becerra and Jones, the outgoing insurance commissioner, who each have name identification and more than $3.1 million in the bank.
It wasn’t supposed to be like this. When asked in July why so few big-name Republicans were running for office, GOP party Chairman Jim Brulte argued it was nothing more than a temporary aberration and certainly no reason for Republicans to panic.
“There are candidates. You just don’t see them on the secretary of state’s list yet,” he said in a Chronicle interview. “The fields aren’t firm yet. This is a better conversation in January than it is now.”
Photo: Chris Carlson, AP California Republican Party Chairman Jim Brulte speaks during the party’s general assembly meeting in Anaheim in 2015.
January now has passed, along with the March 9 filing deadline, and the Republicans’ candidate situation hasn’t improved much. Democrats hold every statewide office, and GOP leaders would be hard-pressed to point to a 2018 contest where that is likely to change.
“There are a number of good Republican candidates running for U.S. Senate in California,” said Matt Fleming, a party spokesman. But he didn’t say which of those 11 GOP hopefuls he was talking about or suggest that the party plans to help one or more of those candidates with either cash or serious party support.
In California’s top-two primary system, every candidate appears on the same ballot and only the first two finishers, regardless of party, advance to the fall election. That means if Democrats sweep the first two places in the Senate primary, Republicans would find themselves shut out of a top-of-the-ticket race in November, which could be very bad news for the party’s chances elsewhere on the ballot. Primaries and special elections around the country already have shown a troubling drop in turnout by Republicans, many of them unhappy with President Trump and his policies, said Quinn.
“To keep marginal seats, Republicans need a strong turnout,” he added. If an all-Democrat Senate race keeps disgruntled Republicans at home, “it could be a disaster at the congressional and legislative level.”
Not all the GOP efforts turned out poorly. While Republicans were unable to recruit a well- known, top-tier candidate in the governor’s race, where Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown is termed out of office, the party’s prospects there seem to be improving.
While Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom continues to be the front-runner, recent polls have shown Republican John Cox, a San Diego-area businessman making his first try for public office in the state, moving into second place and a possible spot on November’s ballot.
In the contest to replace Newsom as lieutenant governor, Republican Cole Harris, a Pasadena businessman, showed just how serious he is when he dropped $1 million of his own money into his campaign earlier this month. Democrats Jeff Bleich, Ed Hernandez and Eleni Kounalakis also have more than $1.1 million each in their campaign accounts.
Republicans also have challengers to Padilla, the secretary of state, and Controller Betty Yee, ensuring that neither of the incumbents will go unchallenged.
In congressional contests, however, Democrats are worried that they have too many challengers. With Democrats both here and in Washington, D.C., looking to flip a number of the state’s 14 GOP-held seats, there’s concern that an unruly gang of candidates might step on each others’ campaigns and make it easier for a Republican to win in November.
In the seven Republicans seats that are at the top of the target list, there are 33 Democrats on the primary ballot, many of them with plenty of money and backing. For party leaders, that hints of a nasty and expensive political June brawl that could hurt the Democrats in the fall.
Party leaders already are working to trim those numbers. Last week, for example, Democrat Laura Oatman dropped out of the race against Orange County Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, although her name will stay on the ballot. She urged other challengers to get behind Democrat Harley Rouda.
If that doesn’t work, in that district and others, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has said it’s willing to put its collective thumb on the scale to back the candidate its members believe has the best chance of winning.
“The DCCC reserves the right to get involved in the Democratic primary” and support one candidate, Drew Godinich, a committee spokesman, said in a January interview.
John Wildermuth is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @jfwildermuth
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI April 20, 2018
Former Coal Lobbyist On Tap For No. 2 Spot At EPA
March 17, 20185:00 AM ET
REBECCA HERSHER Twitter
Andrew Wheeler during his November 2017 Senate confirmation hearing to be deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Alex Edelman/picture-alliance/dpa/AP
President Trump's nominee for deputy administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Andrew Wheeler, has spent much of his career working for less oversight from the agency.
A longtime aide to Sen. James Inhofe, known for his climate-denying antics on the floor of the Senate, Wheeler worked on environmental legislation for more than 15 years in various roles on the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. He helped to defeat a 2008 climate bill before leaving to be a private consultant and lobbyist. That experience will serve Wheeler well as deputy administrator, his supporters argue, as the EPA continues to roll back Obama-era rules and regulations, and the agency works more closely with industry.
"I know where the laws are drafted," Wheeler said when he appeared before that same committee for his confirmation hearing last year. He joked with Senators and seemed at-ease answering questions from his old colleagues, even as Democrats raised concerns about his past work as a lobbyist. Since 2009, Wheeler has represented the interests of some of the largest fossil fuel companies in the U.S. as a consultant and lobbyist, and national environmental groups including the Natural Resources Defense Council and Sierra Club oppose his nomination. According to an analysis of public documents by ProPublica, Wheeler has worked as a registered lobbyist for, among others, a major uranium mining company, one of the largest coal companies in the country and a refrigerant manufacturer. Each of the companies has worked to shape EPA regulations in their favor in recent years.
The uranium mining company, Energy Fuels Resources Inc., is based in Colorado. Last year, the company lobbied to shrink Bears Ears National Monument, which is adjacent to one of the company's uranium processing mills. The refrigerant manufacturer, ICOR International, hired Wheeler to lobby Congress and the EPA for less stringent ozone regulations. Following his nomination last fall, the Sierra Club's legislative director Melinda Pierce said Wheeler is "unfit for the job as Deputy EPA Administrator, given his obvious conflicts of interest working for the coal industry."
Wheeler also lobbied on behalf of utility giant Xcel Energy and has lobbied or consulted for multiple companies with interests in expanding the market for ethanol, including Growth Energy, the trade group for ethanol producers. The EPA is responsible for setting fuel requirements that affect the market for ethanol.
Xcel also has a complex relationship with the EPA. The company has invested heavily in renewable energy since the agency passed a sweeping electricity regulation which led states and utilities to make long-term plans for transitioning to clean energy. The EPA is now moving to repeal the so-called Clean Power Plan, but many states have still require utilities, including Xcel, to follow through on transitioning from dirtier fuels like coal to cleaner ones like wind, as the public radio collaboration InsideEnergy has reported. Asked to comment on how Wheeler's past lobbying and consulting work might affect his approach to helping run the EPA, EPA spokesperson Liz Bowman said "Mr. Wheeler – like all political nominees – is committed to following the ethics advice of career officials at EPA and will recuse himself as needed, based on the advice of those experts."
The Senate panel's top-ranking Democrat, Sen. Tom Carper, said earlier this year that he had asked Wheeler specifically about his work with the coal company Murray Energy. The company's CEO Bob Murray has long fought environmental and climate regulations. Last year, Murray sent a memo to Pruitt laying out an "action plan" that included repealing limits on mercury emissions and reversing the agency's so-called endangerment finding that greenhouse gas emissions are dangerous to public health. Murray also pushed for the administration to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement, which President Trump announced he would do last year.
Speaking at a hearing, Carper said he had spoken to Wheeler about his relationship with Murray, and found Wheeler's explanations encouraging:
"I have met personally with Mr. Wheeler twice, and I have asked him directly whether he was involved in writing Mr. Murray's proposal. He assured me he was not. He told me that one of Murray Energy's priority issues he worked on was securing health and other benefits for retired miners. Moreover, he also assured me that he views EPA's legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which is based on the 'endangerment finding,' as settled law. I have no reason to doubt Mr. Wheeler's assurances that at least on the question of the endangerment finding, he holds a view that is distinct from Bob Murray's."
