AGENDA BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, October 16, 2015 12:30 P.M., Peralta Oaks Board Room the Following Agenda Items Are Listed for Committee Consideration

AGENDA BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, October 16, 2015 12:30 p.m., Peralta Oaks Board Room 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. AGENDA

STAUS TIME ITEM STAFF

12:30 p.m. 1. STATE LEGISLATION / ISSUES (R) A. NEW LEGISLATION – N/A Doyle/Pfuehler

(I) B. ISSUES Doyle/Pfuehler 1. Year-end review: AB 665 (hunting), AB 746 (San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority), AB 495 (General Manager contract authority), AB 549 (state parks), SB 204 (state parks), SB 317 (park bond), etc. 2. Update on Transportation and Infrastructure Conference

Committee 3. Drones (SB 167 and SB 168) 4. Update on Cap-and-Trade Proceeds Second Investment Plan and Climate Adaptation Strategy (AB 1482 and SB 246) 5. Other Issues

(R) II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / ISSUES Doyle/Pfuehler A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. H.R. 1721 National Women’s Rights History Project Act (Slaughter, D-NY) 2. H.R. 2983 Drought Recovery and Resilience Act of 2015 (Huffman, D-CA)

3. S. 1894 California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2015 (Feinstein, D-CA) 4. S. 1995 Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Grant Program Act of 2015 (Schumer, D-NY)

(I) B. ISSUES Doyle/Pfuehler 1. Land and Water Conservation Fund update

2. Federal budget update

(R) III. PORT OF OAKLAND COAL EXPORTS Doyle/Pfuehler

(I) IV. SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY Doyle/Pfuehler

V. PUBLIC COMMENTS

VI. ARTICLES

(R) Recommendation for Future Board Consideration (I) Information (D) Discussion Future 2015 Meetings: None

Legislative Committee Members: Diane Burgis, Chair, Whitney Dotson, Dennis Waespi, Ayn Wieskamp, Alt. Erich Pfuehler, Staff Coordinator

Distribution/Agenda Only Distribution/Full Packet Distribution/Full Packet District: District: Bob Nisbet AGMs Director Whitney Dotson Carol Johnson Sharon Clay Director Beverly Lane Bruce Kern David Zuckerman Director Diane Burgis Mona Koh Connie Swisher Director Doug Siden Dr. George Manross Mimi Waluch Director John Sutter Jim O’Connor Kristina Kelchner Director Dennis Waespi Carol Victor Xiaoning Huang – Local 2428 Director Ayn Wieskamp Sukari Beshears

Distribution/Agenda Only Distribution/Full Packet Distribution/Full Packet Public: District: Yolande Barial Knight Norman LaForce Robert Doyle Peter Rauch Tim Anderson Bruce Beyaert Pat O’Brien Mark Pearson – Local 2428 Afton Crooks Debra Auker Eri Suzuki – Local 2428 Stana Hearne Tyrone Davis Judi Bank Mark Ragatz Michael Kelley Jeff Rasmussen Rick Rickard Sean Dougan

TO: Board Legislative Committee (Chair Diane Burgis, Whitney Dotson, Dennis Waespi and Alternate Ayn Wieskamp)

FROM: Robert E. Doyle, General Manager Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager

SUBJECT: Board Legislative Committee Meeting WHEN: Friday, October 16, 2015 - 12:30 p.m. Lunch will be served

WHERE: Board Room, Peralta Oaks ______

Items to be discussed: I. STATE LEGISLATION / ISSUES A. NEW LEGISLATION – N/A

B. ISSUES 1. Year-end review Advocate Doug Houston, General Manager Robert E. Doyle and Government Affairs Manager Erich Pfuehler will provide a summary of the District’s work in Sacramento this year. There were a number of successes both proactive and defensive. For example, the District maintained the ability to enforce a 150 yard buffer distance for hunting in proximity to District trails adjacent to navigable waters of the state by opposing AB 665 (Frazier, D-Oakley). The District was able to ensure an elected official from a Special District is eligible to chair the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority by amending AB 746 (Ting, D-San Francisco). The District also was successful in raising the General Manger purchasing liming from $25,000 to $50,000 by passing AB 495 (Gordon, D-Menlo Park), ensuring a state park bond measure was introduced with per capita and funding for regional park agencies SB 317 (de Leon, D-Los Angeles), and supporting implementation of Parks Forward recommendations AB 549 (Levine, D-Marin County) and SB 204 (Pavely, D-Agoura Hills).

2. Update on Transportation and Infrastructure Conference Committee The Governor’s call for a special session to address California’s transportation funding backlog ended without an agreement. The Governor had sought to implement a $65 highway user fee, an 11 cent excise tax on diesel fuel, indexing the exiting gasoline tax to inflation, $500 million from cap-and-trade and a $100 million from Caltrans (which the legislative analyst has said is overstaffed. Ultimately, the legislature failed to act on SBX1 1 or any comprehensive transportation measure because there was no will by Republicans for new taxes. The Special session remains in effect, however, until the end of 2016. The Conference Committee is scheduled to meet on October 16th for informational purposes, presumably to establish ground rules. In an interesting twist, Assembly Member Kevin Mullin replaced Jim Frazier as chair of the Conference Committee even though Frazier is chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee.

3. Drones (SB 167 and SB 168) With the increased use of hobby drones for posting images / video on social media, some footage of wildfires in California emerged. The Legislature considered a number of bills to put some parameters on drone use – particularly instances which could interfere with the performance of police officers, firefighters, emergency personnel or military personnel when they are coping with an emergency. One effort, SB 167 by Senators Ted Gaines (R-El Dorado) and Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Santa Barbara) essentially makes it a misdemeanor of disorderly conduct to operate a drone in any manner that interferes with the extinguishment of a fire. SB 167 was referred to the public safety committee, but SB 168, also by Senators Gaines and Jackson, was enrolled and presented to the Governor. The Governor, however, vetoed the measure on October 3, along with eight other bills which created new crimes. He cited prison overcrowding and the need for criminal justice reform. SB 168 increased fines for unmanned aircraft (UAS) interference with firefighting activities and granted civil immunity to public entities. It would have made it a misdemeanor, carrying a penalty of up to six months jail time and up to $5,000 in fines, to use a UAS in a way that interferes with firefighting. There were a number of other bills dealing with drones and unmanned aircraft introduced. Setting parameters on the use of these aircraft is sure to be a continued debate next year. By December 31, 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration is statutorily required to develop and implement requirements for the operation of public unmanned aircraft systems in the national airspace system. Once those requirements are in place, the state may take other steps to ensure drone use protects both civil liberties and public safety.

4. Update on Cap-and-Trade Proceeds Second Investment Plan and Climate Adaptation Strategy (AB 1482 and SB 246) The California Air Resources Board (CARB), California Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Finance are in the initial phases of developing the second investment plan for Cap-and-Trade proceeds. Every three years, the 40% that isn’t automatically allocated to specific program areas receives a fresh look from the agencies and legislature. Since Cap-and- Trade revenue is now in the multi-billions, it seems like a good opportunity for the District and agencies which protect lands that sequester carbon. The District participated in two of the public workshops this August providing input into the new draft investment plan. The CARB held a public hearing on the funding guidelines September 24 and 25. The next step is for the CARB to release the updated version of the concept paper / three year expenditure plan, which could happen any day. There will be another opportunity to provide feedback after the CARB release. The agencies are charged with presenting a proposed investment plan and funding guidelines to the legislature by the end of the year. The legislature will ultimately include the investment plan and guidelines in the next budget adopted in June of 2016.

AB 1482 was authored by Rich Gordon (D-Menlo Park). It requires the California Natural Resources Agency (NRA) to update its climate adaptation strategy by July 1, 2017, and every three years thereafter. It calls for identifying vulnerabilities, prioritizing actions to reduce risks, educating the public, encouraging regional collaboration, promoting a drought-resilient water system, building resilient communities by developing urban greening projects, and protecting and enhancing habitat. This is mostly the legislative response to Governor Brown’s Executive Order calling for a statewide climate adaptation strategy. AB 1482 was approved and Chaptered on October 8.

SB 246 was authored by Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont). It establishes the “Integrated Climate Adaptation and Resiliency Program” through the Office of Planning and Research to coordinate efforts with state climate adaptation strategies. It essentially provides a framework with which California local governments can adapt to the impact of climate change. The goal is to avert unnecessary and redundant costs resulting from the absence of proper coordination and adoption of best practices. It is a complementary effort to AB 1482 and is also a legislative response to Governor Brown’s Executive Order which calls on OPR to establish a technical, advisory group to help agencies coordinate their planning and investment decisions. SB 246 was approved and Chaptered on October 8.

5. Other Issues

II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / ISSUES A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. H.R. 1721 National Women’s Rights History Project Act (Slaughter, D-NY) The National Women’s Rights History Project Act was signed into law in 2009 after nearly a decade of work by Representative Louise Slaughter and former New York Senator Hillary Clinton. It preserves and promotes historic sites around the country – and in particular upstate New York – which are significant to the women’s rights movement and its role in the history of our democracy. It will establish an auto route – the Votes for Women Trail – linking women’s suffrage movement sites throughout upstate New York. It will also expand the current National Registry of “Places Where Women Made History” to include additional historic sites. Less than half of the 298 sites nationwide relevant to women’s rights are listed on the national register of historic places. Of those, only about 60 are national historic landmarks. It also establishes a public-private partnership network to offer financial and technical assistance for educational programs about the history of the fight for women’s rights. The legislation simply reauthorizes funding for the National Women’s Rights History Project through 2019.

The legislation is cosponsored by East Bay Reps. – Lee and McNerney.

Staff recommendation: SUPPORT

2. H.R. 2983 Drought Recovery and Resilience Act of 2015 (Huffman, D-CA) Representative Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) introduced the Drought Recovery and Resilience Act of 2015 (H.R. 2983). The legislation is a product of extensive discussion with stakeholders about how to facilitate the development of water recycling projects in drought-stricken regions.

Highlights include:  $300 million to support additional water recycling project construction through the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation's Title XVI program.  $400 million in supplemental funding for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF).  $100 million for the Safe Drinking Water SRF to support projects in drought impacted regions, and up to 40 year terms for SRF loans for water recycling projects.  A new water recycling competitive grants program (80% federal cost-share) under the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) funded at $500 million per year through 2020.

