REVISED BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, October 18, 2019 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 1298 (Mullin D-South San Francisco) – Climate Resiliency, Fire Risk Reduction, Recycling, Groundwater and Drinking Water Supply, Clean Beaches, and Jobs Infrastructure Bond Act of 2020 2. Other Matters
B. OTHER STATE MATTERS 1. Discussion about AB 1191 (Bonta D-Alameda) – State R Doyle/Pfuehler Lands Commission Howard Terminal Oakland Waterfront Ballpark Act 2. State Legislation Year in Review I Doyle/Pfuehler 3. Other Matters
II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION R Doyle/Pfuehler 1. S. 2384 (Hirono D-HI) – Botanical Sciences and Native Plant Materials Research, Restoration and Promotion Act 2. S. 2467 (Booker D-NJ) and H.R. 4273 (Gomez D-CA) – Transit to Trails Act
3. H.R. 4197 (Maloney D-NY) – Revitalizing Cities Through Parks Enhancement Act 4. H.R. 4236 (Quigley D-IL) – Reducing Waste in National Parks Act 5. H.R. 4512 (Barragan D-CA) – Outdoors for All Act 6. Other Matters
B. OTHER FEDERAL MATTERS I Pfuehler/Baldinger 1. BUILD Grant Overview 2. Other Matters
III. 2020 CONSULTANT CONTRACTS R Doyle/Pfuehler A. Houston Magnani & Associates B. Strategic Research Institute C. E2 Strategies, LLC
IV. VALUE AND HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS I Pfuehler/Hoffman
V. HIGH LEVEL PARK AND PUBLIC INTEREST DISTRICTWIDE I Pfuehler/Baldinger SURVEY RESULTS
VI. FASTER BAY AREA I Pfuehler/Baldinger
VII. ARTICLES
VIII. 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.
IX. BOARD COMMENTS
(R) Recommendation for Future Board Consideration Future Meetings: (I) Information January 18 July 19 (D) Discussion February – NO MTG August 16 March 15 September – NO MTG Legislative Committee Members April 19 October 18 Dennis Waespi (Chair); Ellen Corbett, Colin Coffey May 17 November – NO MTG Director Dee Rosario, Alternate June – NO MTG *December 13 Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager
TO: Board Legislative Committee (Chair Dennis Waespi, Colin Coffey, Ellen Corbett, alt. Dee Rosario)
FROM: Robert E. Doyle, General Manager Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager
SUBJECT: Board Legislative Committee Meeting - Revised WHEN: Friday, October 18, 2019 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 1298 (Mullin D-South San Francisco) – Climate Resiliency, Fire Risk Reduction, Recycling, Groundwater and Drinking Water Supply, Clean Beaches, and Jobs Infrastructure Bond Act of 2020 This bill authorizes the issuance of bonds to aide in the construction, modification and addition of built and nature-based infrastructure to protect Californians from natural and human-made disasters. This bond would appear on the statewide general election ballot on November 3, 2020. The bill, as drafted, outlines many resource related programs, including: • San Francisco Bay Area Conservancy Program; • Department of Water Resources funding for the creation and enhancement of wetlands and the acquisition, protection and restoration of open space and watershed lands; • Coastal Conservancy funding for coastal communities with fire, flood or sea level threatened infrastructure; • California Conservation Corps natural resource funding; • Department of Parks and Recreation funding to acquire, restore or enhance public lands and enhance open space, forests, habitat and beaches; • Wildlife Conservation Board funding for Habitat Conservation Plans. The bill is supported by Mid-Peninsula Open Space Authority, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, Save the Redwoods League, Marin County Parks, Rails to Trails Conservancy, Sonoma Land Trust and Peninsula Open Space Trust.
Staff recommendation: Support
2. Other Matters
B. OTHER STATE MATTERS 1. Discussion about AB 1191 (Bonta D-Alameda) – State Lands Commission Howard Terminal Oakland Waterfront Ballpark Act The enrolled AB 1191 authorizes the State Lands Commission to approve a ballpark and public lands development at the Howard Terminal Property under special requirements by the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Oakland A’s representatives will present on the topic.
1
Staff recommendation: Support of the A’s ballpark plans, including the Bay Trail
2. State Legislation Year in Review Advocate Doug Houston and staff will provide an overview of the 2019 legislative session in Sacramento.
3. Other Matters
II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. S. 2384 (Hirono D-HI) – Botanical Sciences and Native Plant Materials Research, Restoration and Promotion Act This legislation encourages Federal land management agencies to hire botanists, conduct research on native plant materials and incorporate native plants in projects on Federal land when feasible. The legislation would promote native plant research and use by: • Creating a botanical research grant program within the Department of the Interior – including $10 million for extramural research for which the District could apply; • Promoting the hiring of botanists within the Department of the Interior and creating a student loan repayment program to attract and retain botanists; • Directing the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture and Defense to provide preference to native plant materials in land management projects and justify the use of non-native plant materials; • Requiring the use of native plant materials in surface transportation projects and Federal building design; • Promoting interagency cooperation for various activities relating to native plants; • Directing the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to incorporate into existing activities native plant conservation; and • Creating a $54 million grant program within the Department of the Interior to keep rare plants off the Endangered Species list by increasing their populations and helping those currently on the list recover. The legislation is supported by the American Herbal Product Association and Center for Plant Conservation. The District has also supported this legislation in the past.
Staff Recommendation: Support
2. S. 2467 (Booker D-NJ) and H.R. 4273 (Gomez D-CA) – Transit to Trails Act The recently introduced Transit to Trails Act promotes equitable access to parks, green spaces, and public lands and waters. The bill establishes a grant program for entities that provide transportation connectors from critically underserved urban and rural communities to green spaces. Grants would be awarded in the range of $25,000 to $500,000 with a total of $10,000,000 appropriated for this program in each fiscal year. The list of eligible entities specifically includes “a special purpose district (including a park district)”. The bill is supported by the National Parks Conservation Association, the Conservation Lands Foundation and the Trust for Public Lands.
Staff recommendation: Support
3. H.R. 4197 (Maloney D-NY) – Revitalizing Cities Through Parks Enhancement Act
2
The recently introduced Revitalizing Cities Through Parks Enhancement (RECIPE) Act establishes a $10 million grant program to help non-profit community groups establish small community gardens and parks. There is an annual cap of $250,000 to any single recipient, which will ensure the funding gets more widely distributed. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development will award grants for the development of open space on municipally owned vacant lots in urban areas. Grant funds can be used to design, demolish, remove, beautify, improve, and construct or install facilities on municipal property. They can also be used to obtain property for the use of community open space, as well as maintaining community open space. In its current form, $10,000,000 will be awarded for each of the fiscal years 2021 and 2022. Staff’s initial read is the Regional Parks Foundation would qualify for RECIPE grants, but are consulting with Rep. Maloney’s office to verify. Funds could be helpful for developing the Crowley property, Judge John Sutter Regional Shoreline, Point Molate, etc.
Staff recommendation: Support
4. H.R. 4236 (Quigley D-IL) – Reducing Waste in National Parks Act Congressman Mike Quigley (D-IL) introduced legislation which calls upon the National Park System’s regional directors to establish a program for the recycling and reduction of disposable plastic bottles in their parks, including sales. Congressman Quigley is the Vice-Chair of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition (SEEC). He cites a May 2017 report by the National Park Service titled, “Disposable Plastic Water Bottle Recycling and Reduction Program Evaluation Report” as proof of need for such a policy. This report found the 2011 policy by the Obama Administration, which encouraged National Parks to end the sale of disposable water bottles within their boundaries, saved millions of water bottles annually from polluting park grounds and filling landfills. Additionally, the policy adopted by 23 parks saw a reduction of approximately 111,743 pounds of plastic each year. This policy was rescinded by the Trump Administration in August 2017. Congressman Quigley’s bill would make a permanent ban on plastic bottle sales in National Parks and create regional programming to educate visitors on the plastic water bottle sales ban. The District has supported this legislation in the past. Congressmembers Thompson and Garamendi cosponsor.
Staff recommendation: Support
5. H.R. 4512 (Barragan D-CA) – Outdoors for All Act The Outdoors for All Act would codify a Federal grant program offering matching funds to state and local governments investing in much-needed outdoor outlets. The bill directs the Department of the Interior to establish an outdoor recreation legacy partnership grant program under which Interior may award grants to eligible entities – which specifically include “a special purpose district, including park districts” at the District’s request. Grant funds can be used to: (1) acquire land and water for parks and other outdoor recreation purposes, and (2) develop new or renovate existing outdoor recreation facilities. As a condition for receiving a grant, an eligible entity shall provide matching funds in cash or in kind equal to 100% of the amounts available under the grant. A recipient may use the grant to acquire land or water providing outdoor recreation opportunities to the public. A grant may also be used to develop or renovate outdoor recreational facilities, with priority given to projects that: • Create or significantly enhance access to park and recreational opportunities in an urban neighborhood or community; • Engage and empower underserved communities and youth; • Provide opportunities for youth employment or job training; • Establish or expand public-private partnerships; • Take advantage of coordination among various levels of government.
3
Grant funds may not be used for specified costs, facilities and activities, including the acquisition of lands or interests which restrict access to particular persons. Congressmember Barbara Lee is a cosponsor.
Staff Recommendation: Support
6. Other Matters
B. OTHER FEDERAL MATTERS 1. Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development, or BUILD Transportation Discretionary Grant Program Overview The BUILD Transportation Discretionary Grant program provides opportunities for the Department of Transportation to invest in merit-based road, rail, transit and port projects that deliver faster, save on construction costs, and promise to achieve national objectives. The current Federal budget allocates $1 billion for the BUILD grant program for 2020. There is a $25 million maximum on applications. While still competitive, there is more to go around than when the District competed for TIGER II in 2010. The District is working internally to develop a list of projects that are most applicable for this program.
2. Other Matters
III. 2020 CONSULTANT CONTRACTS A. Houston Magnani and Associates – draft Board material will be provided. B. Strategic Research Institute – draft Board material will be provided. C. E2 Strategies, LLC – draft Board material will be provided.
IV. VALUE AND HISTORY OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS Staff will provide a presentation about the role Government Affairs has played throughout the 85- year history of the Park District.
V. HIGH LEVEL PARK AND PUBLIC INTEREST DISTRICTWIDE SURVEY RESULTS Staff will provide a brief verbal update about the Park and Public Interest Community Engagement Project and corresponding survey work.
IV. FASTER BAY AREA FASTER Bay Area is a November 2020 ballot measure proposed by a coalition of business, planning and transportation lobbying groups such as Silicon Valley Leadership Group, Bay Area Council and the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association (SPUR). The measure aims to raise up to $100 billion over 40 years for transportation projects in the San Francisco Bay Area. The funds raised in the form of a transportation tax will be similar to the taxes passed in Los Angeles and Seattle in 2016. Few details have been released as to what specifically the money will fund, but projects such as a second transbay crossing for BART, a new bridge crossing the Bay, expanded ferry network, and improvements to BART and CalTrain will likely be considered.
V. ARTICLES
VI. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT
VII. BOARD COMMENTS
4
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Local // Politics In acting on 1,000 new bills, Newsom shows he’s not Jerry Brown Alexei Koseff and Dustin Gardiner Oct. 14, 2019 Updated: Oct. 14, 2019 7:53 p.m.