Asked if Wheeler shared Murray's support for items in the action plan, Bowman said "Mr. Wheeler supports the president's decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement."
Wheeler has worked at the EPA before, as a special assistant in the agency's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics in the early 1990s. His focus was on regulating toxic chemicals — at the time, the EPA was working to update the agency's "early warning" system for keeping track of new chemical hazards. Wheeler helped draft guidelines about what information chemical companies were required to disclose to the EPA.
That work may prove to be relevant to running today's EPA. More than 20 years later, the agency is in the midst of implementing a sweeping law passed under the Obama administration that changes many chemical reporting requirements. How that law is implemented will determine the EPA's power to enforce chemical pollution limits for the foreseeable future. For example, the Trump administration rewrote and Obama-era proposed rule to narrow the number of chemicals the agency will review for safety hazards, excluding chemicals like flame retardants that are present in a lot of plush furniture, but are no longer used in manufacturing new products. Carper's office did not respond to questions about the current timeline for Wheeler's confirmation, which has been stalled since he was nominated last year.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI April 20, 2018
Guest opinion: Get behind RM3, the Bay Area depends on it
Regional Measure 3 will provide resources for projects like BART expansion, write Wunderman, Metcalf and Guardino.
By Jim Wunderman, Gabe Metcalf and Carl Guardino Mar 22, 2018, 11:19am
San Francisco is a rapidly growing city with attractive job opportunities, low unemployment, and is known for its forward-thinking community. But, with rapid growth comes a very noticeable problem in San Francisco and the Bay Area — traffic congestion. In fact, San Francisco ranks second in population density in the United States, which equates to more cars on the roadways and greater reliance on efficient public transit options to get people to and from where they need to be.
Regional Measure 3 (RM3) is a necessary investment to ensure our city is prepared for the future and to maintain a safe, navigable city that can be enjoyed by residents and visitors alike.
RM3 will provide the resources for significant projects like BART expansion, Transbay rail crossing, AC Transit rapid bus corridor improvements, Caltrain downtown extension, ferry enhancement, trail and bike route improvements to public transit and a next-generation Clipper transit fare payment system. BART will gain 300 additional new railcars, garnering greater reliability, more service, and less crowding. Meanwhile, the next- generation Clipper system will expand riders’ ability to use a single card to pay for many different transit systems. The frequency of WETA ferry service will also double, with new routes and a new terminal in San Francisco. The measure is estimated to generate $4.45 billion over 25 years for transit projects, highway improvements, and better bicycle and pedestrian access.
The traffic congestion in San Francisco and the Bay Area can no longer be ignored. By voting yes for the passage of RM3 on June 5th, we are contributing to the progress and future of our city. It is time to say goodbye to wasted time spent in traffic and hello to a city and region connected by efficient roadways and public transit.
A combined majority vote of all voters in the nine-county region can secure the financing for these significant transit improvements. RM3 would increase tolls on the seven state- owned bridges in the region by $3: Tolls would rise $1 in 2019, $1 in 2022, and $1 in 2025. The Golden Gate Bridge is owned by a separate authority and would not be a part of the increase.
Notably, in 2017 San Francisco ranked third-worst in the United States for traffic congestion behind Los Angeles and New York City, and fifth in the world behind those cities, Moscow and Sao Paulo. San Francisco commuters averaged 79 hours in peak-time congestion for the year, according to the traffic scorecard assembled by INRIX.
Failure to invest in the future of our transit system is not acceptable for a city as innovative as San Francisco. We must be willing to put our best foot forward and bring the necessary improvements to our transportation network. San Francisco’s transportation network is important to our day-to-day lives, to business growth, and to our ever- burgeoning tourism industry. The San Francisco population is estimated to reach around 889,792 by July 1, 2018 and the San Francisco Travel Association forecasts that the city will reach over 26.281 million visitors in 2018. We are a leading city and we must acknowledge that San Francisco values the investments provided by RM3 with a yes vote on June 5th.
Jim Wunderman is president and CEO of the Bay Area Council. Gabe Metcalf is president and CEO of SPUR. Carl Guardino is president and CEO of Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI April 20, 2018
Spending bill includes major wildfire overhaul BY TIMOTHY CAMA - 03/22/18 12:02 PM EDT 15
The spending bill Congress is considering includes a major, bipartisan effort to overhaul how the U.S. government spends money to fight wildfires on federal land.
The provision in the omnibus appropriations bill, released publicly late Wednesday, is meant to cut down on a practice known as "fire borrowing" in which agencies like the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management move money meant to reduce fire risks and use it to fight fires.
It also would allow federal agencies to access disaster funds for particularly expensive fires.
A bipartisan group of lawmakers has for years been pushing the policies to give firefighting agencies more predictability in budgeting and cut down on taking funds from other areas. The problem has been exacerbated in recent years as wildfires have grown more costly and deadlier, due to factors like climate change, drought and increasing development, according to federal researchers and land managers.
“Pacific Northwest lawmakers have worked together to force Congress to finally address the persistent shortfalls in our nation’s wildland firefighting budgets,” Sen. Maria Cantwell (Wash.), the top Democrat on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee and a leader in the fire effort, said in a statement.
“This puts an end to fire-borrowing and is a start to giving the Forest Service the predictable resources they need to reduce hazardous fuels. This funding boost will allow the Forest Service to prioritize work in areas closest to communities, in order to save lives and reduce the risk of property damage, while still protecting essential public lands and existing environmental laws.”
“The FY18 Omnibus spending bill might be one of the most critical pieces of legislation for western members I have seen since coming to Congress,” said Rep. Mike Simpson (R- Idaho).
“It is long past due that wildfires in the west receive equal treatment with other natural disasters and this bill delivers the necessary budget changes to stop the dangerous practice of fire borrowing that has led to catastrophic wildfires in Idaho and throughout the West.”
The wildfire policy garnered praise from various interests, including conservation advocates and the forestry industry.
“In the wake of last year’s devastating megafires, today’s agreement is an absolutely essential step towards reducing fire threats and improving the safety of local communities by restoring the health of America’s forests,” said CoLlin O’Mara, president of the National Wildlife Federation.
“This deal is a result of years of tireless advocacy by bipartisan champions from the Senate and House, conservation organizations, the forest products industry, and state governors and county governments — all of whom joined forces to address this growing crisis — and Congress must ensure its passage in the final omnibus bill,” he said.
“This bi-partisan fix will address both the budgetary erosion that has been occurring for the past ten years, as well as the ‘fire borrowing’ from other programs when funds have been exhausted,” said Tom Martin, president of the American Forest Foundation.
But Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah), chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, slammed the provision, saying it should have included reforms to increase removal of brush and trees from federal land. “It doesn’t solve the problem. Solving the problem is stopping the damn fires, not spending more money to put them out once they get started,” Bishop said Thursday.
Republicans have supported Bishop’s proposals in the past, and the forestry industry would benefit from increased logging. He blamed Senate Democrats from eastern states, “who don’t know what a forest looks like,” for blocking his suggestions.
“So there’ll be another fire season, it’ll be the [Senate Minority Leader Charles] Schumer [D-N.Y.] Fire Season of 2018. And everything will burn again, simply because they don’t understand how to actually solve a problem.”