The bill provides that if the USEPA fails to meet deadlines for program implementation and project awards, the funding would be allocated to the SRF programs in those states impacted by drought.

The bill or amendments could be offered again, but a more Central Valley friendly version sponsored by Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) passed the House on July 16 (it is discussed more in the next item). While it is unlikely the Huffman bill's spending provisions will be considered by the House, some provisions may become part of any final agreement negotiated with the Senate later this year or early next year.

The legislation is cosponsored by all East Bay Reps. – DeSaulnier, Honda, Lee, McNerney, Swalwell and Thompson.

Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT

3. S. 1894 California Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2015 (Feinstein, D-CA) The California Emergency Drought Relief Act calls for $1.3 billion to be spent over the next ten years on bolstering water infrastructure, desalination projects, water recycling projects and environmental protection. The bill would also provide emergency assistance for communities most at risk of running out of water.

The priority placed on environmental protection in Senator Dianne Feinstein’s bill stands in marked contrast with GOP-backed legislation that advanced in the House earlier this year.

That bill, the Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015 (H.R. 2898), was sponsored by Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford). Rep. Valadao’s bill largely ignored environmental concerns in favor of providing more water to farmers in California’s Central Valley agricultural belt.

While Feinstein’s bill includes some measures attractive to Republicans, like increased funding for water storage, Republicans are unlikely to support the bill in its current form. In a statement, Rep. Valadao said Feinstein’s bill “included some useful provisions while doing little to deliver more water to California famers and families.”

The bill also faces a tough test from environmental, sportsmen and fishing groups, who will be watching to see if the Endangered Species Act gets altered in any way. Environmental groups have been adamant in previous negotiations over drought bills that insured endangered fish species remain unaffected by relief measures.

Staff Recommendation: WATCH

4. S. 1995 Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Grant Program Act of 2015 (Schumer, D-NY) Senator Chuck Schumer (NY) introduced S. 1995, the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Grant Program Act of 2015. The legislation would codify the existing National Park Service (NPS) administered Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Competitive Grant Program (ORLPP). Established in 2014, ORLPP is administered using a dedicated stream of funding from the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA).

GOMESA, enacted in 2006, opened up new offshore areas in the Gulf of Mexico for oil and gas drilling. A portion of those new revenues (12.5 percent) from Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leases was directed – without further appropriation by Congress – to the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) stateside program, thus creating the only source of "mandatory" funding for the LWCF. Beginning in 2017, up to $125 million per year will be available to the stateside program. S.1995 proposes to take 20 percent of that stateside funding (up to $25 million) and direct it to the ORLPP to target outdoor recreation needs in urban communities, where about 80 percent of Americans live.

The Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership (ORLPP) program was created as a subset of, and a complement to, the existing LWCF State and Local Assistance Program. The program is aimed at identifying and showcasing new ways of providing opportunities for expanding outdoor recreation in areas with great need, as well as promoting the development of new or enhanced partnerships for outdoor recreation in urban communities across the nation.

S.1995 does not impact Congress’ ability to fund LWCF stateside and the ORLPP through the annual appropriations process. That role can continue regardless of any funding provided through GOMESA.

The Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Grant Program Act of 2015 was introduced August 5, 2015 and referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT

B. ISSUES 1. Land and Water Conservation Fund update At the end of September, the 50-year-old Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) expired. LWCF, which was authorized at $900 million, pays for federal land acquisitions, private land conservation easements, state recreation projects and endangered species grants. It's been funded annually by revenues from offshore oil and gas development, accumulating an unappropriated balance of roughly $20 billion. Appropriators will still be able to draw from that fund when it comes time to pass another spending bill December 11. The program's expiration primarily means oil and gas companies have stopped paying into it. Senator Richard Burr (R- N.C.) had planned to ask for unanimous consent to pass a 60 day extension, but there were objectors. The next opportunities for reauthorization are as a rider to a long-term surface transportation bill or in an omnibus spending bill in December. There is even talk of including LWCF in a bill to lift the ban on selling crude overseas as a way to pick up support for exports from moderate Democrats. The program's first expiration since its enactment in 1965 was a major blow to its proponents in Congress and in the conservation and recreation communities. Democrats and their allies pointed the finger at House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) for stalling progress in the lower chamber after a compromise to permanently extend LWCF was reached by bipartisan leaders on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Bishop has highlighted there is still $20 billion on the LWCF balance sheet, which appropriators can spend as they see fit. At LWCF's recently appropriated levels of roughly $300 million annually, it would take more than 50 years to spend the account down. Rep. Bishop has said he supports reauthorization this year, but he wants more LWCF money sent to states and for programs that could grow the fund into the future and support education.

A bipartisan effort is being made to permanently reauthorize the LWCF program. S. 338, Land and Water Conservation Fund Reauthorization, is sponsored by Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Michael Bennet (D-CO). Neither California Senator is a Cosponsor.

In addition, the full funding for the LWCF bills have been reintroduced. S. 890 and H.R. 1814 amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 to provide consistent and reliable authority for full, dedicated funding of the fund – without further appropriation. Despite being law for more than four decades, the LWCF has only been fully funded (authorized at $900 million a year) once since its inception. As a result, only about half the oil and gas receipts that are supposed to fund vital recreation access, and land and water conservation work have gone to their intended purpose. This permanent funding allocation would ensure the original LWCF promise is kept – that a small portion of revenues generated by oil drilling would be put back into work which benefits communities, ecosystems and economies.

The legislation is cosponsored by Senators Boxer and Feinstein and all East Bay Reps. – DeSaulnier, Honda, Lee, McNerney, Swalwell and Thompson.

2. Federal budget update The business of government will continue, at least until December 11 under a ten week Continuing Resolution (CR). The House passed a CR that would defund Planned Parenthood and the Senate passed a clean CR. The CR went back to the House for some procedural gymnastics (see below), and then to the president as a clean CR. The bill provides funding for federal government operations for the first 10 weeks of FY 2016, until December 11, at an annualized rate of $1.017 trillion, the top-line post-sequester discretionary spending level for FY 2016 set by the Budget Control Act. It also provides funds for Overseas Contingency Operations at a rate of $74.8 billion, roughly equal to the FY 2015 level. Most programs would be funded at a rate that is 0.21% less than their FY 2015 funding level, although it provides increases for certain activities as well as a separate $700 million in emergency funding for government efforts to fight wildfires in Western states. The measure to be passed by the Senate does not include any provisions to defund Planned Parenthood. However, the House Rules Committee is also expected to provide for consideration of a resolution (H Con Res 79) that would direct the House enrolling clerk, should both chambers adopt the resolution, to add language to the CR before it is sent to the president that would defund Planned Parenthood. That resolution is intended to put the House on record as voting to defund Planned Parenthood as part of the CR, but because the Senate is unlikely to approve the separate enrolling resolution, the CR would remain “clean” and would be signed by the president, thereby preventing a government shutdown. The new fiscal year began on Thursday, October 1.

3. Other issues

III. Port of Oakland Coal Exports Terminal Logistics Solutions (TLS) is the shipping operations company seeking to develop a large portion of the former Oakland Army Base as an export terminal. They have been working with Phil Tagami for nearly eight years on this project. Despite Tagami originally stating coal would not be exported from the terminal, coal exports are now a very prominent part of the plan. TLS intends to begin building the Bulk and Oversized Terminal at the Oakland Global Trade and Logistics Center later this year and hopes to finish the 35-acre project in 2017. Last year, before TLS made plans to export coal from Utah through the future terminal, the Oakland City Council passed a resolution opposing the transportation of hazardous fuels, including coal, in Oakland. Mayor Libby Schaaf has said she opposes transporting coal and crude oil through Oakland. A recent public hearing by the City Council was a packed house with hundreds of speakers. Most of the speakers focused on health and environmental concerns. The impact on climate change was also noted in that 10.5 million tons of coal means 30 million tons of carbon released in the atmosphere. On December 8, the City Council arbitrarily set a deadline to vote to allow coal transportation through Oakland, restrict it in some way, or ban it all together. Between now and then, the “Coal Free Oakland” movement will continue to lobby in opposition.

The Northwest spit of the property where the Bay Bridge Trail touches down is scheduled to be conveyed to the Park District as part of the Army’s disposal of the property. The District has proposed to develop this property as “Gateway Park” which would be a major staging area for bikers and walkers seeking to cross the Bay Bridge. The possibility of daily release of coal dust directly adjacent to a park is counter to the District’s mission to provide healthful recreation and include an environmental ethic in the District’s activity.

Staff Recommendation: Adopt a Board resolution expressing Healthy Parks Healthy People is a core value of the District and transfers of coal adjacent to a park is inconsistent with that value.

IV. San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority is seriously considering going to the ballot in June 2016 for a parcel tax assessed at $12 a year. They have approached the District about helping facilitate the measure appearing on the ballot. The Authority also sponsored legislation, AB 746, introduced by Assembly Member Phil Ting. It requires the Chair of the Authority to be an elected official from a bayside City or County. Currently, the Chair only needs to be a resident. Senator Dianne Feinstein has strongly suggested the Chair be directly accountable to some base of voters. Her caution is public confidence in a new regional entity proposing a revenue measure might be undermined if the Chair was somehow not accountable in any direct way to voters. Advocate Houston and District staff worked to amend the legislation to ensure an elected official from a bayside Special District is eligible to be Chair.

AB 746 also deletes the 10% limit on the Authority’s total amount of bonded indebtedness and extends until January 1, 2019 the Authority’s ability to reimburse county elections officials for only the incremental costs of any ballot measure. Currently, their exemption expires on January 1, 2017. This extension would leave open the option of a 2018 ballot measure. The Ting legislation also extends the Authority’s sunset to January 1, 2049. The previous sunset was January 1, 2029.