Gov. Gavin Newsom (seated) signed several high-profile bills that were vetoed by former Gov. Jerry Brown. Photo: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press
SACRAMENTO — Later start times for middle and high schools. A ban on smoking at state parks and beaches. No more mandatory arbitration agreements in new jobs. When the dust settled Sunday evening on the 2019 legislative session — and Gov. Gavin Newsom had acted on more than 1,000 bills that made it to his desk this year — some of the most high-profile measures he signed into law were proposals vetoed by his predecessor, often more than once. Newsom, the first Democrat to follow another Democrat into the California governor’s office in more than a century, has made clear since he took over in January that his tenure would not be a third consecutive term of Jerry Brown. Their differences were prominently on display again in recent weeks, as Newsom’s office proudly highlighted, in signing ceremonies and press releases, new laws that had not passed muster with Brown: Ending the use of private prisons. Allowing undocumented immigrants onto state boards and commissions. Among them were several first-in-the-nation policies, including a requirement that public university health centers make abortion pills available to students. Garry South, a consultant who worked with Newsom on his scrapped campaign for governor in 2009, said that since his days as San Francisco mayor, Newsom has been a politician that embraced doing things others have been unable or unwilling to tackle. “He’s there to get things done. He’s a young man in a hurry,” South said. “He’s kind of an iconoclast in that way.” Brown regularly spoke of his “belief in subsidiarity,” a religious principle that values local decision- making to the maximum extent possible. He once famously wrote in a veto message, “Not every human problem deserves a law.” Newsom broke with Brown on several bills that expand state oversight of local governments, including SB328, which requires later start times for many middle and high schools. It sets the earliest start times at 8 a.m. for middle schools and 8:30 a.m. for high schools, beginning with the 2022-23 school year. In 2018, Brown rejected a similar bill, calling it a “one-size-fits-all approach” for a decision “best handled in the local community.” Newsom also appeared more willing to advance bills that create new state regulations or limits on personal liberties, including a ban on smoking in most areas of state beaches and parks. Brown flexed a libertarian-leaning streak when he vetoed similar bills three years in a row, writing in a 2018 veto message: “We have many rules telling us what we can’t do and these are wide open spaces.” Bills vetoed by California governors in their first year Gavin Newsom in 2019 Signed: 870 Vetoed: 172 Percent vetoed: 16.5% Jerry Brown in 2011 Signed: 745 Vetoed: 125 Percent vetoed: 14.4% Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2004 Signed: 954 Vetoed: 311 Percent vetoed: 24.6% Gray Davis in 1999 Signed: 1,025 Vetoed: 246 Percent vetoed: 19.4% Pete Wilson in 1991 Signed: 1,231 Vetoed: 259 Percent vetoed: 17.4 Source: California Senate Office of Research. Read More State Sen. Steve Glazer, the Orinda Democrat who carried the smoking ban, said Brown was more inclined to buck the party line than Newsom when it comes to issues that pit arguments about personal freedom against public health or safety. “Certainly, Jerry exhibited a little bit more of a civil liberties perspective,” Glazer said. “He differed from the typical Democratic doctrine on guns, on tobacco and some other issues that have a libertarian bent.” Miriam Pawel, author of “The Browns of California: The Family Dynasty that Transformed a State and Shaped a Nation,” said Newsom, with potential aspirations of higher office, appears to be playing to a different audience than Brown, who was at the end of his career when he returned to the California governorship. “Because he is a lawyer and a scholar of the law and spends a lot of time thinking about those issues and talking about them with people, you see his interpretation of the law” in Brown’s veto messages, she said. Brown twice cited concerns about a clash with federal court decisions when he vetoed a ban on mandatory arbitration. In a lengthy 2013 veto message of a bill to give victims of childhood sexual abuse more time to file civil lawsuits, he wrote that the concept of statutes of limitation reaches back to Roman law and is intended to ensure fairness. And two years ago, Brown vetoed a bill that would have required presidential candidates to release five years of tax returns to appear on the California ballot, suggesting it might be unconstitutional and could set a “slippery slope” precedent for other demands on candidates. Newsom, who signed that measure this summer, took more explicitly political stances. While Brown vetoed a bill requiring University of California and California State University campuses to provide medication abortions because it was “not necessary,” Newsom signed SB24 to show California is “expanding access and reaffirming a woman’s right to choose” at the same time that other states and the federal government work to restrict access. Pawel said the contrast was visible even in the way Newsom handled his bill signings, which were more visible and personality-driven, with a large number of ceremonies and videos on social media. Brown, who was already a very established politician with three unsuccessful presidential runs under his belt, generally reserved his public events for a handful of key issues, such as climate change legislation. Newsom is “looking for a national spotlight in a way that Brown wasn’t,” Pawel said. One clear difference was gun-related legislation. Newsom signed several bills that Brown vetoed, including a measure allowing employers, coworkers and school staff to petition a judge to take away a person’s firearms. Assemblyman Phil Ting, the San Francisco Democrat who carried the bill three times, said the two governors had different philosophies on preventing gun violence. Brown, he said, was “more skeptical on the gun-control approach.” “I think Governor Newsom definitely has a more activist or more proactive approach with gun legislation,” Ting said. “He definitely signaled very early on that he was interested in the issue of gun control.” At the same time, Ting said, Newsom rejected several environmental bills that he wonders if Brown would have signed, including a measure to stop Trump administration rollbacks of environmental laws and another bill to require recycled content in plastic bottles. Alexei Koseff and Dustin Gardiner are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers. Email: [email protected], [email protected] Twitter: @akoseff, @dustingardiner Alexei Koseff Follow Alexei on: https://www.facebook.com/SFChronicle/akoseff Dustin Gardiner Follow Dustin on: https://www.facebook.com/SFChronicle/dustingardiner
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
From pavement to nature: Waterfront park in works
The proposed facility would be located at edge of San Francisco Bay
By Peter Hegarty [email protected]
ALAMEDA » A stretch of pavement with panoramic views of the San Francisco skyline might be returned to nature and become a place of wetlands, walking paths and even campsites.
The idea of creating “De-Pave” Park along the western edge of what’s known as the Seaplane Lagoon at the former Alameda Naval Air Station emerged at least six years ago.
But the snail’s pace of redeveloping the former Navy base, which closed in April 1997 and is now known as Alameda Point, has meant almost no action has been taken on creating the waterfront park. Developers whose deals with the city fell through and the economic downturn during the recession are reasons for the slow progress.
City Councilmen Jim Oddie and Tony Daysog now hope to jump-start the park by asking city officials to come up with a plan to get it built, as well as ways to pay for it, possibly through grants.
Though some call the site “De-Pave,” the park does not have an official name. A consultant working for the city began using the moniker because the project reflects the aims of Depave, a Portland, Oregon,-based nonprofit that turns old parking lots and other places into gardens and open space.
The Alameda site is near where Navy aircraft once taxied at the base. A new ferry terminal also now is getting built at the Seaplane Lagoon.
The price of creating the park is unknown. But Oddie and Daysog are suggesting the city look into a phased construction plan and possibly hire an engineering consultant to prepare a preliminary design and offer cost estimates.
“If we don’t talk about it and if we don’t tell staff that we want to get this done, then it kind of languishes,” Oddie said in an interview.
Along with providing a place for people to visit, “De-Pave” Park would border about 500 acres set aside for a nature reserve that includes a former airstrip where endangered California least terns nest and breed.
The park would stretch about 650 yards from east to west and measure about 250 yards at its widest point from north to south. “It’s a cool idea,” said Sylvia Steichen, 24, of Alameda as she cycled near the lagoon Tuesday afternoon. “It would be nice to see concrete getting torn down and nature getting restored. It’s not something that happens very much, sadly.”
“De-Pave” Park would transform a “vast paved area into a thriving ecology,” according to the city’s Alameda Point Town and Waterfront Precise Plan, which lays out goals for redeveloping portions of the former Navy base.
Some existing paved areas would remain for walking paths and for picnic spots, the document says, and floating wetland docks could be added for increased natural habitat and for nonmotorized boat access.
The document also says the park could be a place for camping and for an interpretive program on tidal ecology, though it does not offer details.
Former Councilman Frank Matarrese said in a letter to the council Monday that it should support the park if it’s serious about protecting the environment.
The park will be a “natural buffer to inevitable sea-level rise and acres of carbon-sequestering habitat, both urgently needed to help address climate change,” Matarrese said.
The push from Oddie and Daysog follows a groundbreaking Sept. 12 for the new ferry terminal at the lagoon at Ferry Point and West Oriskany Avenue.
The Alameda County Transportation Commission is providing $8.2 million and the Water Emergency Transportation Authority is contributing $2 million for the terminal.
Alameda Point Partners also is redeveloping 68 acres near the lagoon with 800 condominiums and apartments and up to 600,000 square feet of retail and commercial space.
As part of placing the proposed park before the council, Oddie and Daysog suggested that any churned-up pavement could be recycled as base rock for other projects at Alameda Point.
The city’s plan for the immediate area also calls for the demolition of a building that housed a Navy workshop near the lagoon if funding becomes available for the park.
Oddie and Daysog said the city should work with any business tenants in the building to help them move to other locations at Alameda Point if the park goes ahead. Contact Peter Hegarty at 510- 748-1654.
“It would be nice to see concrete getting torn down and nature getting restored. It’s not something that happens very much, sadly.”
— Sylvia Steichen, 24, of Alameda
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Local // Crime East Bay developer James Tong guilty of illegally contributing to Swalwell campaigns Bob Egelko Oct. 8, 2019 Updated: Oct. 8, 2019 7:39 p.m.
WASHINGTON, DC - SEPTEMBER 26: U.S. Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) speaks as Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire testifies before the House Select Committee on Intelligence in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill September 26, 2019 in Washington, DC. The committee questioned Maguire about a recent whistleblower complaint reportedly based on U.S. President Donald Trump pressuring Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate leading Democrats as a favor during a recent phone conversation. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images) Photo: Alex Wong / Getty Images
An East Bay real estate developer was convicted Tuesday of funneling illegal contributions through straw donors to the congressional campaigns of Rep. Eric Swalwell. After a 10-day trial, a federal court jury in Oakland found James Tong guilty of two counts of illegally arranging the contributions to Swalwell’s election campaign in 2012 and his 2014 re-election. The funds totaled $38,000. Prosecutors said Tong, 74, of Fremont, pressured dozens of people to make individual contributions to Swalwell and used go-betweens to reimburse the money, exceeding the limits set by federal law of $2,500 for individual contributions to a congressional candidate in 2012 and $2,600 in 2014. Swalwell, D-Dublin, said he first learned of the illicit contributions in 2017 when the FBI contacted him. He said his campaign was donating the sums to a local charity. Tong, a prominent local developer, pleaded no contest in 2016 to violating environmental laws. He admitted that he and his company, Wildlife Management, had polluted a pond that provided habitat to the threatened California salamander and forged a document to hide the actions. He was ordered to pay $1 million to conservation funds and set aside 107 acres of land to protect endangered species. Tong denied funneling the contributions to Swalwell. The congressman testified at his trial and said Tong had never asked him for any favors or tried to influence him, said Tong’s lawyer, Steven Gruel. “Justice was served today for a campaign supporter of mine who violated the law,” Swalwell said Tuesday. “From the moment I was notified that my campaign was a victim of fraud, I assisted the FBI to obtain the records they needed to conduct their investigation. All the donations to my campaign in this case were subsequently donated to local charities.” Tong sought to dismiss the charges before trial. His lawyers argued in court filings that prosecutors had promised not to use his admissions in the environmental case to open future cases against him, but used some of that information to launch their investigation of his campaign contributions. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar refused to dismiss the case. Gruel said he plans to revive the claim of a broken promise by prosecutors in Tong’s appeal. Sentencing is scheduled for Dec. 13. San Francisco Chronicle Washington correspondent Tal Kopan contributed to this report. Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @BobEgelko
Bob Egelko Follow Bob on: https://www.facebook.com/SFChronicle/egelko
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Local // Phil Matier Confusion in Oakland over who gets Coliseum site — the city or the A’s Phil Matier Oct. 9, 2019 Updated: Oct. 9, 2019 3:04 p.m.
Oakland Coliseum and Oracle Arena with parking lots. Photo: Darryl Bush, The Chronicle
Faced with the possibility of the town losing its last major-league sports team, the Oakland City Council has directed city administrators to reopen negotiations with Alameda County over the future of the Coliseum property. The goal is to end the legal wrangling that’s threatening to stall the Oakland A’s new ballpark at Howard Terminal. The outcome of the proposed city-county talks, however, is very much up in the air. “In the interest of reducing strife and litigation, the Oakland City Council has unanimously asked our administration to meet directly with county leaders on strategies to resolve issues regarding our shared public property,” council President Rebecca Kaplan said in a statement. “Also, I have been working with Coliseum stakeholders to pursue a more harmonious and effective way forward.” Kaplan was a prime mover behind the lawsuit. At issue is a lawsuit Oakland filed last week aimed at stopping the county from selling its 50% share in the 155-acre Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum site to the A’s. The city owns the other 50% stake. The A’s say developing the Coliseum site is vital to privately financing their 34,000-seat waterfront ballpark at the Port of Oakland’s Howard Terminal. The lawsuit resulted in a court order temporarily blocking the sale of the county’s share. It was prompted, in part, by city concerns that the county’s $85 million asking price was a sweetheart deal for the A’s. “We hear what people do not (her emphasis) want to see happen at the Coliseum,” Kaplan said. “This includes wanting to avoid taxpayer-funded giveaways.” A’s President Dave Kaval had been meeting regularly with city administrators on the Howard Terminal ballpark plan and said he was blindsided by the suit — initiated by the City Council — and the resulting court order. “We were very close. This will put a chilling effect on us being able to close the deal,” Kaval said after the judge’s order. City officials, however, say the A’s approached the county without telling the city at the same time Oakland officials were trying to work out their own deal with Alameda County to take full ownership of the Coliseum site. Whatever the case, Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred told Oakland officials that the A’s waterfront ballpark and the Coliseum development is an “all-in-one” proposition. He also said the city needs to drop its lawsuit over the Coliseum land sale to the A’s or risk the team relocating to another city. The next court hearing on the lawsuit is scheduled for Nov. 14. Efforts to make the lawsuit go away, however, are off to a rocky start. Oakland City Councilman and Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority member Larry Reid said the county canceled the first post-lawsuit meeting between city and county staff that had been scheduled for Tuesday. “My understanding is that the county felt they were getting mixed signals from the city,” Reid said. Alameda County Supervisor Nate Miley, who also sits on the Coliseum authority, said, “I do know that one supervisor told me that the city needed to drop its lawsuit or we don’t want to talk with them.” Alameda County supervisors planned to take the Coliseum matter up in a closed session, possibly next week, Miley said. So far, the county is offering the city the same deal it’s offering the A’s — $85 million, with payments spread out over seven years. County officials say the money could be used to pay off the outstanding portion of the $220 million stadium renovation debt the city and county incurred as part of the 1995 stadium renovations that brought the Raiders back from Los Angeles. That deal is still costing the county and city about $10 million each year. “I have to look out for the taxpayers, so the deal has to guarantee that we get paid,” Miley said. Oakland, however, doesn’t have anywhere near the money to match the A’s deal. “But there are options that we plan to have staff take up with the county,” Reid said, declining to say what the options might be. Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, meanwhile, says she has concerns about the lack of community benefits in the county’s sale to the A’s. She also said the city’s lawsuit — news to her until it was filed — was not the best tactical move. She also said the city can’t afford to buy the property from the county. “It’s not financially prudent for us,” Schaaf said. Where it all goes remains to be seen. “At this point, I’m not sure what is going on, but it is definitely frustrating,” Reid said. San Francisco Chronicle columnist Phillip Matier can also be heard on KCBS radio Monday through Friday at 7:50 a.m. and 5:50 p.m. Got a tip? Call 415-777-8815, or email [email protected]. Twitter: @philmatier
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
BART’s wish list — $100B ‘mega measure’ By Nico Savidge [email protected]
BART General Manager Robert Powers hopes a new tax would fund a number of projects, including a second route across the bay. JANE TYSKA — STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
OAKLAND » A second route across the bay to ease bottlenecks between Oakland and San Francisco. Discounted fares for low-income riders. New fare gates that are harder to sneak through. Those are among the projects on BART’s wish list as Bay Area transportation leaders put together plans for a massive tax measure that would raise $100 billion over several decades to fund an array of projects meant to ease traffic and improve public transit around the region. The organizations pushing for Faster Bay Area, the “mega-measure” that voters could take up in November 2020, have so far shied away from listing the specific projects it would pay for. But the groups — the business advocacy organization Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the Bay Area Council and the urban planning think-tank SPUR — have broadly described plans that would better integrate the region’s transit systems and make major improvements to freeways and rail infrastructure like BART’s. “There is no more important project than the second crossing” for the next several decades of Bay Area transportation, BART General Manager Robert Powers said Monday, though he said the list of projects that would be funded through the measure had not been finalized. That second crossing — a tun nel or bridge that would also carry Caltrain or Amtrak trains across the Bay — needs the money that the mega-measure would generate to become a reality, Powers said. “Some type of major funding initiative, such as Faster Bay Area, will be part of the solution for the second crossing. Has to be,” said Powers, who was appointed general manager in July. As other supporters of the plan have, Powers pointed to ballot initiatives approved by voters in Seattle and Los Angeles in 2016 that raised tens of billions of dollars. “I would hope that the Bay Area can do something very similar,” Powers said. Funds for discounted fares BART also wants to use money from the initiative to offer low-income riders discounted fares, he said, something the agency has started exploring as part of a 12-18-month pilot program along with MUNI, Ca ltrain and Golden Gate Transit. And Powers said BART wants to use the measure’s funding to upgrade or potentially replace its tunnel running through the East Bay hills between the Rockridge and Orinda stations, which crosses the Hayward Fault. BART’s board of directors last week approved a $150 million plan to replace the agency’s familiar wedge-shaped orange fare gates over the next several years with a swinging, French door-style design. Powers said the new design “will have a huge impact on fare evasion,” which costs the system tens of millions of dollars of lost revenue each year and which some riders and BART officials blame for crime and public perceptions that the system is unsafe. Faster Bay Area could solve a key problem that BART officials acknowledged as they brought the proposal to the board: They haven’t identified any funding for the new gates. “It’s not only important to BART, it’s important to the whole Bay Area,” Powers said of the tax measure. Asked whether the second Bay crossing or other initiatives Powers mentioned will be among the projects funded through the measure, a spokeswoman for Faster Bay Area said the campaign is still developing its framework for what projects it will fund. ‘Riders first’ mindset Powers spoke in the cavernous Operations Control Center attached to Oakland’s Lake Merritt Station: the mission control of the BART system, where dispatchers and other staff track every train, and every potential delay, in real time. A veteran of transit systems in Baltimore and Seattle, Powers joined BART’s ranks seven years ago, rising to the level of assistant general manager before being appointed to the top spot last July. Powers is launching a tour to speak with and hear from riders around the system this month, beginning with stops Wednesday at Lake Merritt Station from 8 to 9 a.m. and Montgomery Station in Downtown San Francisco from 3 to 4:30 p.m. Asked about his priorities as general manager, Powers began with what he said was his desire to improve the experience of taking BART, an effort he described as “riders first.” He laid out a vision that included ensuring stations are clean and appealing, making BART police a more visible presence on trains, cracking down on fare evasion and doing a better job of addressing homelessness in the system. Powers said he and BART staff will not take a position on a controversial proposal expected to come before the Board of Directors later this month that would ban people from panhandling or performing for money on trains and platforms. BART’s response to homelessness needs to strike a balance, Powers said, between ensuring that the agency stays open to everyone and doesn’t criminalize poverty, and protecting passengers from aggressive panhandling or dangerous behavior. “It certainly is not BART’s to solve, or any one agency’s to solve, but everybody has got to do what they can,” Powers said. -
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Local // Bay Area & State Oakland’s curveball: City sues county over plans to sell Coliseum site to the A’s Phil Matier and Sarah Ravani Oct. 1, 2019 Updated: Oct. 1, 2019 8:23 a.m.