The House could vote on the bill as early as Thursday. The Senate would then have to vote. President Trump would likely sign it if passed.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI April 20, 2018
Analysis: GOP in control, but Dems’ budget priorities are winning
By Andrew Taylor
Published 2:34 pm, Saturday, March 24, 2018
Photo: Mark Wilson, Getty Images Flanked by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis (left), Vice President Mike Pence and Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, President Trump discusses the $1.3 trillion spending bill he signed. WASHINGTON — Under President Barack Obama and a GOP-controlled Congress, Capitol Hill Democrats had to scratch and claw for months to get tiny increases for domestic programs — or just hold them level. The $1.3 trillion government-wide funding bill signed by President Trump on Friday gave them almost everything they wanted. Big fights in 2016 over $1.1 billion emergency funding to battle the Zika virus or $170 million to deal with lead-poisoned water in Flint, Mich., look pretty silly in retrospect. Then, just keeping programs like Head Start, child care grants, and heating subsidies for the poor funded at prior-year levels required months-long battles — backstopped by Obama veto threats.
“You had to fight for every dollar,” said the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont. The times certainly have changed. Democrats have gone from battling for every scrap to reaping a full-course meal under Trump. In the spending bill that rapidly passed last week, TIGER grants — a transportation projects grant program created by Obama’s much-maligned 2009 economic stimulus bill — were tripled from $500 million to $1.5 billion. Grants for child care programs got a $2.4 billion increase that almost doubled the size of the program. Mass transit funding got a $1.1 billion increase. There’s a more than $2 billion increase in spending for higher education programs. Trump said on Twitter that he had to “waste money on Dem giveaways” to get what he wanted on defense. “‘Waste money on Dem giveaways’? Would he call funding our heroic veterans ‘Dem giveaways’? Affordable child care for hardworking middle-class families? Lifesaving medical research, which creates jobs? The integrity of America’s elections?” said House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco. The increases for non-defense programs — $52 billion more than current levels, or 10 percent — not only erased the automatic spending cuts known as sequestration but smashed through a more generous set of budget “caps” originally set under the 2011 budget pact. Trump admitted that Democrats had him over a barrel. “There are a lot of things that we shouldn’t have had in this bill, but we were, in a sense, forced — if we want to build our military — we were forced to have,” Trump said Friday afternoon in a White House event after he signed the bill. Andrew Taylor is an Associated Press writer.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI April 20, 2018
It’s time to rethink wildfire — a disaster like hurricanes and tornadoes By George Miller March 21, 2018 Updated: March 21, 2018 5:35pm
Photo: Noah Berger, Associated Press
A fire engine passes flames as the state’s largest-ever wildfire burns near Ventura in a photo from December.
Throughout the country, natural weather phenomena, often termed “acts of God,” serve as signatures of the state itself — Oklahoma and Kansas have tornadoes, the Gulf Coast has hurricanes, California has earthquakes. And today, considering the fires that swept across California, Oregon and Washington last year, wildfire is increasingly becoming a signature threat in the West. I’ve learned firsthand of the bravery and wisdom of both state and federal fire service personnel, matched on the local level by firefighters who protect their communities at all costs. However, this new weather reality has created conditions that they are not equipped to face, no matter how brave they are.
Congress should reclassify wildfire as a natural disaster, the same as hurricanes and tornadoes.
Wildfire has been a part of my personal and professional life for decades. As a young man, I spent a summer with the California Division of Forestry (today’s Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, known as Cal Fire) fighting fires in Siskiyou County in Northern California. It was exciting though sometimes dangerous, often fighting large blazes that moved rapidly across the rugged terrain.
Later, as a member of Congress, I dealt with the impact of wildfires in the West as a member and chair of the House Natural Resources Committee. Throughout the years, the number of catastrophic fires across the West has grown, becoming more expensive with increased economic and personal impact.
The fire ecosystems today are very different — it is indeed, as Gov. Jerry Brown says, “a new normal.” To survive what lies ahead, we must change the way fires are viewed, address years of mismanagement, and prepare neighborhoods and communities for the onset of climate change.
Wildfire is treated differently than other disasters. Here’s how:
Disaster funding is not necessarily available. Current policy assumes that fire has a human element. As a result, some Federal Emergency Management Agency funding for wildfire outbreaks can be delayed or outright denied.
Firefighting costs and fire prevention are budgeted separately, but climbing firefighting costs are being met by dipping into prevention funds. According to the U.S. Forest Service and reported by the Associated Press, before 2000, the federal government’s firefighting costs never reached $1 billion. Since 2000, they have topped $1 billion 14 times and exceeded $1.5 billion 10 times. Thus, prevention techniques — such as removing vegetation or some of the 30 million dead trees standing as kindling in California forests — go by the wayside.
Budgeting adequate funding is complicated by the fact that responsibility for fighting fires is split among federal, state, local and private jurisdictions, depending on who owns the land. On the federal level, responsibility for both preventing and fighting fires falls to two separate departments: Interior and Agriculture.
While this debate is nothing new, what has changed is the behavior of the fire itself, as well as the conditions that drive wildfire. Consider the winds that wreaked havoc across Northern California in October. The National Weather Service predicted winds up to 70 mph and instead measured gusts at hurricane force — nearly 90 mph. The state’s infrastructure, largely built to withstand earthquakes, not hurricanes, simply isn’t prepared to withstand weather phenomena like that.
Now, with multiple reports that drought conditions are returning to the West, Congress needs to rethink firefighting and fire prevention and make the following changes, and soon:
•Reclassify wildfire as a natural disaster. Doing so would draw funds for fighting the fires from the federal disaster monies, leaving crucial funding for the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management to invest in fire prevention, forest health and vegetation management.
•Provide Western states with block grants to fund local fire departments’ efforts to increase staff during wildfire season, as well as pre-position equipment and firefighters when fire danger is high. Lawmakers should enhance funding for existing programs, such as the Fire Management Assistance and the Fire Prevention & Safety grants, which provide badly needed assistance to communities and first responders.
•Provide federal tax and grant incentives for public-private partnerships that focus on infrastructure resilience, wildland management and fire prevention. If local and state governments are willing to partner with corporations to ease the backlog of crucial fire prevention efforts, then they should be rewarded for it.
While these measures won’t solve the problem, they will stop the vicious cycle of forcing federal agencies to divert funding for prevention of the next fire to pay for the last fire. It’s time to acknowledge that climate change has brought a new, more destructive wildfire to our communities. As Gov. Brown said in a recent speech, “You can’t fight nature, you have to work with it.” We would be wise to rise to the challenge.