V. PUBLIC COMMENTS

VI. CORRESPONDENCE AND ARTICLES a. “Congress returns for pre-recess highway sprint” Politico, July 6, 2015 b. “Legislators take aim at Proposition 13 loophole” SF Gate, July 6, 2015 c. “Opinion: Road deal won’t be easy ride for California” Sacramento Bee, July 6, 2015 d. “Congress heads back to work with looming funding deadline” SF Gate, July 6, 2015 e. “Democrats face narrow path to retake Senate in 2016” Politico, July 6, 2015 f. “Sen. Boxer, nearing retirement, ‘focusing on the big ideas’” Sacramento Bee, July 5, 2015 g. “House legislation targets environmental laws” CalWatchdog.com, July 2, 2015 h. “House GOP pushes bill to pump more delta water” San Francisco Chronicle, July 9, 2015 i. “Firefighters to drone operators: Stay out of our way” San Francisco Chronicle, July 21, 2015 j. “Major S.F. Bayfront Developments Advance Despite Sea Rise Warnings” San Francisco Public Press, July 29, 2015 k. “Court strikes down FWS's eagle 'take' rule” E&E News PM, August 12, 2015 l. “Health care, transportation, climate to occupy returning California lawmakers” Sacramento Bee, August 16, 2015 m. “Big Battles to Watch In California Legislature’s Final Month” KQED News, August 16, 2015 n. “Main Street Menace: Senate Bill 1X 1 (Beall)” Fox&Hounds Daily, August 17, 2015 o. “More than 10,000 acres in Sierra Nevada protected in deal that aims to boost water supply, reduce fires” San Jose Mercury News, August 16, 2015 p. “AP EXCLUSIVE: California measure fails to create green jobs” Orange County Register, August 17, 2015 q. “More Consider the Gov. Race in 2018, but Not the Senate in 2016” Fox&Hounds Daily, August 14, 2015 r. “Records: California plans taking land for huge water tunnels” Sacramento Bee, August 17, 2015 s. “California Legislature looking more and more like Congress: Dan Walters” Los Angeles Daily News, August 17, 2015 t. “CA lawmakers square off against drones” CalWatchdog.com, August 17, 2015 u. “Wildfires emit more greenhouse gases than assumed in state climate targets” Berkeley News, April 15, 2015 v. “Optimism reigns in California, new poll shows” San Francisco Chronicle, September 30, 2015 w. “Editorial: GOP water bill in Congress should be rejected” Los Angeles Times, July 10, 2015 x. “Oakland City Council packed for special hearing on controversial coal shipping proposal” Contra Costa Times, September 21, 2015 y. “Banking on Coal in Oakland” East Bay Express, August 19, 2015 z. “California wants renewable energy for half its power by 2030” Sacramento Bee, October 7, 2015 aa. “CA17: Khanna outraises Honda again, though closer” ibabuzz.com, October 7, 2015 bb. “Santa Clara Valley Water District board begins process to remove CEO” Contra Costa Times, October 5, 2015 cc. “Tom Torlakson doing double duty for schools, his candidate wife” Sacramento Bee, October 2, 2015 dd. “County Supervisor Piepho facing re-election battle next year” Contra Costa Times, October 3, 2015 ee. “Cendana Torlakson, Grayson announce runs for state Assembly” Contra Costa Times, July 21, 2015

Attachment 3

October 5, 2015

Mayor Libby Schaaf Oakland City Councilmembers 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza 3rd Floor 3rd Floor Oakland, CA 94612 Oakland, CA 94612

Dear Mayor Schaaf and City Councilmembers,

I am the elected Director to the East Bay Regional Park District (District) Board representing most of Oakland. As you know, the District along with eight other public agencies, is planning the future Gateway Park on former Oakland Army Base land which the federal government is committed to convey to the District by a public benefit conveyance.

Major entry to the bike/ped trail of the new Bay Bridge will be from Gateway Park. Of course, part of our mission as a park district is to encourage the public to engage in vigorous outdoor exercise; biking and hiking on trails is part of that task. Our next door neighbor will be the bulk terminal now proposed for off-loading coal onto ships which will undoubtedly release plenty of coal dust. The risk to our park users is obvious. The grade from the park to the bridge will be uphill thereby exerting bikers, joggers and walkers who will probably inhale coal dust in the process.

The mile long trains transporting the coal are likely to block Burma Road and other arteries leading to the park, thereby isolating the park from the rest of the city. This is not only inconvenient, but could be dangerous in the event of an emergency, trapping sick or injured people in the park for long periods of time.

For these and other reasons, please prohibit coal transportation through the city.

Attachment 3

Yours truly, /s/ Director John Sutter Director, EBRPD

cc. Robert Doyle Bob Nisbet Erich Pfuehler Oakland City Councilmembers  Dan Kalb, Council District 1  Abel Guillen, Council District 2  Lynette Gibson McElhaney, Council District 3  Annie Campbell Washington, Council District 4  Noel Gallo, Council District 5  Desley Brooks, Council District 6  Larry Reid, Council District 7  Rebecca Kaplan, Vice Mayor

Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI October 16, 2015

Congress returns for pre-recess highway sprint What's needed: $11 billion to keep the federal highway program going. By Seung Min Kim | 7/6/15 8:41 PM EDT | Updated 7/6/15 11:35 PM EDT House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, Rep. Joseph Crowley, Senate Minority Whip Richard Durbin, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and Rep. Xavier Becerra prepare for a news conference in Washington. | Getty

As lawmakers return to Washington for a four‐week sprint before the long August recess, they find themselves careening toward an unprecedented shutdown of highway construction projects this summer when transportation funding expires July 31.

Just coming up with the $11 billion needed to keep the federal highway program running until the end of the year — let alone fully addressing a national infrastructure riddled with crumbling roads and bridges — will be challenging, given the need to offset any spending increase with a corresponding cut or revenue increase.

But finding the $90 billion lawmakers need for the six‐year highway and transit bill that Congress wants will be nearly impossible for a GOP that’s strongly averse to raising money with new taxes but has little room for further budget cuts.

Meanwhile, other big‐ticket items are also on the docket as lawmakers return for a packed July, including a potential high‐stakes Iran vote and an aggressive push to revive the Export‐Import Bank. But it’s the infrastructure money that’s the real must‐do for this month.

Already, Democratic lawmakers and a small cabal of Republicans, fed up with Congress’ tendency to slap on short‐ term patches, are pushing for a transportation bill that runs for several years. Highway programs have survived on temporary infusions of funding since 2009, and the current extension expires at the end of July.

“The problem with stop‐and‐go funding is, stop‐and‐go funding is very expensive,” Sen. Tom Carper (D‐Del.) said in a phone interview Monday. “You don’t just turn these projects on and off with the drop of the hat. … That’s why we need six years of certain, predictable funding.”

Balancing the highway issues against a hefty to‐do list will be a challenge for Republicans who control both ends of the Capitol, particularly with lawmakers eager to scatter across the country for the August recess.

And the crammed July calendar doesn’t even account for the major threat hovering over this Congress: a federal government that will shut down unless lawmakers approve a new spending law by Sept. 30, a fight in which both parties are already positioning themselves for the blame game.

But the first priority for Congress will be figuring out how to keep the spigot of federal money flowing for transit projects nationwide. GOP aides say lawmakers, led by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch of Utah and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, are still trying to figure out how long to extend funding, which in turn would determine the price tag.

“What is attainable by the July 31 deadline will depend on Democrats’ willingness to work with Republicans to find a responsible path that can pass on both sides of the Capitol and ensure continued service to the nation’s highway programs,” Finance spokeswoman Julia Lawless said Monday. But while few expect lawmakers to conjure up enough money for a six‐year highway bill by the end of this month, Democrats are pressuring GOP leaders to at least show that Congress is on track for a long‐term measure. And a handful of rank‐and‐file Republicans say they won’t vote for another short‐term patch.

“It’s just a real negative economically, and it’s bad for the country,” Rep. Reid Ribble (R‐Wis.), who plans to vote against any bill that doesn’t run for several years, said Monday. “We need to offer certainty.”

Lawmakers are also pointing to the highway bill as a natural home for reviving the now‐dead Export‐Import Bank, the controversial export agency that’s supported by Democrats and business‐friendly Republicans but reviled by conservatives.

Bank supporters, whose efforts to extend the bank’s charter before its expiration last month failed, are expected to mount a push to revive the charter on the transportation bill. In a key test vote last month, 65 senators showed support for Ex‐Im.

Still, it’s far from certain those efforts will succeed. Conservative resistance to the bank is hotter in the House, and two of the top Republicans in that chamber — Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California and Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana — oppose the bank.

Speaker John Boehner (R‐Ohio) will allow Ex‐Im amendments if the Senate sends over a highway bill with a bank renewal attached. But Ribble argued that adding the bank’s reauthorization only complicates the already difficult task of approving highway funding.

“The Ex‐Im Bank ought to stand on its own,” Ribble said. “I think it’s the wrong tactical move.”

The dilemma over averting a shutdown of infrastructure projects is a prelude to a broader spending drama over government funding that will linger over Congress later this year.

The House has passed six of the 12 annual spending bills already and is on track to pass its seventh — which funds the Interior Department and other environment agencies — this week. The Senate, facing a united wall of Democratic opposition over spending levels, tried to advance a funding bill for the Defense Department last month but failed.

Democrats — both on Capitol Hill and in the White House — oppose lower spending levels for domestic and defense programs mandated by a controversial 2011 budget deal. Congressional Republicans have worked to boost military spending but have left the lower domestic funding levels as is, and Democrats in the Senate are trying to use procedural tactics to force broader budget negotiations — though so far that push has not moved GOP lawmakers.

This month, lawmakers are also closely scrutinizing the Iran deal being hammered out by the Obama administration and five other world powers — particularly in advance of a Thursday deadline to deliver the deal. If negotiators slip beyond that date, Congress gets another month to review the agreement on top of the 30 days it already has.

But Republicans are already voicing deep skepticism on the Iran talks, urging Secretary of State John Kerry to take his time in his negotiations with Tehran over its nuclear program and walk away from a “bad deal.” Kerry said this week that the talks “could go either way.”

“They’re rushing so that [Congress] will only have 30 days to look at this, instead of 60 days,” Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R‐Tenn.) said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday. That, he added, “in itself should send a signal to Americans.”

House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, June 25, 2015. | AP Photo

Democrats are allowing space for negotiators to do their work in Vienna, with Sen. Tim Kaine (D‐Va.) telling reporters on a conference call Monday: “Let’s get the deal on the table, and let Foreign Relations do their job.”