Juan Contreras of Stockton waves an Oakland A’s flag near the top of the then-Oakland- Alameda County Coliseum’s Mount Davis during a game between the A’s and the San Francisco Giants in July 2018.Photo: Santiago Mejia / The Chronicle 2018 to block the county from selling its ownership in the 155-acre Coliseum arena site to the baseball team, which hopes to develop that land to help fund a new waterfront ballpark.
A’s President Dave Kaval said Monday that the team was “completely blindsided” and “very disappointed” by the city’s lawsuit, filed Friday in Alameda County Superior Court.
The suit also apparently upset Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who said she hopes the city “suspends” the suit, which was filed by the city attorney’s office at the direction of the City Council. “Our city and county governments should work with each other, not against each other,” Schaaf said. “I hope the council suspends this suit so we can all collaborate together on a beneficial future for the Coliseum.”
Oakland asked a judge to issue an injunction to stop the sale of the land and to force the county to instead enter into negotiations to sell the land to the city. The site, the largest swath of publicly owned land in Oakland, is jointly owned by the city and the county, and the A’s have agreed to pay the county $85 million for the county’s 50% share.
Oakland officials accused the county of violating the Surplus Lands Act, a state law that requires publicly owned surplus lands to be considered for affordable housing before the lands are sold or leased.
The Surplus Lands Act requires that public agencies negotiate with other interested public agencies first, Oakland City Attorney Barbara Parker’s office said.
The law requires the county to negotiate “in good faith” for at least 90 days, but the county “has not complied with this mandate,” the complaint alleges. It states that if the sale goes through, any plans to develop the space into affordable housing is “extinguished.”
County officials have said that they have been trying to get out of the sports business and had been in discussions with the city since 2015 to sell the county share — to no avail.
The city, however, claims that county officials did not negotiate in good faith and were already privately negotiating a sale with the A’s.
“The Coliseum properties are Oakland’s largest public land parcel, and it is imperative that the properties are developed first and foremost for the benefit of the people of Oakland and Alameda County,” Parker said. “The city has declared its commitment to develop the Coliseum properties to achieve their highest and best use for the public good.”
If a judge does issue the injunction, the county could still choose to sell to the A’s after negotiating with the city.
“Obviously, we are really disappointed that the city has gone to court to try and block the transaction with the county,” Kaval said. “We are reviewing the suit to see what it means, but like I said, we are super disappointed with no advance warning.”
It’s unclear how the lawsuit could impact the team’s plans to build a privately financed ballpark at Oakland’s Howard Terminal.
“We are reviewing the suit to figure out exactly what the complaint is about right now,” Kaval said.
Parker said the complaint “has nothing to do with” the proposed ballpark project.
Members of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors did not immediately return a request for comment.
In April, the the supervisors voted unanimously to sell their share of the Coliseum site to the A’s.
Prior to the vote, Schaaf implored the board to consider the impact of a sale to neighbors of the site. In August, Oakland City Council President Rebecca Kaplan and Vice Mayor Larry Reid sent a letter stating that the deal between the county and the A’s didn’t have any provision for building a ballpark for community benefit to be included in the sale.
Board of Supervisors President Richard Valle responded to a letter sent by the city saying that since 2015, the county has held 33 meetings and pieces of correspondence with Oakland politicians and city staff regarding a potential sale of their Coliseum share.
“We hope that filing this lawsuit will help both agencies to realize a deal that ensures the highest and best use of the properties in the long term, that may include but is not be limited to affordable housing, jobs, retail, commercial space, open/recreational space, professional sports and hospitality,” Parker said.
The A’s are the last remaining professional sports team in Oakland with the departure of the Warriors and soon, the Raiders. The A’s have been trying for years to build a new ballpark in Oakland.
Phil Matier and Sarah Ravani are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers. Email: [email protected], [email protected] Twitter: @philmatier, @SarRavani
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Opinion // Editorials Editorial: The EPA is blowing smoke on California air pollution Chronicle Editorial Board Sep. 28, 2019 Updated: Sep. 29, 2019 8:32 a.m.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Andrew Wheeler would have us believe he has rediscovered his agency’s mission. Photo: Win McNamee / Getty Images
Now that we know President Trump menaced a foreign government’s military assistance to force it to undermine a potential obstacle to his re-election, it doesn’t qualify as shocking that his administration would go after a state’s highway subsidies for political reasons. The Environmental Protection Agency’s threat to California’s highway funding is nevertheless a remarkable example of Trump-era gangster government — a naked act of federal retaliation against a state deemed disloyal to the president. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler leveled the threat in a letter to California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols last week. After noting the state’s well-documented struggles with air pollution along with several considerably more obscure deficiencies in its federal paperwork, Wheeler pointed out that these issues could precipitate “highway funding sanctions, which could result in a prohibition on federal transportation projects and grants in certain parts of California.” Translation: That’s a nice interstate you’ve got there; it would be a shame if something happened to it. As Wheeler pointed out, California has twice as many people breathing substandard air as any other state. As he did not point out, the state’s large population, sunny climate and complex topography contribute significantly to that statistic. Granted, so, too, do failures of state policy — chief among them a housing shortage built largely by local obstruction and state inaction. The crisis fuels the extreme commutes that help make transportation the top contributor to the state’s air pollution. That said, the idea that the administration would punish California out of deep concern about air pollution is about as believable as its argument that FBI Director Jim Comey was fired for being mean to Hillary Clinton. Trump’s EPA administrator, a former coal lobbyist and aide to the Senate’s most prominent climate change denier, is not known for his zealotry in the cause of clean air. Moreover, Wheeler’s nasty-gram arrived the week after the administration revoked the state’s nearly half- century-old authority to set stricter air pollution standards than the federal government — standards that 13 other states now follow. Meanwhile, the president himself has excoriated four major automakers for making a deal with California to abide by higher mileage standards, frustrating the administration’s efforts to facilitate more pollution. When Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1970, it gave California permission to make its own rules because the state had already begun regulating auto pollution to address Southern California’s smog. The Obama administration extended the dispensation to the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions through fuel efficiency standards and worked with California to reach a nationwide benchmark. Now the administration that has fought to reverse this progress would have us believe it’s genuinely concerned about the state’s clean-air bona fides. In fact, Wheeler’s venting about air flows from the same impulse that was behind his recent allegation that San Francisco homelessness is causing ocean pollution, the Justice Department’s threat to bring an antitrust case against the automakers who struck a deal with California, and the president’s suggestion that he would hold military aid hostage to force Ukraine to investigate Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden. Trump has never hesitated to misuse federal power against his political opponents regardless of any plausible policy rationale. This commentary is from The Chronicle’s editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Sen. Wieckowski highlights Alameda Creek restoration project to address sea level rise
The Senator secured funding in the state budget to redesign the creek and improve the marsh, wildlife habitat
September 26, 2019
FREMONT – Supporters of a project to restore Alameda Creek and build up sediment near the baylands to address the threat of sea level rise joined Senator Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) today for a ceremonial check presentation next to the creek. Wieckowski championed the project in the Legislature and secured $31.4 million in funding.
“We are here to show how moving sediment to the baylands can help us prepare for sea level rise in a smart, natural way that benefits the public and wildlife habitat,” said Wieckowski, chair of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Subcommittee on Resources, Environmental Protection, Energy and Transportation. “This collaborative project has another important element: I believe it can be a model for so many other areas of our state that are also threatened by sea level rise. What we learn through this project should also be replicated across our state by communities facing similar problems.”
Alameda Creek is the largest local tributary that feeds the bay. But sediment remains stuck in the channel and is unable to make it to the baylands where it is needed for marsh and mudflat accretion.
As part of the Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge, a competition involving people from across the world and 90 different organizations and firms, organized to create projects to protect the Bay Area from sea level rise, designers on team Public Sediment showed how the project could work to the benefit of the public and wildlife. Several team members were present at today’s press conference highlighting the project.
Architects of the project said by reconnecting sediment flows from Alameda Creek to the marshes near the bay, the project creates an ecological infrastructure to adapt to sea level rise.
Senator Wieckowski represents the 10th District, which includes southern Alameda County and parts of Santa Clara County.
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Opinion The latest battle to save San Francisco Bay — Cargill salt ponds By Robert Redford Sep. 24, 2019 Updated: Sep. 28, 2019 10:55 a.m.
The Cargill salt ponds seen from Bedwell Bayfront Park on March 12, 2019, in Menlo Park. Photo: Santiago Mejia / The Chronicle
John Muir came to San Francisco in l868. He stayed just a day. He wanted to go “somewhere wild,” and he took a couple of weeks and walked from the city to Yosemite. He fell in love with what he called California’s “range of light.” About a hundred years later, when I was a young actor, I took a couple of weeks and walked from San Francisco to Big Sur. I fell in love with California’s nature, too. I’ve tried to be an environmental activist ever since. A few years ago, I had the honor of narrating an Emmy Award-winning television series about the history of San Francisco Bay. Making that four-hour series taught me a lot. We had beautiful footage of the beauty and diversity of the wildlife that live around the bay. We told the history, from the Gold Rush days when the bay was filled with abandoned sailboats. We included the booming development and the filling of the bay. In the 1950s, the developers had bay fill plans that would have turned the bay into just a broad river. The most grandiose of all the land speculators’ schemes was to scrape off the top of San Bruno Mountain, build condos on the newly flattened mesa, and conveyor-belt the dirt to fill in the bay and build more houses on the fill.
The last episode in the series was about three Berkeley women, Sylvia McLaughlin, Catherine Kerr and Esther Gulick, who in 1961 founded Save San Francisco Bay. They wanted lots of members; it only cost $1 to join. The organization bloomed into a movement to halt the rampant development and dumping and burning of garbage in the bay.