George Miller served Contra Costa and Solano counties in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1977 until 2015. He lives in Martinez.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI April 20, 2018
Facebook, Twitter, Google under pressure to testify in Congress over data breaches
By Carolyn Lochhead
Photo: KIMIHIRO HOSHINO, AFP/Getty Images
WASHINGTON — Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg and other social media executives came under pressure from both sides of the political aisle Monday to testify in the U.S. Senate on how a political consulting firm gained access to the data of millions of Facebook users during the 2016 presidential campaign. Sens. John Kennedy, R-La., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., wrote to the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee demanding that top executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google be brought in for questioning about their efforts to police their own platforms for abuse and interference in U.S. elections. The senators’ demand followed the revelation over the weekend that Cambridge Analytica, a political consulting firm used by President Trump’s 2016 campaign, had employed quizzes and other methods to obtain personal information from 50 million Facebook users without permission. The company has touted its use of psychological profiling as a way to predict voter behavior. “Facebook, Google and Twitter have amassed unprecedented amounts of personal data and use this data when selling advertising, including political advertisements,” the senators wrote. “The lack of oversight on how data is stored and how political advertisements are sold raises concerns about the integrity of American elections as well as privacy rights.” In a statement Monday, Facebook said it has “hired a digital forensics firm, Stroz Friedberg, to conduct a comprehensive audit of Cambridge Analytica,” and that Cambridge Analytica has agreed to comply. “We remain committed to vigorously enforcing our policies to protect people’s information,” Facebook’s statement said. The three large Bay Area technology companies have lost some of their luster in Washington amid revelations that the Russian government used their platforms to interfere in the last presidential election, and warnings that misuse in future elections is likely. Last fall, Kennedy and other senators sharply questioned executives from the three giant social media platforms after the companies revealed that the Russian disinformation campaign had reached many more users than they initially disclosed. Both of California’s senators sit on the Judiciary Committee. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is its top-ranking Democrat, and Sen. Kamala Harris is the committee’s newest member. Neither were asked to join the Kennedy-Klobuchar letter. Feinstein and Harris also sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee, which scheduled an open hearing Wednesday on threats to elections and voting systems, with testimony planned from administration officials and state organizations representing election officials. In the House, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Burbank, the Intelligence Committee’s top Democrat, reiterated his call for testimony from officials of Cambridge Analytica and Facebook, saying the Menlo Park social media company “must explain the long delay” in suspending its relationship with the consulting firm and “how they will ensure the protection of users from malicious access to their personal information.” This story has been updated to indicate that Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris of California weren’t asked to sign a letter by Sens. John Kennedy, R-La., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., urging the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee to call the top executives from Facebook, Twitter and Google to Washington to testify. Carolyn Lochhead is The San Francisco Chronicle’s Washington correspondent. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @carolynlochhead
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI April 20, 2018
Big oil faces big test in climate-change court showdown with SF, Oakland
By Kurtis Alexander March 19, 2018 Updated: March 19, 2018 5:13pm
Photo: Michael Macor, The Chronicle The Shell refinery in Martinez, Ca., as seen on Tuesday September 12, 2017. A new study is laying blame for the warming of the planet on 90 companies, with Chevron and Exxon squarely at the top of the list, ... more
A San Francisco judge who must decide whether to hold the world’s largest oil companies responsible for global warming is ordering up what many are calling the most comprehensive, and unusual, debate on climate change that the courts have seen.
Fossil-fuel corporations including Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell are scheduled to present their views on climate science in federal court Wednesday alongside attorneys for San Francisco and Oakland. The two cities are among several communities suing the oil giants for their alleged role in sea- level rise. U.S. District Judge William Alsup has given both sides eight questions to answer at a five- hour “tutorial.” The inquiries cover the basics of climate change and the latest scientific findings on what’s driving the phenomenon.
One question the judge wants both sides to answer: “What caused the various ice ages?” Also: “Apart from carbon dioxide, what happens to the collective heat from tail pipe exhausts, engine radiators, and all other heat from combustion of fossil fuels?”
Besides gathering basic facts to bolster a ruling, many legal and scientific experts say Alsup appears to be searching for areas where the oil industry and climate scientists are in agreement.
“We haven’t yet had a situation where the fossil-fuel companies have been hauled into court and put on the record in the way this is happening,” said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. “This could be historically significant.”
Attorneys for the oil companies and plaintiff cities declined to discuss how they intend to proceed at Wednesday’s hearing. But both say they have science on their side.
The lawsuits that San Francisco and Oakland filed last year seek to recoup billions of dollars from Chevron, ExxonMobil, Shell, ConocoPhillips and BP for past and future damage caused by rising seas. They argue that the extraction and production of fossil fuels has heated the planet and begun lifting ocean levels above roads, homes and utilities’ infrastructure.
The suits also claim that the oil and gas industries knew of the harm they were causing but sought to cover it up, much the way tobacco firms undermined research into lung cancer in past decades.
Six other California cities and counties have filed similar lawsuits, as has New York City.
Photo: Michael Macor, The Chronicle The cities of San Francisco and Oakland have sued five fossil-fuel companies, including Shell, over past and future damage caused by rising seas.
The oil companies deny culpability. They don’t deny that human-caused climate change is under way, but say they shouldn’t be singled out for its consequences. Some in the industry have dismissed the legal action as a publicity stunt.
“The suits are factually and legally meritless,” Sean Comey, a spokesman for Chevron, said in an email. “Reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a global issue that requires global engagement. Should this litigation proceed, it will only serve special interests at the expense of broader policy, regulatory and economic priorities.”
At Wednesday’s court hearing, representatives of the oil companies are likely to acknowledge the established science of climate change, legal scholars say, but they’re going to downplay studies that incriminate their trade and specific businesses.
“The industry has made what’s been a pretty big shift for them over the last decade or so,” said Ted Lamm, research fellow at UC Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy and the Environment. “They’re not going to say that the human burning of fossil fuels has no impact. … At the time, they’re going to try to make as murky a case as possible of direct causation.” Representatives for the cities, meanwhile, will play up science that pinpoints the drivers of climate change.
“That’s the gap that Judge Alsup is trying to bridge,” Lamm said. “People are watching this and are very curious to see what both sides try to do.”
Alsup has ordered informational hearings in complex, high-profile cases before.
Last year, he asked representatives of Google’s Waymo self-driving car company and rival Uber for a tutorial on Lidar, the laser sensors used in the fledgling field. Years earlier, he practiced coding skills in the programming language Java in considering a legal dispute between Oracle and Google over patents.
Never before, though, has the science in Alsup’s courtroom been so politically charged as it is with climate change.
He ordered up the tutorial when he ruled last month that the case would be heard in federal court. The cities had wanted the suit in state court, where arguments similar to theirs have had success. For example, a California judge recently forced paint companies to pay for damage caused by harmful lead-based products.
The federal courts have not been as friendly to such “public nuisance” complaints. In similar cases, judges have ruled that legislation and regulatory agencies should govern climate issues, not the bench. In Alaska, for instance, when the village of Kivalina sued oil companies over damage from rising seas, the courts said it was a matter for the Environmental Protection Agency.
Still, when he ruled last month, Alsup suggested he would hear out the cities on why their cases constitute a public nuisance.
Attorneys for San Francisco and Oakland said they looked forward to Wednesday’s hearing.
“It’s time for climate science to have its day in court,” San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in an email. “We’ll see whether big oil acknowledges the scientific consensus and its role in causing climate change or doubles down, once again, on deception.” Burger, at the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, said that what the oil companies say Wednesday could shape debate not only in the courtroom but also in broader policy- making.
“We continue to have people at the highest levels of government who buy into the alternative theories of climate change,” he said. “To a large extent, these theories were put into motion by organizations funded in part by these companies. To have them switch sides would be significant in helping the public better understand where we are in terms of climate science.”
Kurtis Alexander is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @kurtisalexander
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI April 20, 2018
Access to our parks is at risk, time for Congress to act BY ROBERT FANGER, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR — 03/18/18 09:30 AM EDT 7 THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY CONTRIBUTORS ARE THEIR OWN AND NOT THE VIEW OF THE HILL
Whether they’re hiking in a state or national park, fishing at the edge of a river, or simply walking on the shores of the ocean, families across the country cherish their time spent in the great outdoors. Our access to America’s iconic landscapes and waterways has been protected for 50 years by the Land and Water Conservation Fund, one of our nation’s most important conservation programs.