Meanwhile, both chambers on Capitol Hill are taking on a sweeping education overhaul this month that is years overdue. The Senate will kick off the debate on rewriting the Bush‐era No Child Left Behind law this week with a measure written by Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and his Democratic counterpart, Patty Murray of Washington — a bill that cleared Alexander’s committee with no objections.

The House GOP’s version of the education rewrite ran into internal Republican opposition, and leaders had to pull it from the floor earlier this year. But McCarthy said it’ll head back to the floor this month.

Another item that could bubble up onto Congress’ agenda is dealing with financial problems faced by the government of Puerto Rico, which says it cannot pay back $72 billion in loans and is poised for a default.

Republican leaders have not indicated whether they’re inclined to take up legislation aiding Puerto Rico and are likely to defer to committees. But Democratic Sens. Chuck Schumer of New York and Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut plan to introduce a Senate version of a House bill that would allow Puerto Rico to file for Chapter 9 bankruptcy.

“Senator Blumenthal and I will introduce this bill either way,” Schumer said in an emailed statement Monday. “But we are hoping to get Republican cosponsors to make this bill bipartisan.”

Jeremy Herb contributed to this report.

Legislators take aim at Proposition 13 loophole By Melody Gutierrez | Updated 5:27 pm, Monday, July 6, 2015 Assemblyman Phil Ting is holding a hearing on Prop. 13 on Friday. Photo: Mike Kepka, The Chronicle SACRAMENTO — San Francisco Assemblyman Phil Ting calls it one of the most vexing issues in the state Capitol, a loophole in California’s Proposition 13 that allows commercial property buyers to wiggle out of paying higher taxes.

It’s a problem, Ting says, that even the staunchest defenders of the 1978 initiative have agreed needs to be fixed. No one, however, has agreed on how.

The law, called the People’s Initiative to Limit Property Taxation, was designed to protect property owners from substantial increases in property taxes due to annual reassessments and rising property values. When it passed, it reduced property taxes by 57 percent and capped annual tax increases at no more than 2 percent of the inflation factor — unless the property changed hands.

Prop. 13 defined a change of ownership as consisting of a single purchaser buying more than 50 percent of a property. The change of ownership triggers a reassessment, and thus higher taxes. However, some commercial property buyers have structured deals to list multiple individuals or entities and avoid the 50 percent ownership rule.

By doing so, commercial property buyers have been able to avoid having properties reassessed for decades, avoiding higher tax bills.

“When Prop. 13 passed in 1978, it helped millions, especially those on fixed incomes, stay in their homes,” said John Kim, executive director of the Advancement Project, a nonprofit that partnered with a coalition to reform Prop. 13 called Make It Fair.

“But the same people it was designed to protect are now being taken advantage of. Because of a structural flaw in Prop. 13, big businesses and wealthy commercial property owners are able to take advantage of the same tax protections that were intended to benefit individuals.”

Ting, a former San Francisco assessor, on Tuesday will introduce AB1040, which is designed to eliminate the loophole by changing the definition of what constitutes a change of property ownership.

“Coming to Sacramento, my biggest frustration is that we all know what the big issues are, but there is a lack of willingness to tackle them,” Ting said. “There is no bigger issue that fits that mold than Prop. 13.

“The challenge is trying to figure out how to bring people together,” he said.

Tom Ammiano, a Democrat from San Francisco who termed out of the Assembly last year, carried a bill to close the commercial ownership loophole in 2014, with the proposal earning rare support from labor and business groups before falling apart. The labor‐backed California Tax Reform Association said it pulled support from the bill to focus efforts on more significant changes to Prop. 13.

One such proposal surfaced last month.

State Sens. Loni Hancock, D‐Berkeley, and Holly Mitchell, D‐Los Angeles, are calling for commercial and industrial properties to be assessed regularly at full market value, while leaving residential and agriculture properties under the existing law that assesses properties only during a change in ownership. The constitutional amendment would need two‐thirds approval from the Legislature in order to be put on the ballot for voters to decide in November 2016. However, the “split roll,” proposal is opposed by business and taxpayer groups, making its chances of earning necessary Republican votes in the Legislature unlikely.

A bill similar to what Ammiano proposed last year was picked up by state Sen. Patricia Bates, R‐Laguna Niguel (Orange County), but that too faces major hurdles, this time in earning support from labor and Democrats.

“The complaints of Prop. 13 have continued for 37 years,” said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, which is named for the man who led the campaign to pass Prop. 13. “Some years there are more than other. This seems to be a more vocal year.”

Coupal said his group plans to support the Bates bill. He said he could not yet comment on the Ting bill because he had not seen it.

Ting said he hopes his bill can begin the necessary discussions to finding a workable solution for all sides. That’s why, he said, the exact formula for what constitutes a change in ownership was left blank in his bill pending those discussions and hearings.

The Assembly Revenue and Tax Committee, of which Ting is chair, scheduled a public informational hearing on Prop. 13 at 10:30 a.m. Friday at Milton Marks Auditorium in San Francisco.

Ting said he knows it may take time to find a workable solution.

“There is time this year, but it may be a two‐year bill or a four‐year bill,” Ting said. “This issue has been around since 1978. I’m hopeful to get the parties together. My hope is all sides see there is a need to have this dialogue.”

July 6, 2015 Opinion: Road deal won’t be easy ride for California . California’s highways are in bad shape . State wants $6 billion more a year to fix them . Can two differing approaches be melded? Gov. Jerry Brown releases his revised budget plan for the fiscal year that begins July 1st on Thursday, May 15, 2015. | Randy Pench [email protected]

By Dan Walters | [email protected]

The Legislature and Gov. Jerry Brown have passed a new state budget, and that’s that, right?

Not on your sweet bippy, to channel comedian Dick Martin.

The Capitol’s politicians left three major budgetary issues undone – highway maintenance, financing for the Medi‐ Cal program, and spending $2‐plus billion in “cap‐and‐trade” fees.

The latter two are fairly straightforward bits of political dealmaking. The issue of highway repairs, however, the subject of a special legislative session called by Brown, is anything but simple.

There is broad agreement on the problem. California’s highway system, once the envy of the world, has fallen into disrepair, with spending on maintenance only a third of what’s needed.

But there’s no agreement on how to raise an additional $6 billion a year for the state’s 10‐year restoration plan, the equivalent of hiking gas taxes by 40 cents per gallon.

The Democrats’ hopes are embraced in Senate Bill 16, carried by Sen. Jim Beall, D‐San Jose, which would raise about $3.5 billion a year by hiking gasoline taxes 10 cents a gallon and increasing vehicle registration and license fees.

It’s stuck in the Senate because it needs a two‐thirds vote and thus at least one Republican senator to pass, plus another two‐thirds vote in the Assembly. GOP legislators aren’t buying it, at least not yet.

A plan unveiled by the Assembly’s Republicans would capture money now being collected from motorists in cap‐ and‐trade fees, recapture $1 billion in truck weight fees now servicing 2006‐vintage transportation bonds, take another $1 billion from the state general fund, and lay off more than 3,000 Caltrans employees identified by the Legislature’s budget analyst as redundant.

While Republicans oppose new taxes, Democrats, including Brown, are equally adamant about not tapping the general fund, so, superficially, it’s a stalemate.

Nor is money the only issue. State employee unions would oppose the layoffs and expansion of “public‐private partnerships” for highway work sought by the GOP, while environmental groups would oppose giving highway work relief from the California Environmental Quality Act. And local governments demand a share of any new road revenues.

A compromise is not impossible. At least a few Republicans might support temporary user tax and fee increases, and Democrats might be willing to streamline project handling to get that support.

But it’s uncertain how far either party’s members could stray from orthodoxy to find the magic recipe that could generate perhaps $4 billion to $5 billion year in new revenues, plus other provisions – such as a guarantee that new highway money wouldn’t be diverted elsewhere – that passage would require.

The only certainty is that if they cannot agree, California’s disgracefully shabby roads and highways will continue to deteriorate. Even if they do agree on a 10‐year maintenance program, it would be just a stopgap while the state seeks a much‐needed, long‐term overhaul of transportation financing that moves away from the outmoded gas tax.

Congress heads back to work with looming funding deadline Erica Werner, Associated Press | Updated 11:52 am, Monday, July 6, 2015

FILE ‐ In this June 25, 2015, file photo, House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio speaks during a news conference on Capitol Hill in Washington. Members of Congress return from July 4 fireworks and parades on July 7, facing a daunting summer workload and a looming deadline to fund the government or risk a shutdown in the fall. The government funding fight is shaping up as a major partisan brawl against the backdrop of an intensifying campaign season, with Republicans eager to avoid another Capitol Hill mess as they struggle to hang onto control of Congress and take back the White House next year.

Photo: Manuel Balce Ceneta, AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — Members of Congress return Tuesday from July Fourth fireworks and parades facing a daunting summer workload and an impending deadline to fund the government or risk a shutdown in the fall.

The funding fight is shaping up as a major partisan brawl against the backdrop of an intensifying campaign season, with Republicans eager to avoid another Capitol Hill mess as they struggle to hang onto control of Congress and take back the White House next year. Already they are deep into the blame game with Democrats over who would be responsible if a shutdown does happen, with House Speaker John Boehner denouncing Democrats' "dangerously misguided strategy" and House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi accusing Boehner and his Republicans of pursuing "manufactured crises."

The funding deadline does not even arrive until Sept. 30, but lawmakers face more immediate tests, too. Near the top of the list is renewing highway funding before the government loses authority July 31 to send much‐needed transportation money to the states right in the middle of summer driving season.

Legislative maneuvering over the highway bill may also create an opening to renew the disputed federal Export‐ Import Bank, which makes and underwrites loans to help foreign companies buy U.S. products. The bank's charter expired June 30 due to congressional inaction, a defeat for business and a victory for conservative activists who turned killing the obscure agency into an anti‐government cause celebre.

Depending on the progress of the Obama administration's nuclear negotiations with Iran, lawmakers could face debate on that issue, too. Leading Republicans have made clear that they are prepared to reject any deal the administration comes up with.