People all around the bay rose up to support them in protecting and restoring the wetlands. It was to the voters’ good credit — since then, no one even tries to get elected around the bay unless they have strong environmental policies and principles. But the struggle continues. In 2009, agribusiness giant Cargill applied to use the marshlands, just south of Redwood City, to build 12,000 new residences and 1 million square feet of office space. There was so much public outrage, Cargill Salt withdrew the application. A few months ago, the Trump administration’s Environmental Protection Agency administrator in Washington changed a preliminary determination of the San Francisco EPA office, declaring that the 1,360-acre site is not subject to the Clean Water Act. Cargill has quickly followed with an announcement that it intends to “explore future uses.” Locating 30,000 more people in the path of sea-level rise, right next to an already gridlocked freeway doesn’t make environmental or economic sense. All these years later, Save the Bay, in an unprecedented coalition with Committee for Green Foothills, Baykeeper, and Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge are challenging this issue in court. David Lewis, executive director of Save the Bay called us all to action: “The bay and wetlands deserve federal legal protection from pollution and development. We won’t let the Trump Administration invite developers to pave the bay.” On Tuesday, Joe Cotchett, the attorney representing the coalition of citizen environmental groups filed a lawsuit challenging the EPA ruling. “This is one more Trump attack on our environment and San Francisco Bay in the name of profit, which is this administration’s sole consideration in leading our country.” I am proud to add my name to the list of people, including over 60 elected officials and organizations who have already signed letters of support. Congratulations to all those Bay Savers and “Bay Saviors” for your perseverance to protect what the Spanish explorers called, “the harbor of all harbors.” Robert Redford is an actor, director and co-founder of the San Francisco-based Redford Center, with his son James Redford. https://redfordcenter.org/
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
US & World // News Is California economy approaching a tipping point?
Dan Walters Sep. 25, 2019 Updated: Sep. 30, 2019 9:17 a.m.
FILE -- In this Aug. 28, 2019, file photo, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego, speaks at rally calling for passage of her measure to limit when companies can label workers as independent contractors at the Capitol in Sacramento, Calif. Gov Gavin Newsom signed the bill, AB5, aimed at giving wage and benefit protections to ride share drivers and workers in other industries on Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2019. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File) Photo: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press
Circa of America got its start more than a half-century ago, during San Francisco’s hippie heyday, when Ronaldo Cianciarulo began making and selling leather belts out of his van in the city’s Haight-Ashbury neighborhood.
During several changes of ownership and names, it continued to make belts in a factory in San Francisco’s Bayview district, the largest manufacturing facility remaining in the city.
However, earlier this month, Circa announced that it was closing its plant, laying off 92 employees and moving its headquarters to Atlanta. “Due to changing economic conditions in the city and globally as well as a shifting customer base, Circa of America has made the business decision to move,” a Circa spokeswoman told The Chronicle.
Circa had reached its tipping point, when the disadvantages of operating in San Francisco outweighed the advantages.
A two-hour drive to the southeast, Jim DeMartini had already reached his tipping point.
A prominent farmer and Stanislaus County supervisor, DeMartini announced in July that he was not only giving up his political position, but had sold his 1,100 acres of farmland and was moving to Nevada. Not for business reasons.
“I’ve had it with California,” deMartini said.
Circa apparently isn’t alone. Joseph Vranich, who helps businesses relocate, has published a report, entitled “Why Companies Leave California,” claiming that between 2008 and 2016, “at least 13,000 companies moved out of state during that nine-year period.”
Vranich says high taxes and increasingly onerous regulatory laws are the major reasons for business departures.
DeMartini isn’t alone, either. California routinely loses more people to other states than it gains, with Texas the No. 1 destination of ex-Californians. There are numerous anecdotal reports of wealthy people, such as DeMartini, quietly opting to relocate to no- or low-tax states such as Nevada and Texas as their tax burdens increase.
The larger question is whether California as a whole could reach a tipping point when high taxes, regulation, soaring housing, utility and fuel costs, choking traffic congestion, disease-ridden encampments of the homeless and other negative factors overwhelm the positives of living and doing business here and the state begins to experience economic and social erosion.
We have seen tipping points in California before, both positive and negative.
We saw the Bay Area explode as a generator of jobs and wealth when technical innovation, venture capital and entrepreneurial spirit combined in just the right proportions.
We saw Los Angeles County implode when the end of the Cold War ravaged its aerospace industry and more than a million people fled the region, leaving it with the worst poverty in a state with the nation’s worst poverty.
What might be California’s tipping point? Could it be one or more of the bills just passed in the Legislature?
Could it be AB5, which would, by codifying a state Supreme Court decision, force businesses to place more workers on their payrolls, rather than treat them as contractors?
Could it be AB1482, which imposes limits on rents in older apartment houses?
Or could it be one of the measures that voters might face next year to raise property taxes on commercial real estate or boost income taxes on the highest-income Californians? We may not be there yet, but logic — and history — tell us that there is always a tipping point. The decline and fall of the Roman Empire is one reminder.
More to the point, we should remember that Detroit, the booming Silicon Valley of its time, arrogantly assumed that its prosperity was impregnable, and then stumbled into a socioeconomic abyss.
Dan Walters wrote this commentary for CalMatters, a public interest journalism venture committed to explaining how California’s Capitol works and why it matters.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Local // Bay Area & State Newsom vetoes bill aimed at stopping Trump environmental rollbacks Dustin Gardiner Sep. 27, 2019 Updated: Sep. 27, 2019 8:22 p.m.
FILE - In this July 23, 2019, file photo, Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference in Sacramento, Calif. Escalating its fight with California, the Trump administration accused the state Thursday, Sept. 26, 2019, of failing to stop water pollution from such sources as human waste left on the pavement by the homeless in big cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco. EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler outlined a series of alleged deficiencies in California's compliance with federal clean water laws in a letter to Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and demanded a detailed plan for fixing the problems within 30 days. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File) Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, Associated Press
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill Friday that California lawmakers passed in an attempt to prevent the Trump administration from rolling back environmental and labor protections. SB1, by state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, would have adopted into California law the federal Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, Fair Labor Standards Act and other regulations as they existed when President Barack Obama left office. It would have expired in 2025, on the day when President Trump would end a second term if re-elected. Newsom had said he would veto the bill. He said that while he supports the intent behind the legislation, it won’t give the state new authority to fight such moves by Washington, and it “limits the state’s ability to rely upon the best available science to protect our environment.” The governor told reporters earlier Friday that the bill is “a solution in search of a problem.” “No other state has fought harder to defeat Trump's environmental policies, and that will continue to be the case,” Newsom wrote in his veto memo. The bill faced fierce opposition, including from Central Valley farmers. Critics said it could harm agreements to deliver more water south of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta while still protecting endangered fish species.
Newsom was sensitive to concerns that the bill would freeze in place outdated water pumping and fish conservation practices in the delta. Atkins pushed it through on the final night of the legislative session.
Atkins briefly responded to the veto in a tweet Friday night, saying she was disappointed because the legislation “would protect our environment and working Californians.” “The federal gov’t continues to roll back regulations while #climatechange impacts roll on,” Atkins tweeted. “I will keep working with my colleagues and the governor to push back wherever possible.” Chronicle staff writer Alexei Koseff contributed to this report. Dustin Gardiner is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @dustingardiner
Dustin Gardiner Follow Dustin on: https://www.facebook.com/SFChronicle/dustingardiner
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Opinion // Editorials Editorial: Ukraine whistle-blower scandal spotlights Trump’s administration of amateurs Chronicle Editorial Board Sep. 27, 2019 Updated: Sep. 27, 2019 4:20 p.m.
President Trump’s third (and still acting) White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney (left), and his fourth national security adviser, Robert O’Brien, on the sidelines of the U.N. General Assembly in New York this week. Photo: Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty Images If President Trump’s latest scandal looks like the work of an inexperienced and ill-seasoned administration, that’s because it is. The Ukraine affair is a story of unchecked corruption poorly concealed by ineffectual yes men. Trump has relentlessly attacked such traditional checks on the presidency as Congress, the judiciary and the press, but the controversy over his latest solicitation of foreign election interference has highlighted the hollowing out of the institution he controls — the executive branch — by shining an unforgiving spotlight on its interim and itinerant top officials. Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire, whose hesitation to turn over a whistle-blower complaint earned him a grilling by lawmakers this week, typifies the administration’s musical-chairs approach to key positions. Maguire became acting intelligence chief in August after the resignation of Dan Coats, a former senator who had angered the president by candidly assessing the threat of Russian election interference. Trump took the unusual step of passing over Coats’ deputy and logical successor, career CIA official Sue Gordon, to give the interim appointment to Maguire, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center. He ultimately wanted the post to go to a loyalist congressman, Texas Republican John Ratcliffe, but the nomination imploded in the Senate.
Maguire, a former Navy SEAL commander, seemed at pains to handle a difficult position responsibly and ethically. But he acknowledged the drawbacks of inexperience, noting he had served a total of six weeks in his position and received the whistle-blower complaint on his second day. “I did not look to be sitting here as the acting director of national intelligence,” he told the House intelligence committee. “I thought that there were perhaps other people who would be ... more qualified to do that.” Maguire is no exception. Trump’s third attorney general, second secretary of state and third (and still acting) chief of staff are also likely to figure prominently in Congress’ investigation of Trump’s interactions with Kiev. More than three-quarters of Trump’s senior White House positions have been vacated at least once in less than three years, according to a running tally by the Brookings Institution, which is equal to or (in most cases) greater than the past five administrations’ turnover after a full four- year term. Nearly a third of those jobs have changed hands more than once; Trump recently appointed his fourth national security adviser, for example. He has also lost nine of 15 original Cabinet members, outdoing the total first-term turnover of prior administrations through Ronald Reagan.
The president has depleted, destabilized and debilitated his own government, and it shows. This commentary is from The Chronicle’s editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
PROPOSED SALES TAX HIKE GETS SUPERVISORS’ BLESSING
Commuters fill Highway 4in Antioch. With the supervisors’ approval, the sales taxmeasure is a step closer to qualifying for the March ballot. DOUG DURAN — STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER By Annie Sciacca [email protected] MARTINEZ » The Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday unanimously signaled its support for a proposed sales tax measure and a plan for how to spend the $3.6 billion it’s expected to generate over the next three and a half decades on transportation improvements. The supervisors’ endorsement was critical because without it, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority could not pursue getting a tax measure on the March ballot. The agency wants a half-cent sales tax hike to help finance transportation projects over a 35- year period, from July 1 through June 30, 2055. It proposes to spread around the extra sales tax revenue to provide traffic-congestion relief on major corridors, improve roads and enhance alternative modes of public transit. About 54.6% of the money would be used for transit and alternative modes of transportation, 26.7% for local streets and roads, and 18.7% for highways and freeways, according to county documents. County leaders hope the plan will lead to more bicycle lanes, walkways and free or reduced transit fares for students. Contra Costa County passed its first transportation sales tax, MeasureC, in 1988andextended it through the subsequent Measure J half-cent sales tax, which expires in 2034. The money has paid for projects such as BART’s extensions to Pittsburg and Antioch, construction of the Caldecott Tunnel’s Fourth Bore, widening of Highway 4 and some transit centers. According to the transportation agency, local funding from those measures helped attract $4.1 billion from regional, state and federal sources. The county hopes to continue that trend with a new sales tax measure. In 2016, county voters rejected a half-cent transportation sales tax measure. Supervisor Karen Mitchoff said she knows people may balk at the increase after Californians recently approved a gas tax hike that took effect in July, but she noted the sales tax is crucial for accomplishing more. “That gas tax was filling a hole for maintenance that was deferred for so long,” she said. Instead, the sales tax will help “modernize” the county’s transportation infrastructure. Sales taxes are generally considered regressive because poor people spend a greater portion of their income on them than the wealthy. According to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, low-income families spend about three-quarters of their income on items that are subject to sales taxes while middle-income families spend about half and the most wealthy households spend just about a sixth. Mitchoff acknowledged that combined with the Measure J half-cent tax that lasts until 2034, approval of another half-cent measure next year means county residents would pay a full cent. “I know that’s an issue for a lot of people, but we wanted this to be transformative, something different, something that will reduce your commute,” Mitchoff said. In arguing the need for another sales tax, Tim Haile, the authority’s deputy executive director of projects, said new technology is presenting ways to reduce carbon emissions and streamline traffic. He notes that the county’s population growth is straining the transportation infrastructure. Part of the plan is to motivate employers to create jobs in areas where there’s a lot of housing, the supervisors said before voting. Supporters of a sales tax hike who attended Tuesday’s meeting included a couple of dozen union carpenters. Representatives of East Bay environmental and community groups such as TransForm, Save Mount Diablo and Greenbelt Alliance also support the plan, Hayley Currier of land use and transportation nonprofit TransForm told supervisors. The groups have worked with the authority to make the spending plan more sustainable than the one shot down in 2016 by adding more money for bus, pedestrian and bike improvements and prioritizing projects that reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions, she noted. “We’re excited about the commitment to reaching communities of concern,” Currier said. Working with a variety of groups has helped secure more support for the plan, said Supervisor Federal Glover, who along with Mitchoff sits on the transportation agency’s board. To qualify for the ballot, the measure must get support from a majority of cities in the county. With that, the county supervisors in November would have to approve an ordinance placing the measure on the March ballot. Sales tax measures earmarked for specific purposes such as transportation typically must be passed by at least twothirds of voters. “It’s a unique opportunity to ask residents, do you want to pay one half cent more in sales tax to reduce your commute?” Supervisor Candace Andersen said. Contact Annie Sciacca at 925- 943- 8073.
Cars travel on Highway 24in Walnut Creek. The tax measure must get support from a majority of cities in the county. DOUG DURAN —STAFF ARCHIVES
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
There’s a lot to like about the Bay Area’s efforts to prepare for sea level rise: the collaborative efforts, the detailed studies and, laudably, the voters who are willing to tax themselves with an eye to future needs.
But if the long-term threat is as grim as scientific projections indicate, local experts say the region needs to respond with increased urgency — an urgency that is at odds with the Bay Area’s often cumbersome decision- making processes.
“Are we moving fast enough? I don’t believe we are,” said Dave Pine, a San Mateo County supervisor. “It’s hard for policy makers — or humans in general — to internalize the magnitude of the problem and plan now for the future.”