Americans of all stripes reap the benefits of these protected places, which help support local businesses and provide outdoor access and opportunities for hunters, fishermen, climbers, hikers, bikers, and campers across America. For many Latinos and other diverse urban communities, sites funded through this program often provide their only means to experience the outdoors.
In the coming days, Congress is set to pass a spending bill that will provide resources for essential government agencies and programs, and it may be their last chance to reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund before it expires in September. Our leaders in Washington should seize this opportunity so that Americans can continue enjoying our parks, lands, waters, wildlife, and way of life for generations to come.
The fund is a critical component to protecting and conserving outdoor spaces for wildlife and recreation, which in turn helps to support sustainable, American jobs in both urban and suburban areas. According to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, outdoor recreation, natural resource preservation, and historic preservation activities provide a powerful building block in our national economy that supports 9.4 million jobs and contributes a total of $1.06 trillion annually. As the outdoor recreation industry continues to grow, permanently reauthorizing the fund will allow local businesses to continue growing and provide entrepreneurs the certainty they need to start a new venture or invest in a new business.
This week we are counting on America's leaders to reauthorize the fund and guarantee our families are able to hunt, fish, hike, and enjoy America’s iconic landscapes and waterways for generations to come. Failure to do so will not only have terrible consequences for the 9.4 million hard-working Americans that depend on outdoor recreation and preservation activities, but it will deny our children the ability to make precious memories exploring more than 41,000 other Land and Water Conservation Fund state and local park projects across the country.
More than 50 years ago, Congress created the fund as a bipartisan promise to safeguard this country’s natural areas, water resources and cultural heritage. Now is the time for Congress to set aside politics again and stand up for the vast majority of Americans and all our diverse communities who agree that the Land and Water Conservation Fund is essential to protecting the places we love and the way of life future generations deserve.
Robert Fanger is chief communications officer at the Hispanic Access Foundation.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI April 20, 2018
Democrats have 2 problems: no coherent message and too many candidates By Joe Garofoli March 12, 2018 Updated: March 13, 2018 6:51pm
Photo: Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 20: Rep. Jeff Denham (R-CA) speaks during a news conference with military 'DREAMers', undocumented youth who aspire to serve the United States in uniform but are prohibited from doing due to their immigration status, in front of the U.S. Capitol May 20, 2014 in Washington, DC. Co-sponsored by Rep. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Denham's Enlist Act would amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act to allow some undocumented immigrants to join the military. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Now that the filing deadline has passed for most congressional races in California, the field is taking shape for the June 5 primary. But for Democrats, who are targeting seven Republican-held districts they say are key to retaking the House, the deadline failed to answer two big questions: What’s the party’s message beyond, “I’m more anti-President Trump than you”? And, perhaps more important: How many of the candidates are going to drop out? Because if some don’t withdraw soon, their sheer number means Democratic candidates will be competing against one another instead of against Republicans.
The answers to these questions will determine whether the Democratic Party has a credible chance of winning enough California districts to help gain the 24 seats it needs to flip the House.
First, according to some political veterans, their message needs to be one that isn’t just a pronoun, a verb and “Trump.”
“The Democrats don’t have one and that’s part of the problem,” said Darry Sragow, a longtime Democratic strategist who is now the publisher of the nonpartisan California Target Book, which analyzes congressional and legislative races across the state. “There is no coherent, appealing message.”
That lack of an overarching theme may lead to Democratic candidates being left on their own when it comes to crafting campaign messages.
Because “the national party has failed to advance an agenda that says, ‘We stand for X, Y and Z,’ we have to be very surgical about it,” said Dave Jacobson, a Democratic strategist who is running a dozen congressional and statewide California campaigns. “Every race is different.”
And even though Millennial voters — who are a key piece of the Democrats’ strategy — may be overwhelmingly opposed to the president’s policies, “we know that you can’t just say, ‘Trump sucks,’” said Ben Wessel, deputy political director of NextGen America, the San Francisco organization funded by billionaire San Francisco activist Tom Steyer. NextGen is spending $3.5 million to turn out voters under 35 in the targeted congressional districts.
“That can be the hook, but you’ve got to put some meat on it and say, ‘Trump sucks — on the environment.’ And here are his lackeys in Congress that support him,” Wessel said.
Over the past past year, NextGen has surveyed roughly 15,000 voters younger than 35 in the targeted districts. Their top concern is the rising cost of higher education. Immigration reform — particularly protection for “Dreamers,” who are in the United States illegally after coming here as children — is second. Surveys show it is of particular concern in the Democratic-targeted district of Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock (Stanislaus County), where 40 percent of the residents and 28 percent of the registered voters are Latino.
Some Democrats believe they should concentrate on local issues instead of riffing off the latest Washington scandal. For example, voters in Denham’s district are concerned about homelessness, according to focus groups and voter surveys, said Katie Merrill, a veteran Democratic strategist who is advising Fight Back California, a political action committee focused on the seven key congressional races. Five of those districts are in Southern California and two are in the Central Valley, and all of them went for Hillary Clinton over Trump in 2016.
“Don’t talk about Trump. Don’t talk about Russia,” Merrill said. “Talk about what you’re going to do to bring down the cost of housing.”
In the targeted Southern California districts currently held by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R- Costa Mesa (Orange County), and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista (San Diego County), who is not seeking re-election, internal polls show that concern about environmental issues — particularly since the Trump administration has proposed loosening rules on offshore drilling — is one of the few that cuts across party lines.
Photo: Bill Clark, CQ-Roll Call,Inc.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher’s, Orange County district has concerns over environ mental issues but may not hear Democratic candidates if there are too many of them.
Democrats are traditionally opposed to drilling off the coast of California, but voters may not hear them talking about that and other local issues if there are too many of them talking.
In several districts, Democrats have what state party Chairman Eric Bauman calls “an overpopulation problem” — too many candidates. Trump’s election inspired many Democrats to run for Congress — and many of them are well-funded, unlike first-time candidates of the past. With a lot of money, they can remain in the race even if they’re not gaining traction with voters.
And polls commissioned by Merrill’s group show that voters aren’t able to distinguish among the glut of Democrats. That could be an issue in a primary election, in which the top two finishers advance to the general election, regardless of party.
“We are facing a situation in three of these seven districts that Democrats might get shut out of the election,” Merrill said. “All of these Democrats got into this because they wanted to win back these seats so they could be a Democratic check on Trump. But the ones that didn’t get the (state) party endorsement (last month) and aren’t raising money need to take hard look at continuing. We need to thin the herd.”
Merrill is concerned about the Orange County district represented by Rep. Ed Royce, R- Fullerton, who is retiring. Two former Republican office holders — former Assemblywoman Young Kim, R-Fullerton, and former state Sen. Bob Huff, R-Diamond Bar (Los Angeles County) — are leading in a poll released Friday by Fight Back. Behind them is a demolition derby of nearly a dozen Democrats.
When Fight Back included fewer Democratic candidates in its survey, the Democrats had a much better chance at finishing in the top two spots.
Polls show a similar dynamic in the race for Rohrabacher’s seat. Democrats are concerned because Scott Baugh, the former Republican Assembly leader and ex-chairman of the Orange County Republican Party, has jumped into the race. According to the Fight Back poll, Baugh is even with the top two Democrats in the race, “once again raising the scenario of a Dem shutout in the general” election, Merrill said.