Sen. Bob Corker, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said Sunday: "Well, we have gone from dismantling their program to managing proliferation. That's the biggest concern. That's already done."

Corker, R‐Tenn., said on CBS's "Face the Nation" that he has told Secretary of State John Kerry: "'Look, you create just as much of a legacy walking away from a bad deal as you do headlong rushing into bad deal.'"

On a less partisan note, the Senate opens its legislative session this week with consideration of a major bipartisan education overhaul bill that rewrites the much‐maligned No Child Left Behind law by shifting responsibility from the federal government to the states for public school standards.

"We're seven years overdue" for a rewrite, said Sen. Lamar Alexander, R‐Tenn., the bill's chief sponsor.

The House also is moving forward with its own, Republican‐written education overhaul bill, revived after leadership had to pull it earlier this year when conservatives revolted.

Even if both bills pass, though, it's uncertain whether Congress will be able to agree on a combined version to send to President Barack Obama. Indeed the prospects for any major legislative accomplishments arriving on Obama's desk in the remainder of the year look slim, though there's talk of the Senate following the House and moving forward on cybersecurity legislation.

That means that even though Obama was so buoyed when Congress sent him a major trade bill last month that he declared "This is so much fun, we should do it again," he may not get his wish.

But all issues are likely to be overshadowed by the government funding fight and suspense over how — or if — a shutdown can be avoided.

Democrats are pledging to oppose the annual spending bills to fund government agencies unless Republicans sit down with them to negotiate higher spending levels for domestic agencies. Republicans, who want more spending for the military but not domestic agencies, have so far refused. If there's no resolution by Sept. 30, the government will enter a partial shutdown.

It's an outcome all involved say they want to avoid. Yet Democrats who watched Republicans pay a steep political price for forcing a partial shutdown over Obama's health care law in 2013 — and come within hours of partially shutting down the Department of Homeland Security this year — claim confidence they have the upper hand in forcing negotiations.

"Given that a Democratic president needs to sign anything and you need Democratic votes in both chambers, the writing is on the wall here," said Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill.

Republicans insist Democrats are running a risk by opposing spending bills for priorities like troop funding — but are not yet discussing how they will proceed if Democrats don't back down.

As a result it looks likely current funding levels could be temporarily extended beyond Sept. 30 to allow more time to negotiate a solution.

And that's not the only consequential deadline this fall. The government's borrowing limit will also need to be raised sometime before the end of the year, another issue that's ripe for brinkmanship. Some popular expiring tax breaks will need to be extended, and the Federal Aviation Administration must be renewed. An industry‐friendly FAA bill was delayed in the House recently although aides said that was unrelated to the Justice Department's newly disclosed investigation of airline pricing.

In the meantime, the presence of several presidential candidates in the Senate make action in that chamber unpredictable, Congress will be out for another recess during the month of August — and in September Pope Francis will visit Capitol Hill for a first‐ever papal address to Congress.

Associated Press writers Laurie Kellman and Joan Lowy contributed to this report.

Democrats face narrow path to retake Senate in 2016 The 2016 map is favorable for Democrats, but margin for error is slim. By Steven Shepard | 7/6/15 5:55 PM EDT Democrats can take back the Senate in 2016 after a stinging, nine‐seat defeat last year — but their path is narrow, and any gains could be fleeting.

The party needs to capture four or five seats — depending on the results of the presidential election — next November. While the 2016 map is favorable, flipping control of the Senate would require winning most of the toss‐up races and defeating several well‐funded GOP incumbents in pricey swing states that will also be crucial in the race for the White House.

Both parties — by virtue of the Senate seats that are in cycle next year — have distinct goals in the early stages of the race to control the chamber. Democrats are trying to identify and recruit candidates to take on the myriad GOP senators who are up for reelection in 2016. Republicans, on the other hand, have few pick‐up opportunities and are looking to shore up their incumbents.

Since we set our initial Campaign Pro Senate‐race rankings three months ago, Democrats have recorded some notable recruiting successes: Illinois Rep. Tammy Duckworth entered the race against GOP Sen. Mark Kirk; former Wisconsin Sen. Russ Feingold challenged the man who beat him in 2010, Sen. Ron Johnson, to a rematch; and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid’s preferred successor in Nevada, former state Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, jumped in the contest to replace him.

There have been some misses: Democrats couldn’t persuade former Sen. Kay Hagan to challenge GOP incumbent Richard Burr in North Carolina. And the party seems unlikely to avoid a potentially costly primary in Florida, where controversial Rep. Alan Grayson is crowing about taking on the establishment pick, Rep. Patrick Murphy.

Similarly, the past three months have been a mixed bag for Republicans. Their incumbents mostly posted strong fundraising numbers in the first quarter of this year, and the only primaries they’re facing are in open seats. Rep. Joe Heck’s announcement Monday that he will run in Nevada was a recruiting victory for Republicans, but the party has yet to find a candidate in Colorado and put a second Democratic‐held seat in play.

It all leaves us roughly where we were in late March: Eight of the 10 seats most likely to change parties next year are held by Republicans, and Democrats have a solid chance to grab control of the Senate following the 2016 elections.

But Democrats should have higher ambitions for the number of seats they hope to grab in 2016. The 2018 Senate map isn’t nearly as welcoming for the party — they will be defending seats in Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia.

National Democrats say plainly the goal is to take control of the Senate in 2017. But if they intend to hold it for more than two years, they’ll likely need to run up the score by putting in play GOP‐held seats further down this list, like North Carolina, Indiana and Missouri.

Here are Campaign Pro’s latest Senate race rankings:

1. Illinois (Previous ranking: 1): Kirk remains the most vulnerable incumbent on the Senate landscape next year. It’s largely a matter of fundamentals: He’s running for reelection in a state where President Barack Obama won 58 percent of the vote in 2012. Kirk hasn’t done himself any favors with a pattern of inartful or offensive comments; for example, calling fellow Sen. Lindsey Graham (R‐S.C.), a lifelong bachelor, “a bro with no ho.” Democrats are excited about Duckworth, but the Iraq War veteran still faces a credible primary challenger in former Chicago Urban League President Andrea Zopp, who raised more than $660,000 in the second quarter. Duckworth entered the race on March 30, which means when she reports her second‐quarter fundraising figures in the next few weeks, expectations are high. Duckworth is the favorite, and Democrats want her to put this race away by Labor Day 2016. Republicans are hoping Duckworth will be dinged by Zopp during the primary and a whistleblower lawsuit that dates back to her time at the state Department of Veterans Affairs going to trial next spring.

2. Wisconsin (2): Feingold starts the race in the lead. We’re closely watching the money: Feingold, a longtime campaign finance hawk, raised more than $2.2 million in the second quarter. That’s a haul that should allow him to remain competitive with Johnson — who self‐funded in 2010 but accelerated his outside fundraising last quarter. Moreover, Republicans think they can turn around the issue of campaign finance on Feingold after reports scrutinizing his political action committee’s activities. Wisconsin is a purple but polarized state: Feingold and Johnson represent the more ideological wings of their respective parties, though we’ve noticed Johnson siding with Democrats to an increasing degree in Senate votes. The universe of persuadable voters is small in Wisconsin, and Democrats usually prevail in presidential years. Johnson’s best hope might be if Gov. Scott Walker is the GOP nominee.

3. Florida (6): The next handful of races are closer to 50‐50 propositions. Both parties are looking at contentious primary fields in the race to replace Sen. Marco Rubio: On the Republican side, if Rep. Jeff Miller enters the race, he could split support with Lt. Gov. Carlos Lopez‐Cantera, potentially propelling Rep. Ron DeSantis, a favorite of conservative outside groups, to the top. That would please Democrats, who view DeSantis as the least electable general‐election nominee. But Dems have their own problem: Grayson — borderline unelectable in the general — appears poised to enter the race next month, and the party takes him at his word when he says he’s going to challenge Murphy from the left. And even if Murphy survives a primary with Grayson, Democrats are wary the outspoken Grayson will run a scorched‐earth campaign; that’s why the party has fanned the flames of a number of negative stories about Grayson in recent months. By far, this is the race on this list with the greatest chance to bounce around in the coming months.

4. New Hampshire (5): For months, both parties have been waiting for Gov. Maggie Hassan, Democrats’ top recruiting target, to jump in the race against GOP Sen. Kelly Ayotte. But that’s far from a sure thing: Recent stories from the Granite State indicated she may be leaning toward a reelection bid instead. Hassan has said she would be announcing at the end of the state legislative session, but a protracted budget fight — Hassan vetoed the state Legislature’s budget last month — threatens to stretch well into the summer. Republican‐linked nonprofit groups have been savaging Hassan on radio and television over the past few months — a two‐for‐one deal, given she’ll likely be on the 2016 ballot in some capacity. Democrats have a bench here — Executive Councilor Chris Pappas is one possibility — but their chances would take a hit if Hassan passed.

5. Nevada (3): It wasn’t a surprise when popular GOP Gov. Brian Sandoval said he wouldn’t run to replace retiring Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, but Sandoval — who won 70 percent of the vote in his landslide reelection campaign — would have moved this race to a spot at or near the top of this list. Instead, the party landed Heck — a three‐term congressman, one‐star Army general and osteopathic physician — on Monday. Heck is a good candidate, much in the mold of Sen. Dean Heller, who also won in a presidential year. But Heller’s victory was by just 1 point over a flawed candidate in 2012, and Democrats don’t expect their likely nominee, Cortez Masto, to run a similarly shaky campaign. A Heck/Cortez Masto general election starts as a toss‐up.

6. Pennsylvania (4): After months of casting for another candidate, Democrats appear ready to accept former Rep. Joe Sestak as their probable nominee. Sestak lost to now‐Sen. Pat Toomey by just 2 points in 2010 in a campaign most Democrats believe was poorly run. Sen. Pat Toomey was known as a staunch conservative before joining the Senate, but he’s smartly moved to the center on select issues, like backing stronger gun laws. Sestak’s fundraising appeared to dry up in the first quarter; we’ll see soon if the cash started flowing again now that the party is resigned to his candidacy.