Pine is no wild-eyed advocate: The second-term supervisor chairs the Bay Restoration Authority, which disperses the $25 million generated each year by a regional parcel tax that voters approved in 2016.
The rationale for Measure AA is that the region needed a dedicated funding source to move wetlands restoration efforts forward — not just for aesthetic reasons but to provide natural buffers that can help soften and absorb the impact of rising sea levels within the bay.
The sun is rising over at the Sears Point Restoration Wetlands site on the edge of San Pablo Bay in Novato. | Michael Macor / The Chronicle
There’s no overall price tag for adapting the bay’s 400 miles of shoreline, which in time could approach $100 billion. But Measure AA is a step in the right direction of adding predictable streams of funding from here on out.
The most recent set of scientific estimates for the bay was released last year by the California Ocean Protection Council. Its “probabilistic projections” for 2050 are relatively modest, with the “likely” level of increase in the 1-foot range. By 2100, though, the “likely” projection puts sea level rise within the bay at around 40 inches, while the upper-level forecast is more than 80 inches — nearly 7 feet.
The range of the projections is affected by whether carbon emission levels fall significantly or if they continue at current levels. The state also included an “extreme scenario” — not a formal scientific projection — that factored in ice loss from Antarctica and has the tide levels climbing 10 feet.
Whatever the precise numbers or timing, environmental advocates see a common thread.
“All the changes are in the same direction, and they’re all happening faster than was estimated a few years ago,” said David Lewis, executive director of Save the Bay. “That’s what’s relevant.”
One proactive step is to create marshes and vegetated beaches. Such features can create naturalistic buffers against rising tides and climate change-related storms that otherwise could threaten transportation routes as well as low-lying communities such as East Palo Alto, Alameda and the working-class Canal District of San Rafael.
The catch is, the process of planning and financing such projects — and gathering permits — can take a decade or more.
That’s a big reason the region is lagging behind goals set in 1999 to preserve or restore 100,000 acres of wetlands, a goal re-emphasized in 2015 in “The Baylands and Climate Change: What We Can Do,” published by the California State Coastal Conservancy with input from scientific organizations such as the San Francisco Estuary Institute.
There has been progress, especially in the former salt ponds of the South Bay. But as of now, 56,000 acres of marshland exist. Another 18,000 acres of restoration projects are in the planning stage.
That leaves 26,000 acres to go.
“The point of the baylands update was to stress that we need to dramatically accelerate the rate and quantity of wetlands restoration,” said Warner Chabot, executive director of the Estuary Institute. “Instead, we’re at a pace to solve maybe a quarter to a third of the problem.” Bay Area decision-makers aren’t downplaying or denying climate change, as is the case with President Trump and his advisers. But this is a region that for the past half-century has created regulatory processes intended to be as detailed and wide-ranging as possible. Nothing happens quickly, whether the issue is transportation or housing.
Or sea level rise.
Case in point: the slow pace of efforts by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission to reduce the amount of red tape around adding marshes.
The agency was founded in 1965, the result of a crusade by Bay Area residents to stop the cavalier filling of shallow bay waters to make room for everything from office parks to garbage dumps. Its centerpiece is the Bay Plan, which includes prohibitions on anything except “the minimum amount of fill necessary.”
But creating or restoring marshlands often meets the definition of fill, such as when wide bands of sediment are laid down to form horizontal levees where cord grass and other vegetation can take root. Because of this, the agency has made it a priority to revise the bay plan with regard to fill since at least 2016, when commission chair Zack Wasserman told his fellow commissioners: “We need to speed up our response to climate change now.”
Western ragweed is planted in a test patch for a “horizontal levee” in San Lorenzo for the Oro Loma Sanitary District. | Carlos Avila Gonzalez / The Chronicle
After several series of workshops, and delays due to staffing shortages, a vote is scheduled in October to ease restrictions on bay fill for habitat.
“Looking back, amending the plan (with regards to fill) is something we should have been able to do more quickly,” said Pine, who has been on the commission since 2012. “We’re going to have to do a lot better in the future.” One sign of progress, though it sounds arcane, is a collaborative effort among six regulatory agencies that kicked off in August.
The title is the San Francisco Bay Restoration Regulatory Integration Team. The aim is to speed the pace of permitting habitat projects that by law are required to wend their way through a succession of agencies, each with its own set of priorities.
Wasserman’s agency is part of the team. Other members include the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Each has a full- time employee assigned to shepherd new projects through the system in a more streamlined manner.
“We started by looking at the ‘sand in the gears’ — what was slowing things down,” said Amy Hutzel, deputy executive officer of the state Coastal Conservancy, an agency that’s active in restoration efforts. “There are going to be tensions that come up, but the agencies all want to do this.”
Another fresh effort at collaboration is San Mateo County’s Flood and Sea Level Rise Resiliency Agency, created this year.
Its purpose is implied by the title: to consolidate old-school flood control with the emerging climate realities. The idea is a single agency that coordinates work among cities and brings a countywide focus to dealing with state and federal regulatory bodies.
“We saw the need for an agency that can build staff expertise and work across jurisdictional lines,” Pine said, describing the origins of the resiliency agency. The more focused approach, he also suggested, “should help us to pursue any buckets of money that are available.”
Waves break over the Embarcadero seawall near the foot of Howard Street. | Noah Berger / Special To The Chronicle 2008
There’s a different challenge in San Francisco — where city leaders are faced with upgrading the century-old seawall beneath the Embarcadero. The driving force is seismic concerns: Major damage to the crude barrier of rocks and concrete could dislodge utilities, destroy historic buildings above it and send water streaming inland. But a stronger seawall must also be higher, given the likelihood of sea level rise.
The Port of San Francisco’s planning efforts were endorsed last year by city voters, who approved a $425 million bond to fund the first phase of an effort that eventually could cost upward of $5 billion. The port also is working with the Army Corps on a major study of potential flood risks along the port’s 7.5-mile-long stretch of property.
The California Ocean Protection Council’s most recent sea level rise projects, with an explanation of the methodology, is at https://bit.ly/2GjiSHH.
The San Francisco Bay Shoreline Adaptation Atlas, released this spring by the San Francisco Estuary Institute and SPUR, is at www.sfei.org/adaptationatlas.
The Bay Conservation and Development Commission has created an interactive map to show “what could be at risk without future planning and adaptation.” It can be accessed at explorer.adaptingtorisingtides.org/home.
For The Chronicle’s 2016 series on challenges facing the Bay Area due to sea level rise, “Rising Realities,” go to projects.sfchronicle.com/2016/sea-level-rise.
In the meantime, though, the port is allowing development of sites such as Pier 70, where slopes are being raised as much as 5 feet by developer Brookfield Properties to climb above the sea level rise projections that were in place when the project was approved in 2017.
“We believe the current waterfront can be adapted for a prolonged period of time,” said Elaine Forbes, the port’s executive director. “To think we’re not going to use our shoreline because we’re waiting for future events would close off tremendous opportunities in the meantime” with regards to public access and, at Pier 70, as many as 2,100 housing units.
Veterans of adaptation efforts in the Bay Area are hoping that the signs of progress signal the beginning of a more fundamental shift.
“I really do think we’re at the precipice of a lot of things starting to happen,” said Laura Tam, a policy director for the urban planning think tank SPUR. “More local governments are looking for ways to take action.”
John King is The San Francisco Chronicle’s urban design critic. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @johnkingsfchron
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Around East County: Marsh Creek Trail extension plans inch ahead California State Park District agrees to look over designs; public meetings held
Roni Gehlke/for Bay Area News Group In the past few months consultants for the East Bay Regional Park District have hosted two public meetings centered on a feasibility study and conceptual engineering design for the extension of the Marsh Creek Trail, above. By Roni Gehlke | Correspondent PUBLISHED: August 19, 2019 at 5:00 am | UPDATED: August 19, 2019 at 5:18 am
It all started years ago in Oakley as a paved path, built by the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) and meandering along Marsh Creek, crossing major intersections all the way through Oakley and into Brentwood. As years passed, sections of paved hiking trails were completed until the Marsh Creek Trail finally made its way to the southwest area of Brentwood to Vineyards Parkway.
Today the Marsh Creek Trail is heavily used by hikers and cyclists, and several city parks and local neighborhoods have entrances into the paved trail areas. The trail spans 5.5 miles in Brentwood, a little less than 3 miles in Oakley and a little less than a mile in unincorporated county area, equaling a total of 9 miles.
In the past few months consultants for the EBRPD have hosted two public meetings centered on a feasibility study and conceptual engineering design for the extension of the Marsh Creek Trail from Vineyards Parkway in Brentwood to the Round Valley Regional Preserve. Since the groundbreaking of the first part of the trail in Oakley all those years ago it has been the goal of the park district for the Marsh Creek Trail to extend to Round Valley, making this the final step of the trail process. “It is remarkable that we will be able to complete this vision,” said Colin Coffey, the EBRPD’s Ward 7 board member.
Coffey explained that these are the very first steps of the planning process and that he’s very excited that the California State Park District has agreed to look over plans for the extension of the trail. In order to build this last part of the trail the park district will need to build the trail through or adjacent to the state parks-owned Marsh House property. Currently there are three potential trail ideas that will extend the trail from the area of Miwok and Vineyards Parkway, then through the state parks’ property, along the creek, crossing Marsh Creek Road and finally into the Round Valley property.
“There is a long way to go on this study and a lot of alternatives and variations of alternatives to consider,” said Patrick Miller from 2M Associates, one of the EBRPD’s consultants, to a couple dozen people last week at the second public hearing. Information about Marsh Creek Trail is available at bayareane.ws/31HdswQ.
Oakley history book: For years the local history section of Barnes and Noble had one glaring omission: the history of the city of Oakley. Every other East County city had a book on the shelf, with the exception of Oakley. That has now changed. Local author Carol A. Jensen, with the help of the East Contra Costa Historical Society and special thanks to local historian Kathy Leighton, has published a new book called “Oakley Through Time.”
The book is part of the “America Through Time” series by Arcadia Publishing through an arrangement with Foothill Media LLC. With photos, maps and even a few old postcards, Jensen has been able to give a peek of what life was like in Oakley at the turn of the 20th Century when the township of Oakley was first entered into the books, with the establishment of the first Post Office in town in 1898. The book begins by telling the story of John Marsh and how he once owned all of the property that was later to become Oakley.
History buffs will also learn of the game played between two of Oakley’s founding fathers that decided the name of the town, as well as how a land that was thought to be infertile because of the river bottom’s sandy soil soon became a farm town filled with orchards and rows of crops. “Oakley Through Time” then brings us to the present city, the festivals, the parades and how the city has grown. The book can be purchased at Barnes and Noble or online at Amazon and Arcadia Publishing.
Roni Gehlke can be reached at [email protected].
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
A resurrection for redevelopment in California?
By Dan Walters
CALmatters
Voters and elected officials adopt policies on assurances of beneficial impacts, but they often interact with other decrees to produce what are called “unintended consequences.”
Redevelopment has been a classic example for nearly seven decades and it may be on the verge of another twist.
Redevelopment, authorized in the early 1950s, was aimed at encouraging local governments, cities mostly, to clean up neighborhoods deemed to have “blight.” They would invest in sewers, water systems and other public works that would draw in private investment.
To finance projects, local governments would float bonds and repay them with “tax increment financing.” As property taxes in the improved project areas increased, the revenue gains could be retained by the sponsoring local governments.
The new powers were used scantily at first, but even so drew criticism when properties were seized from their owners, whole neighborhoods were razed, and their occupants, often the poor and/or immigrants, were compelled to find new shelter elsewhere.
Redevelopment exploded after voters passed Proposition 13 in 1978 and placed a limit on all property taxes. Feeling the financial pinch, local officials turned to redevelopment for relief, eventually creating more than 400 local redevelopment zones, often on raw land, and subsidizing commercial development, such as shopping centers, auto dealerships and hotels that would generate sales taxes and other revenues.
Cities twisted the legal requirement for finding “blight” with some very creative, even sneaky maneuvers. One declared some marshland to be blighted because it was “subject to periodic flooding.” And they would use generous grants of redevelopment money — bribes, actually — to lure tax-generating commercial business away from neighboring cities.
A decade after Prop. 13 passed, voters acted again, passing Prop. 98 that guaranteed certain levels of financing for public schools and required the state to provide whatever money schools needed if local property taxes didn’t meet required levels.
By and by, as redevelopment use expanded, diversions of property taxes reached about $5.5 billion a year and because of Prop. 98, the state was backfilling about $2 billion to schools.
Thus, three sweeping policy decrees over several decades interacted to produce the consequence of taxpayers throughout the state indirectly spending billions of dollars each year to subsidize commercial projects for a few cities. The excesses of redevelopment — such as $5 million to underwrite a “mermaid bar” just two blocks from the state Capitol in Sacramento — and its heavy financial impact on an upside- down state budget led then-Gov. Jerry Brown and legislators to do away with it in 2011.
Since, city officials have yearned for redevelopment’s return, saying that its demise also reduced financing for badly needed low- and moderate-income housing.
Several highly modified versions have been enacted, but have largely gone unused because all protected the state budget.
This year, a new effort was mounted, that would re-create redevelopment with a new name, the Affordable Housing and Community Development Program. It would give a new state commission oversight power and once again require the state to make up losses of property taxes to schools.
Senate Bill 5, carried by Sen. Jim Beall, a San Jose Democrat, has made it through the Senate and is pending in the Assembly in the final weeks of the 2019 session. It’s been estimated that if enacted, it would eventually divert about $2 billion a year in property taxes and require about $1 billion of it to be spent on housing.
Sponsors — city officials and labor unions mostly — contend that oversight would prevent the abuses of redevelopment from reappearing.
Given its tortured history, however, skepticism is more than warranted. Dan Walters is a CALmatters columnist.