The challenge now for those who want to flip Republican seats is persuading some Democrats to step aside. It isn’t an easy conversation to have with someone who may have raised several hundred thousand dollars for a campaign.
Just ask Bauman, the party chairman.
“What I typically tell them is ‘There’s an opportunity before us that’s really bigger and more important than all of us,’” Bauman said. “If your real concern, if your real interest is in helping ensure that we have a check on Donald Trump, then look closely at your campaign. Look closely at your resources. Then ask yourself: ‘Do I honestly have a shot?’”
Joe Garofoli is The San Francisco Chronicle’s senior political writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @joegarofoli
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI April 20, 2018
California Assembly, Senate just don’t get along. Toni Atkins hopes to change that
By Laurel Rosenhall March 10, 2018 Updated: March 11, 2018 8:55pm
Photo: Damian Dovarganes, AP FILE - In this May 16, 2015, file photo, California Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, speaks at the California Democrats State Convention in Anaheim, Calif. Atkins plans to fight a fellow Democrat, Marty Block, for a state Senate seat when her tenure expires, the Los Angeles Times reported Saturday, Sept. 19, 2015. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes, File)
SACRAMENTO — Shortly after her election to the Assembly in 2010, Democrat Toni Atkins of San Diego came to Sacramento for a new lawmakers orientation. She’s never forgotten the adage imparted by a veteran lawmaker: “The Republicans are our opponents. But the Senate is our enemy.” Those words reflect a reality that is entrenched for Capitol insiders, yet almost invisible to the outside world: The two houses of the Legislature are long-standing rivals.
Yes, the Senate and Assembly are both ruled by Democrats. And yes, the two chambers must cooperate to pass any new laws. But that hasn’t stopped a culture of one-upmanship for decades.
The result can be substantive — feuding houses kill each other’s bills — or petty. The Assembly and Senate once broke for summer recess on different weeks because their leaders couldn’t even agree on when they should be in session.
Now Atkins is set to make history as the first person in more than 100 years to have led both houses of the Legislature. She was Assembly speaker from 2014 to 2016 and becomes Senate leader on March 21 — also becoming the first woman and first openly gay person to lead the upper house.
Although no one expects her tenure to erase the Legislature’s deep rivalries, Atkins is well positioned to tamp them down. She’s taking over in the Senate just as changes to term limits have begun to solidify legislators’ presence in each house.
Previously, many lawmakers moved between the Assembly and Senate as their terms expired. Now that they can seek re-election in the same house for up to 12 years, they’re more inclined to stay put.
“If anybody can bridge that gap, it’s her,” said Democratic political consultant Steve Maviglio, who saw the Legislature’s rivalries up close as an aide to former Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, D-Los Angeles. “She understands the dynamics of the Assembly. ... She has years of cat-herding experience. ... But most importantly, she has a relationship with the speaker.”
Most recent Senate and Assembly leaders emerged from separate spheres of power, with little prior rapport. But Atkins and current Speaker Anthony Rendon, D-Los Angeles, were Assembly colleagues for four years. They worked together closely to craft a $7.5 billion water bond in 2014, an effort that required navigating an array of geographic and political interests to create a bipartisan plan. Along the way, Rendon said, he came to appreciate Atkins’ thoughtful style as well as her love of Southern literature and college basketball. When she ran for state Senate in 2016, she passed the speakership to him.
“We worked really well together,” Rendon said. “She was someone I leaned on when I got to Sacramento for advice and for help.”
The water bond was one of her key accomplishments as speaker during a tenure otherwise plagued by frequent rebellion within her ranks. Atkins couldn’t achieve her own priority in 2015: to fund affordable housing development via a new fee to some real estate transactions. She persisted as a senator and prevailed last year.
In the Assembly, “my focus had to become, ‘What are we trying to get done for the whole body?’ And so I couldn’t spend the time on my housing bill,” Atkins said. “Now, maybe I could’ve threatened people, but that’s not my way.”
Atkins also couldn’t persuade her caucus to support a high-profile climate change bill in 2015 backed by Gov. Jerry Brown and Senate leader Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles. The bill, SB350, sought to increase energy efficiency and the use of renewable sources to generate electricity while slashing California’s oil consumption. Many Assembly Democrats balked at the oil provision.
Atkins had to tell de León that the votes weren’t there, igniting a major feud between the two houses. The Assembly passed the bill after the oil piece was removed — an industry victory and a ding on de León’s environmental record.
Months later, at a charity event where lawmakers publicly roast each other, de León lobbed a brutal comeback. “Did you know that WSPA stands for Western States Petroleum Association?” he said. “And all this time I thought it meant We Specialize in Purchasing Assemblymembers.”
Since then, the progressive Senate has passed several bills that have stalled or been watered down in the more moderate Assembly, including legislation to create a single- payer health care system, which Atkins co-authored. Rendon said his house grew frustrated with the Senate passing “purely symbolic” bills, and that the Assembly was being “more adult” by amending or putting the brakes on them.
More recently, the two houses struggled to get on the same page in responding to allegations of sexual harassment. After 150 women signed an open letter complaining of pervasive misconduct in the Capitol, the Senate and the Assembly launched separate hearings. Only after criticism from victims did they form a joint panel.
Some Senate-Assembly power struggles have become the stuff of Capitol legend. In the 1980s, Assembly Speaker Willie Brown billed himself as the “Speaker of the Legislature” on a party invitation, prompting an angry rebuke from Senate leader David Roberti. (Brown is now a San Francisco Chronicle columnist.)
In the early 2000s, jousting was common between Núñez and Senate leader Don Perata. Late one night in 2006, as both houses were working to approve bond measures, Perata tired of waiting for the Assembly to send its bills to the upper house.
Suddenly he banged his gavel and ended the session, effectively killing the Assembly’s bills. Núñez was so furious he temporarily banned senators from setting foot on the Assembly floor.
“It shocked a lot of people I would do that,” Perata recalled, “but I’m only going to take so much game playing.”
The friction can worsen in a session’s final days and hours, as each house may delay transmitting bills to the other house as a way to leverage deals. Will Atkins and Rendon avoid such brinkmanship?
“Hopefully the strength of our relationship and our communication will lessen a lot of that,” Rendon said.
“You get this culture passed on to you,” Atkins said. “But I’m not going to perpetuate this ‘us versus them.’”
Laurel Rosenhall is a reporter with CALmatters.org, a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California’s policies and politics.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI April 20, 2018
Political Notes: Opposition for Rohrabacher? Tricky wording for Villaraigosa By John Wildermuth and Joe Garofoli March 8, 2018 Updated: March 8, 2018 5:41pm
Photo: Michael Macor, The Chronicle Gubernatorial candidate John Cox’s new ad is on Rush Limbaugh’s show.
It’s not only Democrats who’ve put a target on the back of Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R- Costa Mesa (Orange County). On Wednesday, former Assembly GOP leader Scott Baugh of Huntington Beach pulled papers to run against Rohrabacher, although he had not officially filed as of Thursday afternoon.
Though Baugh hasn’t served in elective office since he was termed out of the Assembly in 2000, he’s made no secret of his interest in Rohrabacher’s seat. But even though he’s raised more than $500,000 for a congressional campaign, he’s said in the past that he was waiting for the 70-year-old Rohrabacher to retire.
But with a bunch of well-financed Democrats — and even a couple of Republicans — poised to challenge Rohrabacher, Baugh may have decided it’s now or never.