7. Ohio (8): Former Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland has posted significant leads against GOP Sen. Rob Portman in two Quinnipiac University polls released since we last set these rankings. So why is Ohio stuck behind Pennsylvania, where the same pollster shows Toomey well clear of Sestak? It comes down to fundamentals. While both are battleground states, Ohio is slightly more Republican than Pennsylvania. Strickland also needs to show us he’s ready for primetime after five‐plus years on the shelf. He entered the race late in the first quarter, but he was still outraised by fellow Democrat P.G. Sittenfeld, whom national Dems tried to push out of the race. Strickland will have to impress in the second quarter against the well‐funded Portman (who announced Monday he has more than $10 million in the bank), to say nothing of his primary challenger.

8. North Carolina (9): Democrats need a standard‐bearer here after Hagan said no last week. North Carolina has been a 50‐50 state in the past two presidential elections, but until there’s a living, breathing candidate to take on Burr — whose poll numbers are middling — it’s tough to gauge whether the party can put this race in play.

9. Colorado (7): A mirror image of North Carolina: Republicans can’t find anyone to take on Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet. Both Rep. Mike Coffman and his wife, Attorney General Cynthia Coffman, declined — as did state Sen. Ellen Roberts and former state Sen. Mike Kopp. Adding to the GOP’s woes — and, potentially, its recruiting ability — is a messy, lurid scandal involving the state GOP chairman. National Republicans caution against writing off the race, pointing out that now‐Sen. Cory Gardner didn’t enter the 2014 race until after the election year began. We’ll keep it in the top 10 for now, beneath North Carolina, which doesn’t have the narrow‐but‐significant lean in a presidential year that Colorado does.

10. Indiana (10): Democrats are excited about their prospects in the Hoosier State, but they acknowledge that a lot has to go right for them to compete here — particularly an investment by Hillary Clinton in winning the state’s 11 electoral votes. Still, GOP Gov. Mike Pence’s declining popularity, combined with an open seat after Sen. Dan Coats’ retirement, gives them a fighting chance. The GOP nominee — Reps. Todd Young and Marlin Stutzman are seen as more likely than Eric Holcomb, Coats’ former chief of staff — will start the general election as the favorite. One X factor: The chances of progressives rebelling against former Blue Dog Rep. Baron Hill in a primary diminished last week, when state Rep. Christina Hale said she wouldn’t run.

11. Missouri (11): Little has changed here since March: Democrats are still high on Jason Kander, the 34‐year‐old secretary of state. They’ll get some help from what promises to be a competitive gubernatorial race. But absent a massive wave or political malpractice from GOP Sen. Roy Blunt, it’s an uphill climb — even if Clinton competes for a state her husband won twice but hasn’t gone Democratic since.

12. Arizona (13): Sen. John McCain won’t be caught flat‐footed, but that’s more about fending off primary challengers to the perennial conservative target. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick is in the race on the Democratic side, though it’s unclear if fellow Democrat Kyrsten Sinema will join her now that the Supreme Court is keeping the state’s congressional map in place.

13. Georgia (14): Sen. Johnny Isakson says a recent diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease doesn’t affect his reelection plans. He’s so far discouraged the emergence of a credible challenger in both the primary and the general.

14. Kentucky (15): Sen. Rand Paul continues to pursue a reelection bid at the same time he campaigns for the GOP presidential nomination. It’s unlikely voters would punish Paul if he fell short in Iowa and New Hampshire and returned to refocus on the Bluegrass State next spring.

15. Alaska (12): Former Democratic Sen. Mark Begich won’t close the door on another run, but in interviews he seems disinclined to pull the trigger. Sen. Lisa Murkowski should coast if she can avoid losing the Republican primary — as she did in 2010, before winning a write‐in campaign.

CAPITOL ALERT July 5, 2015 Sen. Boxer, nearing retirement, ‘focusing on the big ideas’ . Barbara Boxer has a long to‐do list before leaving the Senate in 18 months . Not running again frees her from fundraising burdens . Though a partisan warrior, she has earned respect of colleagues

Sen. Barbara Boxer holds a press briefing in her Senate office in Washington, D.C., last month. Boxer, who has been in the U.S. Senate since 1993, has announced that she will not seek re‐election in 2016. | Allison Shelley McClatchy

By Curtis Tate | [email protected]

WASHINGTON – Sen. Barbara Boxer and fellow California Democrat George Miller and their spouses used to spend weekends together, just a pair of couples taking a break from the pressures and strains of Capitol Hill.

But while Miller, who spent four decades in the House of Representatives before retiring last year, and the others relaxed over beers, Boxer would be sketching plans for the coming week’s political battles.

“She’s on the case all the time,” Miller said. “She’s always organizing.”

Indeed, even as the clock ticks down on Boxer’s 24‐year Senate career – she announced in January she would not run for re‐election next year – she’s not fading into the Senate’s ornate woodwork.

The stockbroker turned anti‐Vietnam War activist turned Capitol Hill veteran is still scribbling away, making plans and developing strategies to finish some of the things she’s started.

Like many in Congress, she’s become expert at juggling priorities. Now hers have taken on the color of a last hurrah: aid for drought‐stricken California, a bill to collect data on the shootings of civilians by police and of police by civilians, a program to help states transition toward cleaner energy, and legislation to guarantee that terminally ill patients can receive enough medication to ease their suffering.

“I’m focusing on the big ideas,” Boxer told reporters during a recent interview.

It’s become harder than ever, however, to get much done in Washington’s polarized environment. Next year won’t be any easier, as presidential and Senate elections cast long shadows over the congressional agenda. Boxer is leaving in January 2017, so she doesn’t have a whole lot of time.

The experience of a former colleague, Olympia Snowe, a moderate Republican from Maine, offers a cautionary tale. Frustrated with Senate gridlock, Snowe retired in 2013 after three terms. She described her final months as “full steam ahead into a brick wall.”

“It opened up time for me,” said Snowe, a senior fellow at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington. “But on the other hand, it made me realize there was precious time remaining and I had a lot to do. It was a different kind of pressure.” One burden Boxer no longer has to endure is raising the tens of millions of dollars it takes to run a statewide campaign in California. Voters have returned her to the Senate three times, even as her statewide approval rating has rarely topped 50 percent.

She intends to use the time she would otherwise need to devote to her own fundraising to helping other Democrats win back the Senate. She also plans to hit the trail on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s bid for the party’s presidential nomination.

“She is as outspoken as ever,” Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D‐R.I., said of Boxer. “But I think she feels a freedom in being relieved of her political responsibilities.”

The 74‐year‐old Boxer has spent almost half her life on Capitol Hill, most of that time in the Senate. But her first decade was in the House, where she cemented her image as an unwavering tribune for liberal causes, the possessor of a tart wit and a combat‐ready opponent during floor debates.

“The left will dearly miss her,” said Bill Whalen, a former chief speechwriter for former California Republican Gov. Pete Wilson, “and Republicans will not.”

Early on, she drew attention to wasteful spending by the military, including the infamous $7,622 Air Force coffee pot, but she opposed several weapons systems as well, including a plan for an anti‐missile shield popularly known as “Star Wars.”

When a Republican colleague during a 1989 House debate said that women spent more on pantyhose every year than what the Pentagon wanted to spend on the missile shield, Boxer cracked, “Pantyhose gives us 100 percent support. Star Wars does not.”

She is best known, perhaps, for the march of women House members that she led to the Senate in 1991 to demand that the all‐male Senate Judiciary Committee hold hearings on sexual harassment allegations against then‐Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas.

Once a member of the Senate herself after the 1992 “Year of the Woman election” – four entered the Senate and 24 joined the House – Boxer’s style didn’t always win over her colleagues or translate into legislative accomplishments.

Former Senate Republican leader Bob Dole of Kansas, no shrinking violet himself when it came to party warfare, once called her “the most partisan senator I’ve ever known.”

“There’s no doubt that she’s fiercely partisan,” said Sen. John McCain, R‐Ariz., who also served with Boxer in the House. “but she has the respect of all of us because her positions are well thought out and principled.”

While Boxer’s colleagues became accustomed to her fiery speeches on the Senate floor, in committee hearings and at press conferences, her views and personality grated on rank‐and‐file Republicans, said Whalen, now a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

“She’s not the only outraged liberal on Capitol Hill,” he said, “but she excels at the performance art of liberal outrage.”

Wilson served as governor during Boxer’s first term. Whalen said that if the governor’s staff needed something from the Senate, they would go to Boxer’s fellow Democrat, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a moderate who built a reputation as a consensus‐builder.

Whalen compared Feinstein and Boxer to two longtime New York senators who served together, Republican Alfonse D’Amato and the late Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan. While D’Amato earned the nickname “Senator Pothole” for his attention to constituents’ needs, Moynihan was best known for his soaring speeches.

“One was a workhorse, and one was more of a show horse,” Whalen said. Overall, Boxer has a long legislative record. Last year, National Journal, a publication that covers politics and government, ranked her sixth among the top 10 senators for getting bills enacted into law. At 530 bills enacted from the time she was first elected to Congress, Boxer is slightly ahead of her Nevada neighbor Harry Reid, the leader of Senate Democrats.

Of the 129 of those bills enacted during her Senate years, Boxer was the lead sponsor on 13. They include legislation to reduce the amount of lead in drinking water, to allow research on organ donations between people infected with HIV, to strengthen the U.S.‐Israel security partnership and to permit the use of federal highway funds to perform seismic retrofits on bridges.

Others are the stuff of everyday lawmaking on Capitol Hill: the renaming of post offices, courthouses, rivers and a mountain in Yosemite National Park.

Among Boxer’s signature issues, her successes include blocking attempts to erode abortion rights; ensuring equal treatment for women in the workplace and the military; and establishing new safeguards for workers, consumers and the environment.

One major issue has eluded her, though. She’ll likely leave the Senate without achieving legislation to address climate change.

The Senate was a different place when Boxer first got there. There wasn’t even a women’s bathroom off the Senate floor. The male‐dominated chamber looked warily on the women who were elected in 1992.

“When they arrived, they had to prove that they were there not just to make a point, but to make a difference,” said Karen Olick, a former Boxer chief of staff.

Boxer wanted to join the Commerce Committee, but its then‐chairman, Sen. Fritz Hollings, a conservative Democrat from South Carolina, wasn’t sure Boxer would be a team player.