San Jose State Sen. Jim Beall co-sponsored Senate Bill 5. If enacted, the bill would divert money from property taxes and require $1 billion to be spent on housing.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
One-Cent Regional Sales Tax for Transit Could Be on 2020 Ballot for Bay Area Voters
By Bay City News
Published Aug 22, 2019 at 1:29 PM | Updated at 1:30 PM PDT on Aug 22, 2019
NBC Bay Area File image of a BART train.
Bay Area voters may be asked to approve a one-cent sales tax in 2020 that would fund a wide array of transportation projects and improvements across the region.
The sales tax has been proposed by a coalition of policy advocacy groups, including the Bay Area Council, the San Francisco Bay Area Planning and Urban Research Association, and the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
The coalition has dubbed themselves FASTER Bay Area and presented their plan to the BART Board of Directors at a meeting in Oakland on Thursday. According to their presentation, they project the tax could raise up to $100 billion over 40 years.
The funds would be dispersed to regional transit districts, including BART, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and others. The policy groups are primarily interested in "big, transformational projects that better connect jobs to housing through a more integrated transit system," according to a memo by BART general manager Robert Powers. • 4.5 Magnitude Earthquake Shakes the Bay Area
That could include regional rail improvements, including more exclusive right of way for BART and Caltrain, and more express freeway lanes.
It would also emphasize closing gaps between transit systems, more fare integration and improvements to transit hubs and stations.
For BART, it could include funding for a new transbay rail crossing to complement the existing Transbay Tube, which is often overcrowded during peak hours. It could also include more mundane upgrades to BART's existing infrastructure and earthquake safety improvements in the Caldecott Tunnel.
• SJ District Set to Close or Consolidate at Least Two Schools
The FASTER advocates cited a 21 percent increase in commute times in Silicon Valley from 2010 to 2017 and said that was contributing to nearly half of residents responding to a recent Bay Area Council poll saying they were considering leaving the Bay Area.
FASTER has conducted polls that indicate voters are open to raising taxes for regional transportation improvements and that differences in support between funding measures are slight.
But some BART directors had concerns about the use of a sales tax, which tends to impact low-income residents more and can fluctuate widely in the event of an economic downturn.
• FULL EPISODE: Loma Prieta Earthquake, 30 Years Later
"I am really concerned about the one-cent sales tax," said Director Janice Li, who represents portions of San Francisco, adding that she was disappointed the advocates didn't present any alternatives.
"I think it would have been more appropriate if you said, 'here is a list of things that can get us to 100 billion, we think a sales tax is the best way,' but you didn't come with that list," Li said.
Director Rebecca Saltzman, who represents portions of Alameda and Contra Costa counties, agreed, and pointed out that the sales tax may require passage of statewide legislation first. California caps sales tax at 10.25 percent and Saltzman said some cities have already reached that maximum.
• Police Search for Man Who Stole $20K Dali Painting in SF
Furthermore, Saltzman argued that a mix of revenue streams would be better than a sales tax, which can be volatile in the event of a recession. Big projects could be forced to be put on hold when revenue plummets.
"Whatever mix you do, it's going to be more resilient than just having one type of tax," Saltzman said.
The sales tax could be on the ballot for all nine Bay Area counties in November 2020.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Local // Bay Area & State Caltrans seeks to steamroll bill to include bike lanes, crosswalks in road projects Rachel Swan Aug. 23, 2019 Updated: Aug. 23, 2019 10:27 a.m.
Traffic passes by as a pedestrian waits to cross Ashby Avenue at Adeline Street in Berkeley. State Sen. Scott Wiener is pressing a bill to make Caltrans consider improvements for bicycles and pedestrians whenever it starts a major street project on a state highway that actually functions as a city street, such as Ashby Avenue in Berkeley.Photo: Michael Short / Special to The Chronicle
To state Sen. Scott Wiener, the idea seemed simple. The streets aren’t just for cars anymore, so bike lanes and crosswalks should be a fundamental part of their design — as basic as the asphalt on the roadway. But his “Complete Streets” bill, which would require Caltrans to consider these safety elements whenever it starts a road project, has hit resistance from the state transportation agency. In a recent financial analysis, Caltrans estimated that SB127 would cost more than $1 billion a year, or $4.5 million for each mile of blacktop. Caltrans officials said the state may lose its federal highway funds if the bill passes. What Wiener had pitched as easy-to-do striping and crosswalk geometry would actually require a significant investment, according to a memo from state transportation officials. Most state roads promote ease and convenience for motorists above other uses. It takes a lot of staff, equipment and money to redesign them. Caltrans estimated it would have to complete 105 pavement projects — or 599 miles — in the next two years to meet the bill’s requirements. “With this scale of impact, Caltrans would not be able to meet all (SB1) or Federal Highway Administration performance measures,” Caltrans officials wrote, referring to requirements set by the 2017 state gas tax hike and the federal government. Notably, the bill does not mandate any street improvements. But it does require Caltrans to study the possibility of adding elements for bikes, transit or pedestrians to any project, whether building a new road or resurfacing an existing one. Wiener balked at Caltrans’ objection, and fired back in a letter to agency Secretary David Kim on Wednesday. “I write to express my significant disappointment about how the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has handled Senate Bill 127 this year,” he wrote. “Specifically, I object to Caltrans’ recently issued cost estimate for SB 127 — a severely inflated cost estimate that, frankly, undermines the agency’s credibility.” Wiener’s own figures, gathered from cities and regional transportation agencies throughout the state, predict a far lower cost for these improvements: anywhere from $20,000 to $600,000 per mile, depending on the intricacy of the project. Even a major street overhaul would only cost a fraction of Caltrans’ assessment, Wiener said, pointing to a series of comprehensive repairs made in Sacramento. At $400,000 a mile, they amount to one-tenth of the baseline projected by the state agency. The changes Wiener envisions would mostly apply to state highways that function as city streets — Park Presidio, 19th Avenue and Van Ness Avenue in San Fran-cisco; Ashby Avenue in Berkeley, Santa Monica Boulevard in Los Angeles and Highway 1 in Pacifica. Grocery stores, restaurants and houses line many of these traffic-clogged arteries. Children cross them to get to school and cyclists pedal along their spines, often weaving between cars and trucks. “There are little towns all over California where their main street is a state highway,” Wiener said in an interview. “That’s where businesses are. That’s where people are walking around. That’s where the school is. Some of them don’t have crosswalks.” These streets owe their look to a 1950s car culture boom, which birthed a landscape of wide boulevards dotted with drive-throughs, strip malls and auto repair shops, at the same time the federal government built giant, swooshing freeways across the country. It marked a shift from the earlier half of the century, when streets were rife with trolleys and people strolling — and even the occasional horse and buggy. Wiener accused Caltrans of clinging to this outdated car orthodoxy by challenging his bill. He noted that Caltrans already has internal policies to integrate other modes of travel into the configuration of the streets, though so far it’s made little progress. In 2015, the agency set a goal to triple the number of bicycle trips and double the number of people walking throughout the state, targets that are crucial to combat traffic congestion and climate change, Wiener said. Still, SB127 isn’t calling for a full-scale transformation of California’s streets and highways, the senator stressed. It’s merely asking Caltrans to graft bike paths, pedestrian walkways and, when possible, dedicated transit lanes onto projects that are already in the works. That might explain the cost discrepancy, Wiener said. He believes Caltrans based its analysis on complicated, capital intensive projects like a brand-new bike trail that’s separated from the street. “That’s not what we’re talking about,” Wiener said. A Caltrans spokesman said the agency hasn’t officially taken a position on the bill, though Wiener interpreted the agency’s memo as opposition. Other groups that have come out against SB127 include South Bay Cities Council of Governments, which represents coastal suburbs of Los Angeles county. They criticized Wiener’s “one-size-fits-all” approach, saying it wasn’t a good fit for cities like Torrance, where cars still represent a way of life. The California Asphalt Pavement Association would also oppose the bill unless it’s amended. Its executive director, Russell Snyder, said he’s currently negotiating with Wiener’s office, but he declined to say what changes he had asked for. “Our concerns are twofold,” Snyder said. One: The bill seems unnecessary, since Caltrans is already doing many of the things it purports to advocate for. Two: The association wants to uphold support for the Legislature’s gas tax hikes, which survived a repeal effort last year. “Voters are paying for this tax at the pump,” Snyder said. “And then they get in their car, and they drive on the pavement. We want to make sure their concerns are front and center.” To supporters of SB127, that’s a narrow way of looking at streets. “I think the Asphalt Pavement (Association) is just blinded by a windshield perspective,” said Dave Snyder, executive director of the California Bicycle Coalition, which co-sponsored the bill. “I don’t think that most voters, whether they drive, ride a bike, or walk across the street, are so callous and heartless that they don’t want to make a street safer when Caltrans is going in anyway to repave,” he added. Wiener’s response was more pointed. “The Asphalt Pavement Association wants to pave roads,” he said. “So take that with a grain of salt.” Rachel Swan is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @rachelswan
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Local // Politics Gavin Newsom drops plan for California homelessness czar Alexei Koseff Aug. 28, 2019 Updated: Aug. 28, 2019 4:15 p.m.
Gov. Gavin Newsom gestures towards a chart with proposed funding to deal with California homelessness, on May 9, 2019, in Sacramento.Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, Associated Press
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom has abandoned a campaign promise to appoint the state’s first homelessness czar and will instead rely on a task force and staff members to guide his response to the growing crisis in California. During his 2018 campaign for governor, Newsom said he would hire a “Cabinet-level secretary committed to solving the issue, not just managing it.” But at an event Tuesday, Newsom told reporters that he was instead consulting with a homelessness task force that he announced in February, led by Sacramento Mayor Darrell Steinberg and Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas. “To me it’s a distinction that is insignificant. They’re profoundly influential to me, de facto Cabinet members,” Newsom said, according to the Sacramento Bee. “They have complete, universal access to me — more than, I would argue, even Cabinet members.” Newsom said in February that the task force would “focus on prevention, rapid rehousing, mental health and more permanent supportive housing,” but also said he still planned to appoint a homelessness secretary. When he revealed the members of the advisory committee in May, he also named a mental health czar to reorganize California’s system of mental health services. Nathan Click, a spokesman for Newsom, said the leadership in the governor’s office remains focused on dealing with homelessness. He pointed to a major increase in spending in the state budget, including $650 million for cities and counties to combat homelessness, and $120 million for programs that offer supportive housing and other coordinated services for homeless people. Newsom also championed a new law that eliminates the public’s ability to challenge the approval of new navigation centers if they meet local zoning and design requirements.