Not only is Rohrabacher’s seat a top Democratic target in November, but the congressman isn’t making his re-election road easier with his pro-Russia stances and his reputation as Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “favorite congressman.” Rohrabacher’s name has came up in connection with Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into possible Russian influence on the 2016 presidential election and links with others with ties to Russia.
Rohrabacher already has filed for re-election. The filing deadline for the June 5 primary is Friday.
— John Wildermuth
Call me by my ballot designation: State election law forbids former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa from being referred to as “former Los Angeles mayor” on the ballot in the primary election for governor — only sitting officeholders can use their title. Villaraigosa is proposing calling himself “public policy adviser” — that has his opponents licking their chops. If he’s listed as “public policy adviser,” they can ask, “for whom?” And that leads to Villaraigosa’s consulting work from 2013-16 for Herbalife, which makes and markets nutritional supplements and personal care products. In 2016, the Federal Trade Commission said the company agreed to pay $200 million to consumers to settle charges that it had “deceived consumers into believing they could earn substantial money selling diet, nutritional supplement and personal care products.”
“Let’s be real, the only thing Antonio Villaraigosa can currently advise on is how to best target innocent Californians,” said Fabien Levy, candidate and state Treasurer John Chiang’s deputy campaign manager. “Voters want to elect someone they can trust and who will fight for them, not someone who will sell out for the quickest buck.” Replied Villaraigosa spokesman Luis Vizcaino, “Sad that John Chiang’s campaign would resort to attacks, but our focus remains on fixing this economy so it works for more Californians.” Former state Superintendent of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin can’t use her old job title, either, but the one she proposed Thursday is unlikely to be as controversial: “Educator/Youth Advocate.”
— Joe Garofoli
It’s always partisan: California’s top-two primary system, where the two candidates with the most votes, regardless of party, advance to the November election, was supposed to eliminate partisan elections. Key words: “supposed to.”
If anyone thinks GOP businessman John Cox isn’t running for the top-two equivalent of the Republican nomination for governor, they should take a listen to his new radio ad. In the spot, Cox talks about how Kate Steinle was killed in San Francisco “by an illegal alien convict” and how that incident “is chilling testimony of how (Democratic candidate for governor and former San Francisco Mayor) GavinNewsom’s sanctuary city values differ from the rest of us.” “Incredibly, San Francisco refused to turn over to immigration authorities a criminal alien with seven prior felony convictions,” he continues. “The shooter said it was an ‘accident,’ so, of course, a San Francisco jury voted to acquit.Like I said, different values.”
Cox vowed that on his first day as governor, “I will act to repeal Jerry Brownand Gavin Newsom’s Sanctuary State and restore the rule of law.” Cox closes with a reminder, if any was needed, of just where he’s coming from: “If you’re ready to take California back, join me. I’m John Cox, Republican candidate for governor.”
And just where was this GOP-centric spot running Thursday morning? Conservative icon Rush Limbaugh’s radio program, hardly a hangout for Democrats and middle-of- the-road independent voters. It’s no secret Cox is trolling for voters desperate to support someone with an “R” after their name on the ballot. And while there aren’t enough GOP voters in the state to elect a governor, there may be enough to push a Republican into second place in June, especially if Democratic votes are split among four serious candidates.
As far as Cox and his team are concerned, there will be plenty of time to worry about winning in November after June 5.
Conservative Republicans “are who is going to turn out for a June primary,” said Matt Shupe, a spokesman for Cox. “We know we aren’t stealing any votes from Gavin.”
— John Wildermuth
John Wildermuth and Joe Garofoli are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers. Email: [email protected], [email protected] Twitter: @jfwildermuth @joegarofoli
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI April 20, 2018
First rising tides, now sinking shores: Study finds new trouble for Bay Area
By Kurtis Alexander
Updated 7:21 pm, Saturday, March 10, 2018
Photo: Michael Macor, The Chronicle The problem of sea level rise along San Francisco Bay is likely to be exacerbated by the sinking shoreline, a new study finds. Treasure Island is slipping nearly 3/4 of an inch per year.
Rising tides aren’t the only problem the Bay Area faces as sea levels climb. Those high waters may advance on a sinking shoreline. A study published Wednesday finds that flooding along San Francisco Bay could become far worse — sometimes twice as bad as current models suggest — because much of the bayfront is slipping downward at the same time that global warming is driving ocean levels upward. While scientists have known that this one-two punch means seawater will push farther inland, exacerbating flooding that is expected to cost billions to remedy, the new study out of UC Berkeley and Arizona State University is the first to use satellite radar to quantify just how much the sinking land may contribute to the toll.
Such spots as Foster City, San Francisco International Airport and Treasure Island — places built on landfill that continues to settle — are dropping as much as three-quarters of an inch per year, the research shows. This continuing retreat comes on top of projections that bayfront water levels will increase by 2 to 6 feet by the end of the century. “In addition to sea level rise itself, which I think people are quite aware of now, land subsidence is making that problem that much worse,” said Roland Bürgmann, a co-author of the paper and a UC Berkeley professor of earth and planetary science. Keeping SFO at bay from sea level rise Sea level rise, brought about by global warming, is a clear and present danger to low lying areas on the coast and around San Francisco Bay.
00:00 02:26 Sea level rise, brought about by global warming, is a clear and present danger to low lying areas on the coast and around San Francisco Bay. When Bürgmann and lead author Manoochehr Shirzaei, a professor at Arizona State University, factored in the sinking shoreline, they found that 48 to 165 square miles of land around San Francisco Bay is at risk of being underwater by the end of the century. The exact amount depends on how quickly sea levels rise, a calculation muddled in part by the unknowns of future greenhouse gas emissions. Prior models of sea level rise have downplayed the impact of the sinking land — or estimated it with less precise methods. Flood-risk maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which communities use to assess their vulnerability to rising water, don’t take into consideration many of the effects of climate change, much less the role of the dropping shoreline in sea level rise. Consequently, cities, counties, developers and home buyers don’t always have a full picture of the threats they face in future decades as well the more immediate dangers of big storms and surging tides. “A lot of areas don’t know they’re at greater flood risk than they used to be,” said David Lewis, executive director of Save the Bay, who has worked to address problems associated with sea level rise. “And you can’t adequately protect people against the risk of floods if you don’t know where the risk is.” Bürgmann and Shirzaei hope their findings on land subsidence will be incorporated into future flood models and maps. Using satellite data from 2007 to 2011, the scientists found that most of the Bay Area’s shoreline is sinking at a rate of just under a tenth of an inch per year. Much of these losses — which are expected to continue — are simply the result of soft, squishy soils. In areas where rivers and streams carry mud to the bayfront, the ground is giving out slightly more. Trouble spots include parts of Union City, Hayward, Redwood City, San Francisco and South San Francisco, according to the study. The worst of the subsidence is occurring in areas constructed of engineered fill, where the underlying sand, gravel and dirt continue to compact. Treasure Island, built to create the site for the Golden Gate International Exposition in 1939, is sinking a half inch to three-quarters of an inch per year, the study found. Parts of San Francisco International Airport are slipping by nearly a half inch annually, a rate that would put half the runways and taxiways underwater by 2100, according to the study. Foster City, built in the 1960s to provide new real estate for the region’s growing suburban workforce, is also plunging close to a half inch per year, the study found. The Bay Area has begun to plan for sea level rise, albeit slowly. Communities are raising levees and seawalls and restoring marshlands, which help absorb the influx of water.