“It took time,” Olick said, “but once senators saw that Barbara was serious about getting things done, she gained not only their trust, but their respect.”

Boxer’s reputation as a party firebrand sometimes belies her pragmatism. Earlier this year, she co‐sponsored a highway funding bill with Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a candidate for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination.

Robert Smith, a political science professor at San Francisco State University, said Boxer has not moderated her views so much as become more of a negotiator since assuming greater responsibilities. She chaired the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee for seven years.

Moreover, there might not be an odder couple in the chamber, as far as ideological opposites who have figured out how to work together, than Boxer and her deeply conservative colleague on the committee, Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

He took over the committee in January when Republicans assumed control of the Senate. A longstanding skeptic of the science behind climate change, Inhofe brought a snowball onto the Senate floor earlier this year as evidence that global warming was a hoax. Boxer has been championing the issue for years.

“We see the world completely differently,” she said of Inhofe. “He is against all the landmark (environmental) laws, and I want to make them stronger.”

But they have been allies on other fronts, resulting last year in the first water infrastructure bill in seven years. This year, it could mean the first long‐term highway bill in a decade. “The disagreements are not personal,” Boxer said.

Inhofe said he’s probably sat next to Boxer longer than anyone else in the chamber. And he couldn’t think of anything they agreed on except public works.

“Yet we can still maintain a genuine friendship,” Inhofe said. “A lot of people can’t do that, so that’s kind of unique between the two of us.”

Boxer said she feels confident that when she does finally depart 18 months from now, her concerns will be in good hands: Democratic Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey on civil rights, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York on women’s equality, Edward Markey of Massachusetts on the environment, Sherrod Brown of Ohio on workers’ rights and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts on consumer protection.

“I feel good,” Boxer said. “I think if you look at a variety of issues I’ve focused on, one of the reasons that I, frankly, could move on was because of these fabulous people that are here, now, in the caucus.”

Still, as Miller, her longtime friend and political ally, noted: “She’s not going to be good at sitting still. I suspect that she’ll pick up the battle in another venue.”

House legislation targets environmental laws by Josephine Djuhana | July 2, 2015 5:00 pm Photo: David Prasad / flickr Last week, House Republicans introduced legislation to revise water policies in California and the rest of the West Coast, improving water reliability and making environmental laws more flexible.

H.R. 2898, authored by California Congressman David Valadao, is backed by the entire California Republican delegation. Titled the “Western Water and American Food Security Act of 2015,” the bill, according to Rep. Valadao’s website, “aims to make more water available to families, farmers, and communities in California and bordering Western states.” The legislation also makes it easier for federal regulators to authorize projects that will increase water capture during periods of greater precipitation, and begin projects that have already been authorized for more than a decade.

“California’s drought has devastated communities throughout the Central Valley and now the consequences are extending throughout the country. Inaction will result in the collapse of our domestic food supply,” Rep. Valadao said in a prepared statement. “Congress cannot make it rain but we can enact policies that expand our water infrastructure, allow for more water conveyance, and utilize legitimate science to ensure a reliable water supply for farmers and families.”

Water agencies throughout the Central Valley also voiced their support for H.R. 2898. Michael Stearns, chairman at the San Luis and Delta‐Mendota Water Authority, said he was “heartened by the introduction” of the bill, as it would “provide much needed relief for the people, businesses, and communities” serviced by water agencies.

“Our people are desperate,” said Eric Borba, chair at the Friant Water Authority. “We need solutions that will provide real water for our area, and we need them now.” Many of the Central Valley water agencies considered the bill to be a vital first step in finding solutions and enacting legislation to aid impacted communities in California.

Despite widespread support for the bill, House Republicans are still expecting much backlash from both the Senate and Obama Administration.

House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy said in a release that, for years, he had offered and supported many solutions that passed the House but were not enacted into law. “This action is unacceptable,” he said, and deemed it imperative to sign into law a water bill “that rebalances the priorities between fish and people and delivers water that our communities have contracted and paid for.”

Text in the bill authorizes “operational flexibility in times of drought” as well as “flexibility for export/inflow ratio.” The legislation also includes mandates for “new science” to be used in the management of endangered fish, such as the Delta smelt.

But these very allocations are drawing resistance from House Democrats and their Senate colleagues. San Rafael Democratic Rep. Jared Huffman summed up the proposal as a “blame the fish” initiative backed by agri‐business. According to the Press Democrat, H.R. 2898 would weaken environmental protection by diverting more water from the Delta into Central Valley aqueducts and scrap restoration plans for the San Joaquin River.

Rep. Huffman has drafted an alternative to Valadao’s legislation, which includes $1.4 billion in emergency funding to deploy efficient irrigation technology, drill new wells and build new pipelines. The plan also allocated money for “water recycling, reclamation and storm water capture projects, cleanup of contaminated groundwater, watershed protection, efforts to limit evaporation from reservoirs and canals, a Justice Department crackdown on water theft for marijuana cultivation and an expanded X‐prize to promote development of new desalination technologies.”

The proposal has not yet been introduced in the House. H.R. 2898 has since been referred to the committees on Natural Resources and Agriculture.

House GOP pushes bill to pump more delta water By Carolyn Lochhead | July 9, 2015 Updated: July 9, 2015 3:12pm

The John E. Skinner Delta Fish Protective Facility is near Tracy. House Republicans’ proposed bill would override protections for endangered fish.

Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, Associated Press

WASHINGTON — House Republicans from the San Joaquin Valley advanced legislation Thursday that would deliver more water to their constituents, a replay of their failed efforts throughout California’s four‐year drought.

Eager to show that they are doing something in Washington as water deliveries are slashed for farmers holding even the oldest and most secure water rights in the state, Republicans repurposed legislation backed last year by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield that would pump more water south through the Sacramento‐San Joaquin River Delta. The bill would override protections for endangered fish and push new dams and reservoirs.

If the increased delta pumping threatens endangered salmon with extinction, the bill would direct federal agencies to determine whether the fishes’ plight was caused by something other than a lack of water before pumping can be restricted.

The legislation cleared the House Natural Resources Committee on a largely party‐line vote Thursday. The lone Democrat to side with the GOP was Rep. Jim Costa of Fresno, who has aligned himself with Republicans on water. McCarthy has made it a top priority for action in July, and it is expected to pass the full House on a party‐line vote as early as next week.

Republicans held no public hearings on the legislation.

Rep. Jared Huffman, D‐San Rafael, battled the bill in committee and introduced his own legislation this week that emphasizes recycling, watershed restoration in the Sierra and groundwater recharge, as well as speeding approval of new reservoirs and other surface storage that could be completed within 10 years.

Huffman said his bill came from collaboration with experts and stakeholders around the state and a novel crowd‐ sharing experiment that solicited nearly 1,000 ideas from the public. Those include a $2,000 tax credit to homeowners to install gray‐water systems that can collect and reuse water from showers and laundry.

“There certainly is plenty we could do to help people and to address our water shortages,” Huffman said, adding that the GOP bill is “is not even remotely close to that kind of response.”

McCarthy said in a statement when the bill was introduced that it would “restore the water our communities desperately need by more fully utilizing the most sophisticated water system in the world.”

The bill’s chances in the Senate look dim. Republicans would need six Democratic votes to overcome a filibuster. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D‐Calif., has long been sympathetic to farmers and spent months last year negotiating similar legislation with House Republicans, but her office said she was not involved in the new version.

Feinstein has said the bill’s latest incarnation “includes some useful provisions” to make it easier to deliver water to farms, along with others that “violate environmental law, which I’ve said many times I cannot support.” Feinstein said she wants a more comprehensive approach that includes such things as water recycling and desalination.

Rep. David Valadao, R‐Hanford (Kings County), is the main sponsor of the GOP bill. Valadao is pushing separate legislation to speed approval of five new reservoirs or dam expansions, including raising the Shasta and Los Vaqueros dams, expanding the San Luis reservoir, and building new dams at Sites, north of the delta, and Temperance Flat, behind the existing Friant Dam east of Fresno.

Firefighters to drone operators: Stay out of our way By Henry K. Lee | July 21, 2015 Updated: July 22, 2015 7:37am

Jason Lam, founder of AeriCam Hollywood, pilots a six propellor "hexicopter" in a demonstration flight at Sierra Point in Brisbane, Calif. on Tuesday, July 21, 2015. Officials are seeking authorization to disable drones that block the flight path of firefighting aircraft that make water drops above wild fires.

Photo: Paul Chinn, The Chronicle

There’s no denying a drone can capture gripping footage of an inferno.

Last year, as flames ripped through a massive Mission Bay apartment complex that was under construction, an amateur San Francisco photographer launched a small quadcopter outfitted with a GoPro camera from within a crowd of gawkers straining for a view a few blocks away. The overhead images were stunning — and garnered thousands of views on YouTube.

“Incredible,” wrote one online commenter.

But such drone flights — whether for sport or for money — have become a problem for firefighters trying to battle California wildland blazes with their own aircraft, according to officials. This week, two state legislators announced they had drafted a pair of bills that could lead to increased fines and jail time for drone scofflaws, while allowing firefighters to destroy wayward devices with impunity.

They pointed to the latest dustup, on Friday, when firefighters said sightings of nearby drones delayed helicopters from dropping water on a Southern California blaze that jumped a freeway and burned homes and cars. They said helicopters and air tankers could be disabled — or even crash — if drones end up in their flight path.

In the past month alone, camera‐equipped drones have hampered aerial firefighting in half a dozen cases across the state, officials said. Internet sensations

The bills cast a spotlight on a powerful technology with still‐emerging rules and ethics. After remotely maneuvering the four‐propeller devices that weigh just a few pounds high above a fire — or a surf break or any other breathtaking site — drone operators put together videos, some accompanied by dramatic music, that can garner hundreds or thousands of hits online.

“This is maddening, and I can’t believe that hobby drones are risking people’s lives to get videos on YouTube,” said state Sen. Ted Gaines, R‐Rocklin (Placer County), who authored the two drone bills with Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D‐Los Angeles.

“Drone operators are risking lives when they fly over an emergency situation,” Gatto said. “Just because you have access to an expensive toy that can fly in a dangerous area doesn’t mean you should do it.”