“He has a number of top advisers working on this issue,” Click said. He did not explain why Newsom had shifted strategies. A biennial count of the homeless population that took place across the state earlier this year found a severe problem that is only worsening, with double-digit increases everywhere from the Bay Area to Bakersfield. San Francisco reported that the number of people sleeping on the street or in their vehicles increased by 17% since 2017, to 8,011. Alexei Koseff is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @akoseff
Alexei Koseff Follow Alexei on: https://www.facebook.com/SFChronicle/akoseff Alexei Koseff is a state Capitol reporter for The San Francisco Chronicle, covering Gov. Gavin Newsom and California government from Sacramento. He previously spent five years in the Capitol bureau of The Sacramento Bee, reporting on everything from international recruiting by the University of California to a ride service for state senators too drunk to drive. Alexei is a Bay Area native and attended Stanford University. He speaks fluent Spanish.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
East Bay suburbs are feeling the housing crisis, too By Debra Ballinger No matter whether you are a renter or a homeowner, our housing crisis is impacting all of us as our families struggle and our workforce faces increasingly unsustainable commutes. It may seem from the headlines that these problems are contained largely to San Francisco and Silicon Valley. But residents in East Bay suburbs are feeling the housing crisis like everywhere else in the Bay Area. Gentrification, the lack of affordable housing and the reality that many cities are not meeting their housing needs are uprooting families and seniors and increasing homelessness. We must decide whether we will invest in our future and create a Bay Area that works for all of our neighbors, no matter their race or income, or if we will allow our current path of unsustainability and unaffordability to continue. We believe most would choose the former, but we have work ahead to hold our elected officials accountable for fighting against the unsustainable status quo. We can look to Concord, Contra Costa’s largest city, as an example of the work ahead. In Concord, the power imbalance between landlords and tenants has been exacerbated by a growing shortage of affordable housing. Capitalizing on the impact of the housing crisis and a lack of tenant protections, developers and landlords are evicting tenants and raising rents, displacing long-time community members in order to attract a younger and wealthier population. Yet, on June 21, the City Council voted down just-cause and rent control legislation. This stunning defeat, orchestrated in large part by the California Apartment Association, comes after three years and hundreds of testimonies at City Council meetings by tenants, public health experts, child care workers, nurses, teachers, nonprofit leaders and advocates who described multiple rent increases in a given year, deplorable living conditions, retaliatory evictions and the effects of housing instability on children. These increases are disproportionately affecting and displacing our Latino neighbors. Actions such as the Concord vote hinder our ability to be the welcoming communities we all want to live in, especially since a majority of evictions impact immigrants and other low-income residents. Fortunately, there are other avenues for building a future we believe in, where all families — white, brown, black and Asian — can have a safe, decent and affordable place to call home. The multipronged “3Ps” framework that is moving through the state Legislature in a series of bills is a vital opportunity to create an equitable and inclusive approach to housing by incorporating protection of tenants, production of new homes and preservation of existing housing affordability. That package includes AB 1482, which would prevent rent gouging by unscrupulous landlords by modestly limiting rent increases and preventing arbitrary evictions. SB 5 creates innovative, critically needed funding for local governments to create more affordable homes. AB 1486 strengthens our Surplus Land Act to transform unused public land into a public good, making more public land available for affordable homes and open spaces that benefit our communities across racial and economic lines. This three-pronged strategy has picked up steam this legislative session with new and expanded support from a multisector coalition of labor, business, housing and economic justice advocates. Our local elected officials should take a cue from this growing support, and state officials must stand strong for this approach. All of the Bay Area and California are counting on you to create communities that work for us all. Debra Ballinger is a Concord resident and executive director of Monument Impact, a nonprofit dedicated to building skills, resources and power within immigrant, refugee and low-income communities in Concord. We must decide whether we will invest in our future and create a Bay Area that works for all of our neighbors, no matter their race or income, or if we will allow our current path of unsustainability and unaffordability to continue.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Will state Democrats exploit the primary? Lawmakers holding back from placing progressive measures on the ballot By Ben Christopher CalMatters Half a year out from California’s presidential primary, you can already envision the enthusiasm gap creating a turnout gap. Democrats of every ideology have plenty of incentive to vote in the March 3 election: It’s their chance to pick the winner in one of the most crowded, competitive presidential primary contests in a generation. But there’s little to lure the state’s shrinking Republican base to the polls. President Donald Trump seems assured of garnering his party’s nomination for reelection, even if a recent law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom were to keep him off the California ballot entirely. So although Republicans historically get a higher share of their voters to the polls than Democrats, the 2020 primary could well scramble that. In theory, it could give Democrats an opportunity to edge more Republican congressional and legislative candidates out of qualifying for the November general election, given that only the top two March vote-getters in each district advance to November, even if they’re in the same party. And also, in theory, it offers the Democrats who hold a giga-majority of seats in the Legislature a chance to load up the primary with measures on the progressive wishlist, like, say, repealing capital punishment. While citizens can qualify initiatives and referendums for the November ballot, only the Legislature can place measures on the March ballot. But thus far, Democratic lawmakers are holding back. With two weeks to go until the end of the legislative session, not a single measure has made the cut. Two school infrastructure bonds — the largely uncontroversial fiscal fare that often makes the spring ballot — appear the most likely to qualify, though key votes remain. Another possibil-ity, a labor- backed constitutional amendment that would severely restrict the state’s public universities from hiring independent contractors, could engender more debate. But those hardly constitute a left-of-center ballot bonanza. Instead, lawmakers authoring the most progressive measures are shooting for the November ballot instead. They include legislatively referred constitutional amendments that would repeal the death penalty, lower the legal voting age to 17, and make it harder for voters to recall sitting legislators and more difficult for local officials to block new affordable housing. Another possible ballot measure would ask voters to approve a $600 million bond for affordable and supportive housing for veterans who are at risk of homelessness. If nothing else, that ought to make for an interesting — and tremendously expensive — general election. The November ballot is certain to include a measure that will determine the fate of California’s system of cash bail. Voters might also be asked whether they want to nix statewide restrictions on rent control, hike property taxes on large businesses, and now, allow gig-economy companies to continue to classify their workers as independent contractors. Why hold out for November? In some cases, those extra months of negotiations may be necessary to iron out disagreements between lawmakers or powerful interest groups. And while March may indeed “be the sweetest election cycle for progressive causes,” said Paul Mitchell of Political Data Inc., that’s a gamble — one that California Democrats may not feel is worth the risks. Imagine a clear Democratic presidential nominee emerges sooner than expected, rendering California irrelevant. Or maybe a strong Republican challenger emerges against Trump, ginning up GOP interest. Or maybe Trump opts to retire to Mar-a-Lago. “Any of these unlikely events could happen, which means there is some nonnegative possibility that the Republican primary could get exciting,” said Mitchell, who provides voter data and analysis to California campaigns. Compare that to the general election, when there is sure to be one Democratic presidential candidate versus one Republican — in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans nearly 2-to-1. Another source of uncertainty: whether Trump will be on the California ballot at all. Earlier this summer, Newsom signed a bill into law requiring all presidential candidates hoping to be on the California primary ballot to disclose the last five years of their tax returns. During the 2016 election, Trump broke with the post-Watergate tradition of presidential candidates airing their fiscal laundry for the sake of transparency. (So far, all the top Democratic candidates have met this requirement.) Many legal experts say the law rests on shaky constitutional ground and Republicans have sued in both state and federal court. Last month, the California Supreme Court ordered the Secretary of State’s office to provide a legal justification for the law and could weigh in as soon as mid-September. Regarding down-ballot races for congressional and legislative seats, “We know that turnout is largely driven by the top of the ticket,” said Jessica Patterson, chair of the state GOP party. “For Democrats who have, I think, 20 candidates still in there … they’re going to have enthusiasm, they’re going to have excitement, they’re going to have energy on their side,” she said. “We need to make sure that Republicans are offered the same opportunity to go out and vote for their likely nominee.” CalMatters is a nonprofit, nonpartisan media venture explaining California policies and politics.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Shuttering state’s version of C-SPAN a loss for the public By George Skelton Los Angeles Times SACRAMENTO » California soon will take a huge step back when cable TV stops telecasting sausage-making in the state Capitol. You recall the old bromide about laws and sausages. To paraphrase: If you’re squeamish, don’t watch either being made. Cable TV — specifically its California Channel — has been the public’s eyes and ears on Capitol sausage-making for more than two decades. But now the cable industry, Cal Channel’s sole financier, is canceling this cheap, state mini-version of C-SPAN. Cal Channel costs a measly $1.2 million, just 2 cents a month per cable subscriber. The Cal Channel, which reaches every cable subscriber statewide, carries unbiased gavelto- gavel coverage of legislative floor sessions — alternating between the Senate and Assembly — and some major committee hearings. It telecasts gubernatorial news conferences held in the Capitol’s main Q&A room. And it televises a few issues conferences and sometimes a talking-heads show. For example, John Howard, editor of the online Capitol Weekly, occasionally gathers other reporters to chat on camera about politics. Howard hates to see the Cal Channel clicked off for good. “It’s about government transparency,” Howard says. “It’s democracy, for God’s sake.” Cal Channel has announced it will go black on Oct. 16. That will make it even more difficult for interested citizens to keep tabs on what their elected representatives are doing in Sacramento — how they’re spending tax dollars and making decisions. It’s coming at a time of declining news media coverage of the state Capitol. There hasn’t been a full- time TV reporter here in years. Newspaper staffs have dramatically declined. The Cal Channel’s board of directors, made up of cable company heads, offered a lame excuse for shutting off the cameras. It pointed to a 2016 ballot proposition approved by voters. Proposition 54’s main provision required that all bills be placed on the internet for public viewing 72 hours before the Legislature votes on final passage. It also required the Legislature to record all its public hearings and post complete videos on the internet within 24 hours. “It made our efforts duplicative,” Cal Channel President John Hancock says. Baloney. Not everyone goes on the internet to watch government coverage. The cable board has long wanted to dump the Cal Channel, considered a non-revenue producing nuisance. “The California Legislature is never going to draw a bigger audience than ‘American Idol’ or Major League Baseball,” says Dan Schnur, a former political operative who teaches at USC and UC Berkeley. “But that doesn’t mean there shouldn’t be a viewing option.” Can anything be done? Assembly Speaker Pro Tem Kevin Mullin, D-South San Francisco, who presides over house floor sessions, is the only legislator who seems concerned. He’s trying to figure out a way to “retain at least a modicum of programming.” “It’s just a bad moment for democracy in California to have fewer eyeballs on state government. It needs to have more attention.” But, he adds, “I’m going to work on it this fall.” By then, Cal Channel will be kaput. And the Legislature knocks off for the year in two weeks. Two possible solutions: One, lean on cable to rethink. After all, the Legislature can write laws regulating the industry. Two, $1.2 million isn’t even budget dust in a $215 billion state spending plan. Grab enough money to establish a new, improved, independently run Cal Channel — one a tad closer to C- SPAN. Keep a light on the sausage-making. George Skelton is a Los Angeles Times columnist. © 2019, Chicago Tribune. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency.
The California Channel has been the public’s eyes and ears on the Capitol for over 20 years. THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Climate change a ‘top-tier issue’ By Paul Rogers [email protected] Scientists have warned for the last 30 years about the dangers of climate change — more droughts, forest fires and catastrophic weather — as the Earth continues to warm from fossil fuel pollution. But climate has never been a major issue in a presidential campaign. This year, however, as the dire predictions increasingly become reality, that seems to be changing. Every major Democratic candidate running against President Donald Trump next fall has issued a detailed climate plan to dramatically increase renewable energy, electric vehicles and energy efficiency. Young environmental activists are demanding a Democratic debate on climate change and protesting at Democratic events. So far they haven’t succeeded, but from 2 to 9 p.m. today, CNN will host a live town hall on climate change, with the 10 major Democratic candidates answering questions from a studio audience and a moderator. “It has become a top-tier issue,” said Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia. “How could anyone who reads the headlines not recognize that this is not just a problem, it’s a crisis?” The politics are still evolving. But the science is clear. The 10 hottest years since 1880, when modern temperature records began, all have occurred since 1998, according to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. July was the hottest month ever recorded globally back to 1880. Record heat waves have gripped Europe this summer. Hurricane Dorian has battered the Bahamas and Florida, its Category 5 peak strength driven in part by warmerthan- normal water temperatures that scientists say make hurricanes stronger. Large fires have charred millions of acres across Alaska and Siberia in recent months. And on Aug. 2, Greenland lost 12.5 billion tons of ice to melting, the largest single-day loss in recorded history. The public is noticing. A CBS News poll in July of Democratic voters in early primary states found that 78% said climate change was “very important” to them, second only to health care — which scored 88% — and ranking higher than guns, immigration, jobs and income inequality. At the same time, a massive partisan divide remains. A survey in July by the Pew Research Center found that 57% of Americans say climate change is a major threat to the United States, up from 40% six years ago. But nearly all of that increase is due to Democrats. While 84% of Democrats described climate change as a major threat in the poll, only 27% of Republicans agreed. And despite California’s record on reducing emissions, polls suggest that voters in the state break down by party in a similar way. “Climate change offers a wonderful opportunity for Democratic candidates,” said Jon Krosnick, a professor of political science at Stanford University who has run polls on climate change for 20 years. “If they take clear, coherent positions on the issue, that offers an advantage in the primary.” But, said Krosnick, Stanford’s surveys show only about 20% of voters see climate as the central issue when they vote. That’s up from 9% in 1997, but it’s still only 1 in 5. He noted that Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who made climate change the centerpiece of his campaign, never climbed in the polls and dropped out last month after failing to qualify for upcoming debates. “Why did Jay Inslee’s campaign go down in flames?” Krosnick said. “Because 80% of the country yawned at what he was saying. The gun control people say ‘Look at these shootings. How many people have to die?’ Right-to-life people say ‘What could be more important than that?’ ” To be sure, climate change has to compete with other issues — health care, the economy, guns, immigration — for the attention of voters. In some key states, notably coal-rich Pennsylvania and Michigan, home of the U.S. auto industry, the issue could become a liability for Democrats, as Hillary Clinton found out in 2016. At that time, a comment she made in Columbus, Ohio — “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business” was used against her by the Trump campaign to claim Trump better understood the concerns of blue-collar voters. She later wrote in her post-election memoir, “What Happened,” that the remark, although quickly followed up with her plan for retraining miners, was the one “I regret the most.” Michael Brune, national executive director of the Sierra Club, said this year’s Democratic candidates have more detailed climate plans than “O b a m a did, or even Al Gore did.” To reduce the risk of Trump turning the issue on them, Democrats should emphasize that acting on climate creates jobs in renewable energy industries, improves the U.S. competitiveness against other countries, and reduces air and water pollution by burning fewer fossil fuels, all of which are popular issues in both parties, he said. “The nominee needs to talk about the benefits of the transition to clean energy and how the Democrats will take care of workers employed in the fossil fuel industries,” Brune said. “Just about every climate platform out there talks about how we can and should work with those communities in the Gulf of Mexico and in Appalachia to make sure nobody is left behind.” Why there is such a chasm between Republicans and Democrats on the issue remains up for debate. Some experts say it is because many of the solutions to climate change — which often involve more government regulations, taxes and treaties with other countries — counter longtime core principles of Republicans. Others say the issue is simple tribalism. Climate change was identified as “Democratic” for many Republicans because former Vice President Al Gore became its chief spokesman. Others say contributions from fossil fuel companies to Republicans, the fact that most oil and coal producing states — such as Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky and the Dakotas — are Republican and that GOP leaders so far have ignored the issue also are to blame. “Parties are a reflection of the leaders of the party,” said Bill Whalen, a former speechwriter for Republican California Gov. Pete Wilson and the Bush-Quayle campaign. “And Donald Trump does not talk about climate change other than to deny it.” “For the Republican Party to change on this, you are going to have to point them to race after race where Republicans lost” because of the issue, said Whalen, now a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford. “Until they get hit by a two-by-four and lose a race in Arizona or Florida, you are just not going to see Republicans come around on this.” The most energized voters on climate, polls show, are young people. A Quinnipiac University poll released Aug. 29 found that the younger that people were, the more concerned they were about climate change. In the survey, 74% of Americans ages 18 to 34 said climate change was an emergency, while 52% of people age 65 described it as an emergency. “For people in their teens and 20s, every year has been the hottest on record for our entire lives,” said Garrett Blad, a spokesman for the Sunrise Movement, an environmental group advocating for sweeping action on climate that on its website describes itself as “an army of young people.” “We see the world heading off a cliff at an accelerating pace,” he said. Asked whether a Democratic climate debate, which his organization is seeking, might provide fodder for negative attacks on Democrats in Trump TV commercials, especially in the Midwest, Blad disagreed. “We are not going to address this by being fearful of losing elections,” he said. “We are going to have to be courageous.” Whalen noted there is still a long time until Election Day. “The goal for Democrats is to kick Donald Trump out of office,” he said, noting that there is a temptation to focus on other issues such as health care, which worked in the 2018 midterms. And if the economy slumps, Whalen said, “The Democratic nominee is going to be on the attack about economic misery now rather than global apocalypse in 50 or 100 years.” Contact Paul Rogers at 408- 920- 5045 “We see the world heading off a cliff at an accelerating pace.” — Garrett Blad, a spokesman for the Sunrise Movement, on climate change
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Plan for oil drilling in the Bay Area can’t be serious By Marcela Davison Aviles If an oil rig trashes a forest, and no one is there to hear it, will anyone object? This must be the question of the moment at the Federal Bureau of Land Management as the agency proposes rules to open millions of acres in California, including protected lands, to oil drilling and fracking. Lands impacted by recent proposed rules include hundreds of acres in the South Bay and even protected areas like Mt. Diablo State Park. The proposed rules are as dense as the phone book. But at least the phone book is user friendly. Reading these recommendations requires patience and detective work. The bottom line is this: These rules if fully implemented will make Texas’ output, with 311,000 oil wells, puny by comparison to the BLM’s dream of Petro-California. The BLM rules open public lands and mineral estates across California’s Central Valley, Central Coast and the Bay Area to new oil and gas drilling. The Trump administration plan in Northern California is an increase of nearly 327,000 acres from an earlier proposal prepared under the Obama administration. The Northern California public lands earmarked are in the counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz and Stanislaus. Central Valley counties impacted include Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Tulare and Ventura counties. What else is at stake here? Our connection to each other is tied to our relationship to the land. The East Bay Regional Parks District’s free publication “Native Peoples of the East Bay” illuminates the profound intersection between humans and nature that informs East Bay life, including tribal communities. The Ohlone, Bay Miwok and Delta Yokuts peoples knew the natural world as we know our smartphones — with an intimacy that made the land a part of our humanity. And their frame of reference was, and is, one of reverence. Mt. Diablo, a state park where the BLM now seeks to drill, is where the Ohlone believe life began. The proposed rules would also allow drilling on land administered by the Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority — a vital subregion that connects urban San Jose to protected wilderness. Drilling would not only disrupt sacred sites; it slashes the interconnected nature of our Bay Area ecosystem. According to a 2002 report from the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the bay is the largest estuary along the Pacific shore of North and South America and is a natural resource of incalculable value. Our Bay Area estuary is a confluence where fresh water from rivers and streams meet and mix with salt water from the ocean. Our estuarine habitats are abundant and diverse. San Francisco Bay sustains nearly 500 species of fish, invertebrates, birds, mammals, insects and amphibians. Moreover, two-thirds of the state’s salmon pass through the bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, along with nearly half of migrating waterfowl and shorebirds along the Pacific Flyway. It’s common knowledge that oil drilling is a dirty business — it damages the environment during collection and transport and produces environmental toxins, including carbon dioxide. The Environmental Protection Agency reports fracking contaminates drinking water sources with chemicals that lead to cancer, birth defects and liver damage. This method injects a mixture of water and chemicals into rock formations to release oil and gas. It generates wastewater with dangerous chemicals that can leak to ponds, lagoons and underground aquifers. And what’s with the rush to drill, drill, drill in a state where we have to pay other jurisdictions to take our excess solar capacity? What’s not commonly known is actual impact. Getting this information requires patience and a bit of detective work to locate maps within the BLM proposed rule. Fortunately local biodiversity advocates have published a map that makes it easy to see its footprint. Essentially, it’s a huge smudge covering both sides of the Salinas River, starting south at Avenal and ending outside of Concord. Access to this data is essential for public understanding and feedback. True, notices are published in the Federal Register and on the BLM website. But it shouldn’t take a private detective or a rocket scientist to find and understand rules that, if implemented, will destroy the character of our region. Because if an entire ecosystem fails and no one is there to hear it, we’ll definitely feel it. Marcela Davison Aviles is a writer-producer and founder of The Chapultepec Group.