In 2016, voters in the nine-county region approved a $500 million tax measure to help fund such initiatives. The first grants are expected to be doled out next month. “California is pretty progressive, and there’s a lot of planning going on now,” said Patrick Barnard, a research geologist for the U.S. Geological Survey, who helps model sea level rise. “But it’s in the early stages.” The San Francisco Bay has risen a little more than half a foot since 1900. As the planet continues to warm, causing arctic ice to melt and ocean water to expand, the rate of sea level rise is expected to grow exponentially. A recent state-commissioned report estimated that a rise of 3.4 feet by 2100 was the most likely scenario if significant action isn’t taken to slow global warming. If considerable steps are taken to halt the emissions of heat-trapping gas, water levels would rise by an estimated 2.4 feet. Across California, rising seas could inflict as much as $100 billion in property damage, with roads, homes, businesses and utilities submerged, according to studies. Nearly 500,000 people could be at risk from flooding. While the new study focuses on the Bay Area, Bürgmann and Shirzaei say their modeling of sea level rise can be applied to other coastal communities, allowing residents and leaders to get a better idea of how much flooding is likely to occur this century. The study was published in the journal Science Advances. Kurtis Alexander is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @kurtisalexander
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI April 20, 2018
Jeff Sessions suit against California is political bad news for Republicans
By Joe Garofoli March 7, 2018 Updated: March 7, 2018 8:49pm
Photo: Jessica Christian, The Chronicle Hundreds of protesters march in Sacramento as U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions addresses a law enforcement gathering to denounce California’s sanctuary laws and threaten reprisals.
It may be years before the courts decide the Trump administration’s lawsuit that seeks to overturn California’s sanctuary laws, but the political impact will be felt in just months. And it likely won’t help Republicans. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions ramped up the political tension Wednesday when he told a law enforcement gathering in Sacramento that California “is using every power it has — and powers it doesn’t — to frustrate federal law enforcement. So you can be sure I’m going to use every power I have to stop them.”
His underlying message will frighten immigrant communities and should energize Latino voters, who already overwhelmingly vote for Democrats. That could be a welcome boon for Democrats in the June primary election, because fewer Latinos vote in midterm elections than during presidential years.
And Republican candidates will feel pain as they embrace Trump’s law-and-order stance to try to attract conservative primary voters, an embrace that will move them further from California’s political mainstream should they advance to the general election in November.
“Politically, what it does is help Democrats by mobilizing Latino voters,” said Luis Alvarado, a GOP strategist and president of the Latino Legislative Roundtable. “As I listened to Jeff Sessions speak, I imagined TV commercials on behalf of Democrats in the state.”
While some analysts predict that the increasing threat of immigration raids has energized Latino voters in recent elections in Texas and Virginia, GOP strategist and Latino vote expert Mike Madrid said “that’s not really excitement. Being ‘energized’ usually means you’re happy. These people are voting out of anger and fear. And California is the mother lode of that. This will absolutely affect the outcome of races in California in June.”
This ad will end in 94 seconds. Overall, 58 percent of likely California voters, including 53 percent of independent voters, 54 percent of whites and 80 percent of Latinos, support sanctuary city policies, according to a January survey by the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California.
Increased Latino turnout could affect California’s gubernatorial campaign in multiple ways. During his speech Wednesday, Sessions blasted Democrat Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who leads in most polls, for praising Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf when she warned last month of impending federal immigration sweeps. “Bragging about and encouraging the obstruction of our law enforcement and the law is an embarrassment to this proud and important state,” Sessions said about Newsom without using his name.
Alvarado said being name-checked — even anonymously — by Trump’s attorney general would be worn as a badge of honor by Newsom.
“They’re popping Champagne at Newsom’s headquarters because Jeff Sessions cemented him as the head of the progressives,” Alvarado said.
But Madrid, who also is a senior adviser to Democratic gubernatorial candidate Antonio Villaraigosa, said that while Newsom may have scored the name-check, increased Latino turnout may ultimately help Villaraigosa more.
“I don’t think anybody is going to remember who was name-checked in June,” Madrid said.
“The bigger story is that this is a part of a tectonic shift in politics. It’s not about one speech or one event or one day,” Madrid said. “It’s about a series of events and policies that are happening — and that Latinos and female candidates will be the beneficiaries. That’s because Latinos and women tend to vote for Latino candidates and female candidates.”
A January survey of 900 registered Latino voters found that 68 percent said they were “100 percent” certain that they would vote. That turnout would be off the charts for the state’s 4.5 million Latino voters, especially considering that only 25 percent of all registered California voters cast ballots in California’s last midterm election in 2014.
The survey by Latino Decisions, which conducted the poll on behalf of the Latino Community Foundation, found that a bump in Latino turnout could help Villaraigosa, a former Los Angeles mayor. He was the preferred candidate of Latino voters, with 39 percent saying they’d vote for him in the primary, followed by Newsom with 15 percent of the vote.
The two top Republicans in the governor’s race came out strongly in support of Sessions’ lawsuit. Coinciding with Sessions’ visit, Rancho Santa Fe GOP business executive John Cox released a radio ad that attempted to tie the 2015 killing of Kate Steinle on Pier 14 in San Francisco by undocumented immigrant Jose Ines Garcia Zarate to Newsom.
“The senseless, random killing of 32-year-old Kate Steinle by an illegal alien convict, is chilling testimony to how Gavin Newsom’s sanctuary city values differ from the rest of us,” Cox says in the ad. “As governor, I promise you that on my first day in office I will act to repeal Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom’s sanctuary state and restore the rule of law.”
Cox’s prime GOP opponent, Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach (Orange County), welcomed Sessions’ move, something he called for in January — along with Attorney General Xavier Becerra to be arrested for flouting federal immigration law. On Wednesday, Allen blasted “the Bay Area liberal elites that control California’s government.”
But Alvarado said that while that may play well in the gubernatorial primary — where Cox and Allen are fighting over the 41 percent of the ballots expected to be cast for Republican candidates — “It becomes very difficult to defend that in the general election.”
This latest battle in the ongoing “war,” as Brown put it Wednesday, between the Trump administration and California is likely to have mixed impact on congressional races — particularly on the 10 GOP-held seats that Democrats are trying to flip.
A boost in the Latino turnout could have a bigger impact in Central Valley districts, like the one represented by Rep. Jeff Denham, R-Turlock (Stanislaus County), where 40 percent of the residents and 28 percent of the registered voters are Latino, according to the nonpartisan California Target Book, a compendium of statistics on the state’s political districts. It could also impact Rep. David Valadao, R-Hanford (Kings County), where 71 percent of the population and 57 percent of the registered voters are Latino.
Some progressives are trying to capture this political energy — particularly among young voters who are sympathetic to the Democrat position on immigration. On Wednesday, NextGen America, the organization founded and funded by San Francisco activist Tom Steyer, announced it would be spending $3.5 million to register young voters in seven GOP-held congressional districts. But that outreach might have less of an impact in some of the targeted GOP-held seats in Orange County, like the one represented by Rep. Mimi Walters, R-Irvine, where only 19 percent of the population, and 12 percent of the registered voters are Latino.
However, embracing Sessions’ rhetoric may backfire, too.
“You can hold on to your base if you go that route, but the average suburban white Republican is going to think it’s mean-spirited and not go along with it,” said Matt Baretto, a co-founder of Latino Decisions.
Joe Garofoli is The San Francisco Chronicle’s senior political writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @joegarofoli