A pair of pump jacks are photographed at E&B Natural Resources along Patterson Pass Road in Livermore. The oil company was the only oil driller operating in Alameda County in 2016. BAY AREA NEWS GROUP FILE PHOTO
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Newsom exploring ideological territory others never would By Dan Walters CalMatters Gavin Newsom wasn’t born when the TV game show “Let’s Make a Deal” began its run, but he’s channeling its host, Monty Hall, during the final days of his first legislative session as governor. Every few days, it seems, Newsom announces that he and legislative leaders have agreed on one of the session’s major issues, most prominently — so far — rent control and charter school oversight. Additionally, Labor Day saw a Newsom declaration that he supports Assembly Bill 5, arguably this year’s most controversial bill. It would place in state law, with some modifications, a state Supreme Court ruling that tightens up the legal definition of employment, striking a blow at widespread use of contract workers. As the overall tone of Newsom’s initial year emerges, one bill at a time, he’s clearly moving California at least a few notches to the left, into ideological territory that his predecessors, including Jerry Brown, were not willing to explore. That’s not unexpected, given what he said during last year’s campaign. Nevertheless what he’s doing now, and what he had already done in his first state budget, invite some skepticism about their longterm effects. Sometimes, making a political deal becomes an end unto itself. Politicians, especially high-profile officeholders such as governors, often become more interested in making a deal than ensuring it’s the right deal. The classic example of the syndrome is what happened in the final hours of the 1996 legislative session, when then- Gov. Pete Wilson and the Legislature rushed to enact an illconceived “deregulation” of the electric power industry without considering the potential downside risks. It exposed California to manipulation of its electric power market, led to the bankruptcy of one major utility (Pacific Gas and Electric) and the near-insolvency of another (Southern California Edison) and has cost Californians countless billions of dollars in their utility bills. PG&E is once again in bankruptcy, this time because of huge wildfire damage costs, and Newsom is working feverishly on some kind of deal to intervene as immensely powerful financial interests, including the utility’s stockholders and bondholders, squabble over its future. What could possibly go wrong? The question answers itself. Rent control is another potential downer. California’s chronic shortage of housing has sent costs skyrocketing and while rent control might help some tenants, it also sends a negative message to housing developers. The pending proposal would apply only to older housing units, but once rent control is lodged in state law, Newsom, et al., will be pressed to expand its reach and that possibility will discourage the massive investment California sorely needs. Moreover, it’s unlikely that the session will directly confront the not-in-my-backyard attitudes of local governments, which also discourage new investment. Newsom says he wants more construction, but so far Newsom and legislators are moving in the opposite direction. Meanwhile, at the behest of unions, they are imposing new limits on the expansion of charter schools to protect the finances of traditional public schools. But they also limit options for children in lowperforming schools, and thus could doom those kids, particularly those from poor families, to subpar educations. Finally, there’s AB 5, which would bolster the traditional form of work — on a payroll, with fringe benefits — but undercut the fast-growing “gig economy.” Three companies directly affected by AB 5, Uber, Lyft and Doordash, have pledged $90 million toward a possible ballot measure to overturn the measure, so its passage probably isn’t the last word. Newsom is building his short run record, but whether it will benefit California in the longer run is an open question. Dan Walters is a columnist for CalMatters.
In his first year as governor, Gavin Newsom has worked to forge deals with legislative leaders on such major issues as rent control, charter schools and contract work. BEN CHRISTOPHER FOR CALMATTERS
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Harris’ focus on Trump, not policy By Casey Tolan [email protected] Kamala Harris mentioned President Donald Trump’s name 11 times during Thursday night’s Democratic debate, more than any other candidate onstage. Elizabeth Warren called him out by name once. The contrast between the two senators exemplified one of the biggest stylistic divides in the field of candidates and one that ultimately could shape the presidential primary contest: those who are laser- focused on Trump, and those who are more interested in delving into the details of their policy proposals. Harris’ strategy is a bet by her campaign that Democratic voters are watching the debates not only as a battle of ideas but as an audition for the general election face-off against Trump — and that they care more about kicking him out of the White House than the details of any candidate’s plans. But so far, it hasn’t helped her catch fire. The litany of one-liners about the president — some of which came off as over-rehearsed — gave Harris little time Thursday night to actually explain what she would do as commander in chief. And the strategy left her with one less opportunity to turn around her campaign’s sagging momentum. Warren, on the other hand, has wowed voters by releasing a bevy of plans and diving into debates on almost every issue in Democratic politics, cementing her reputation as the candidate with the strongest grasp of policy. In the debate, she explained her stance on “Medicare for All” and trade policy, her twocent wealth tax and plan to cancel student loan debt. “She’s wonked her way into the top tier,” said Bob Shrum, a former Democratic presidential strategist and the director of USC’s politics institute. “With Kamala, the big impression that comes across in the debate from her is not that she’s the one with the plans.” Harris has rolled out some well-received policy proposals of her own, on issues such as criminal justice reform, gender pay equity and climate change. But primarily, she’s trained her rhetoric on the president, painting herself as a former district attorney ready to “prosecute the case” against Trump. Thursday night, she opened the debate by speaking directly to the camera, telling Trump that “you have used hate, intimidation, fear and over 12,000 lies as a way to distract from your failed policies and your broken promises.” What Harris did not do was articulate a clear argument for what makes her stand out among the crowded field of candidates, a signature issue that drives her campaign, like Warren’s plans to remake the U.S. economy, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ call for a political revolution or former Vice President Joe Biden’s promises of a return to stability. Now, the clock is ticking, and Harris is fighting a growing perception that the Democratic race is a threeway duel between Biden, Warren and Sanders, with Harris and the other candidates falling behind. Earlier this summer she learned the hard way that a single breakout debate moment isn’t enough to give her campaign sustainable momentum. In the first debate in June, her viral attack on Joe Biden over race and segregation won massive attention and a surge in donations and polls — but it didn’t last, and since then her numbers have plummeted back to earth. On Thursday, some of her insults sounded almost Trumpian. “He reminds me of that guy in ‘The Wizard of Oz,’ ” she said of the president. “When you pull back the curtain, it’s a really small dude.” The audience laughed appreciatively. But by the end of the night, some of Harris’ lines came off as more canned than clever, and at times she was the one laughing at her own jokes. Harris is “in many ways a very gifted communicator, but she has to forgo some of the scripted oneliners,” Shrum said. “If you keep doing them over and over, it’s not effective and it doesn’t feel authentic or natural.” Warren, on the other hand, painted the problems facing the U.S. as far broader than the man in the White House. “Until we attack the systemic problems, we can’t get gun reform in this country,” she declared at one point. “We’ve got to go straight against the industry, and we’ve got to change Congress, so it doesn’t just work for the wealthy and well-connected, so it works for the people.” One strategy Harris tried that could be effective going forward, if she stays in the race, was to inject more of her own story and personality into her answers — trying to make them seem more like the warm interactions she has with voters on the campaign trail. That’s been missing in some of her past debate appearances. When pressed about her history as a prosecutor, Harris framed her work in emotional terms. “I’ve seen more autopsy photographs than I care to tell you. I have attended more police officer funerals than I care to tell you. I have hugged more mothers of homicide victims than I care to tell you,” she said. Overall, Harris didn’t get as much of the spotlight as she did in the last two debates — in part because all three of the race’s frontrunners were onstage together for the first time. And because she’s fallen in the polls, she wasn’t a target of attacks from the other candidates, as she was in the last debate. The attacks on Thursday focused on other candidates, the most high-profile being a dust-up between two Obama administration veterans, Biden and former housing secretary Julián Castro. They sparred over health care and the former president’s legacy, with Castro taunting Biden about his memory and blasting him for leaving millions uninsured — an attack that many commentators said Friday could come back to bite him for its aggressiveness. “I’m fulfilling the legacy of Barack Obama, and you’re not,” Castro declared. “That’ll be a surprise to him,” Biden shot back. Contact Casey Tolan at 510-208- 6425.
Former Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris speak after Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate at Texas Southern University in Houston. WIN MCNAMEE — GETTY IMAGES
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII October 18, 2019
Developer could pay for new fire station By Judith Prieve [email protected] Brentwood will get a new fire station if the city’s western boundary lines are extended so a developer can build thousands of homes in its proposed Vineyards at Deer Creek subdivision. That’s what an agreement unanimously approved Wednesday by the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District board with developer GBN Partners LLC, calls for. Under the deal, GBN Partners would pay the district $11 million toward a fire station and to help cover extra fire protection services the development will need. The district last month rejected a previous agreement with the developer and took no position on Measure L, which asks voters to approve expanding the city’s urban limit line to accommodate Vineyards at Deer Creek. “This (revised) MOU will provide the mitigations the district needs if Measure 11 is approved,” Chief Brian Helmick told the board. He said the fire district is hardpressed to provide adequate services to residents while also trying to brace for future development.
Blackhawk Nunn Partners wants to move Brentwood’s urban limit line to include 800 acres of Ginocchio property. PHOTO BY JUDITH PRIEVE
“Growth that comes without appropriate mitigations will make a bad situation worse and make it impossible for East Contra Costa Fire District to lend its support to any proposals on any new development,” he said. GBN wants to build up to 2,400 homes over the next 20 years on 815 acres off Balfour Road — outside Brentwood’s current urban limit line — if Measure L passes this fall.
In the agreement, GBN will pay an estimated $6.5million for the fire station. In exchange, the district will ask the city to waive impact fees that otherwise would have been used to help build a station.
The developer also will pay $4.5 million to help staff operational costs, including a $1 million lump sum at the outset of the project and up to $3.5 million for the first 1,500 housing units. If Measure L is approved, an additional $2 million to $2.5 million in base property taxes will help pay for ongoing operations, Helmick said.
“Establishing a station, we know, this is only half the problem,” Helmick said. “We know that ongoing revenue to be able to sustain and support the operations is the challenge.”
To help the fire district meet a projected $1 million to $1.5 million budget deficit, Helmick said GBN has agreed to also participate in a community facilities district. As a result, the new homeowners will pay up to $650 each in parcel taxes for emergency services.
Not everyone who attended Wednesday’s meeting was swayed, however.
“The problem is that fundamentally it doesn’t solve the big problem — that we don’t have enough firefighters to fill the stations that we have, and building a fire station does not make a damn difference in that process,” resident Jonathan Simpson said.
Kathy Griffin, who spearheads the No on Measure L campaign, also urged a no vote.