One of the bills would increase fines and introduce the possibility of jail time for drone operators who interfere with firefighting efforts. The other would grant immunity to any emergency responder who damages or destroys a hobby drone in the course of a firefighting, air ambulance or search‐and‐rescue operation.

Although airplanes and helicopters are much larger than the drones, anything that gets in their way could spell trouble, officials said. The air crews already have enough to deal with, such as aiming their drops of water or fire retardant, maneuvering through smoke, and avoiding treetops and power lines and each other. The last thing they need to deal with, said officials, are unmanned devices with unpredictable flight paths — and operators they can’t talk to or even see.

Daniel Berlant, a spokesman for the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, noted that bird strikes, long a hazard of aviation, involve “soft tissue and feathers.” Collision concerns

By contrast, “when you’re putting a piece of metal and hard plastic into our engines and into our rotor blades, it’s got a lot of potential to do some pretty good damage. It can not only cause damage to the aircraft, but it could easily cause the aircraft to crash. It could cause a midair collision.”

Berlant said, “Our message is simple — if you fly, we can’t.”

Ian Gregor, a spokesman for the Federal Aviation Administration, said wildfires are no place for drones. Even if there’s no temporary flight restriction in place, he said, “a hobby aircraft would have to be operated so it wouldn’t interfere with any manned aircraft, which basically precludes any unmanned aircraft operations around a fire area.”

Several TV stations in the San Diego area have expressed interest in working with the state to use drones to capture fire images, but nothing concrete has been set up, Berlant said.

In the Bay Area, KPIX recently featured drone footage during a broadcast, but there are no immediate plans to continue using the device — and certainly not at a wildfire, a station official said.

Fire officials have an unlikely ally in their mission to clear out drones — Jason Bross, a quadcopter operator known on YouTube as “jayzaerial.”

He posted dramatic videos last year of the Sand Fire near Lake Tahoe. Set to evocative music, his camera skimmed over the treetops and provided a perspective no one else had. The online comments came quickly: “Very nice shot, what type of a camera are you using?” one person wrote.

But another person, who self‐identified as a nearby resident, wrote that families had only minutes to evacuate and that any action that could hinder firefighters was irresponsible. Angry reaction

“If you were the drone operator that interfered with the Sand Fire operations,” the commenter wrote, “I hope charges are filed.”

In an interview Tuesday, Bross, 38, of Shingle Springs (El Dorado County) acknowledged that what he did “was stupid” and said he had a simple message for fellow drone pilots seeking to film fires: “Just basically, don’t even do it.”

“I would never do it again, and I hope the message would come across to all the other drone pilots out there,” Bross said. “Obviously, it’s been happening recently. If any drone is going to be in the way, and you can’t find the owner, it should totally be taken down. I think you have every right to shoot it down or get rid of it.”

Berlant said that on Friday air operations were suspended by 15 to 20 minutes because five drones were aloft during the initial stages of the 4,250‐acre North Fire, which jumped Interstate 15 in San Bernardino County, destroyed seven homes and left 44 vehicles charred, smoking hulls. A task force is calculating how much additional damage was caused by the delay, Berlant said.

Jason Lam, who operates AeriCam Flying Camera in San Francisco, said he can see how alluring it is for drone operators to get so close to the action.

“They think it’s cool, to have the coolest footage, but you have to realize what’s happening,” he said. “If you’re preventing firefighters from getting there, it’s a no‐no.”

Major S.F. Bayfront Developments Advance Despite Sea Rise Warnings

By Kevin Stark, Winifred Bird and Michael Stoll | Jul 29 2015 ‐ 2:39pm

An apartment tower rises in Mission Bay, bringing new neighbors for Jack Wickert, 78, a retired music teacher and playwright who lives in a houseboat on Mission Creek. Asked if he was worried about sea level rise, he quipped: “I’ll rise with it.” Photo by Peter Snarr Builders plan to invest more than $21 billion in offices and homes in flood‐prone areas, where waters could climb 8 feet above today’s high tide by the end of this century

Like every body of water that opens onto a global ocean, San Francisco Bay is virtually guaranteed to rise several feet in coming decades, climate scientists say. But that has not deterred real estate developers from proposing and building billions of dollars worth of new homes and offices in bayfront areas that current climate change predictions show could flood by century’s end.

Land‐use records and environmental applications reveal that the building boom, fueled by a white‐hot tech economy, is moving too fast for regulators to keep pace. Most cities and regional agencies have not yet adopted tools to address flooding in areas where thousands of acres are threatened by sea level rise.

Developers say they have engineering and financial solutions to deal with any reasonable future flooding risk. But critics, including climate scientists, urban planners and environmental activists, say the current wave of construction might leave taxpayers on the hook for enormously expensive emergency protections and repairs.

Researchers studying climate change predict that the rise in ocean levels will accelerate later this century as the atmosphere heats the ocean and melts glaciers. Many of their models show that by 2100, occasional flooding could reach as high as 8 feet above current high tide, in the event of a severe coastal storm.

Even the scenario widely considered “most likely” — 3 feet of permanent rise — would put thousands of acres of the current shoreline underwater.

Developers are planning or currently building at least 27 major commercial and residential complexes around the bay on land lower than 8 feet above high tide, as estimated by recent aerial surveys. And more than a dozen Bay Area cities continue to issue permits for plans that address future flood risks vaguely, if at all.

Google, Microsoft, LinkedIn and Facebook are among the marquee corporate names driving the bayfront explosion. Some cities are even courting companies to build near sea level, often on landfill created in the mid‐20th century in former salt marshes. Much of that land could return to the sea, unless cities erect seawalls, levees and other monumental edifices.

In many areas new development includes desperately needed housing. Projects now in the pipeline in San Francisco would add 25,000 new apartments. On Treasure Island alone, developers are ready to break ground on a forest of residential towers that could house 12,000 people, and at Mission Rock and Pier 70, developers have pledged to build more affordable apartments than the city requires. Public Costs

Corporate and government data show that the highest‐profile building projects on the shorelines of San Francisco, Silicon Valley and the East Bay will cost more than $21 billion to build, excluding the value of the land underneath them.

That does not account for the likely public cost, coming within decades, of protecting these settlements with dikes, levees and artificial wetlands — or for the economic toll of abandoning development in designated buffer zones as waves rise. A few local governments, including Mountain View, are beginning to spend money on sea level rise infrastructure projects that can protect waterfront business districts.

And San Francisco is in its second year of interdepartmental planning to address sea rise. But the city has yet to update its flood plain ordinance or planning and building codes to address increasing flood risk on the waterfront.

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission has updated its flood maps, which guide public works investments, but other agencies do not impose those guidelines on private property.

Mayor Ed Lee and the Board of Supervisors last year resisted a call from the chair of the city’s civil grand jury to stop approving new shoreline development until stricter building rules are passed. Officials said that changes to city codes might be necessary, though until now state environmental laws and reviews have been sufficient.

Official maps upon which the city’s 2008 flood ordinance is based do not account for future sea rise. Developers say this means the city lacks the legal grounds to prevent building there.

In the past five years, San Francisco land‐use agencies have approved residential, entertainment, retail, medical and office projects on nearly 50 waterfront parcels that are less than 8 feet above sea level. Major projects are somewhere in the approval process for Treasure Island and in parts of South of Market, Pier 70, Candlestick Point and Hunters Point.

The most contentious is the Golden State Warriors’ $1 billion plan for a mixed‐use facility in the Mission Bay neighborhood south of downtown. Opponents of the project, centered around an arena for the 2015 NBA champions, have focused on how it would affect traffic and bay views. But the basketball team’s engineers admit in an application for environmental review that the site could under some scenarios temporarily flood “to depths between 2 and 4 feet” by the year 2100.

Team engineers express confidence that they can design the buildings to resist storm surges by raising entrances, waterproofing basements, installing floodgates in the garage and judiciously deploying sandbags. The Warriors are expected to present the proposal to the Planning Commission this year before the scheduled release of a city‐ sponsored report showing Mission Bay’s vulnerability to sea rise.

Also at potential risk are hundreds of millions of dollars worth of facilities that opened this year in other parts of Mission Bay, where many streets and sidewalks are less than 10 feet above the bay’s current level. That includes University of California, San Francisco, Benioff Children’s Hospital and the San Francisco Emergency Services Center, where the city’s Police and Fire departments have set up new headquarters.

Some nearby projects do include plans to address sea rise. At the San Francisco Giants’ $1.6 billion Mission Rock development, which includes 1,500 apartments with views of AT&T Park, the plan is to elevate the land to accommodate 4.6 feet of sea rise, plus storm surge.

Development projects are springing up all around the southern half of the bay, from San Francisco to San Jose, and north to the Port of Oakland and the island of Alameda.

Maps created for the San Francisco Public Press by graduates of the Geography Department at the University of California, Berkeley, using published development plans and oceanographic data, show that current or proposed building projects that are at least partly in low‐lying areas add up to more than 5,100 acres. Around the Bay

Regional planning is hard, and the Bay Area is struggling to coordinate. There are efforts underway. Individual cities are planning to build expensive protections, and new organizations are aligning the responses of cities and public agencies. Some state‐level responses are in the works. The challenge is that local development is governed by a patchwork of inconsistent zoning and differing interpretations of state law.

In a survey of 13 communities around the bay with the most intense waterfront development, the Public Press found that six had progressed beyond studying the threat of sea rise but none had an action plan. And only two — San Francisco and San Jose — had changed rules for any departments that oversee land use.

When asking for details about flood protection, cities typically rely heavily on developers to summarize which predictions for sea rise are as relevant. These predictions are sometimes based on shorter time frames than the period it will take to finish paying for the construction. Developers’ long‐range engineering suggestions are often based on just 3 feet of permanent inundation by 2100, and do not account for storm surge. Climate change science is still evolving, but the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission found that government and academic experts, including the National Research Council, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Climate Assessment, state and regional climate agencies and independent research groups, largely agree on a matrix of predictions that endorse the 3‐foot “moderate” benchmark.

None of the 13 cities surveyed requires developers to prepare for the less likely 4.6‐foot scenario. The debate in local planning circles is whether to plan for the moderate outcome, or a less likely high‐end one.

Several public and private science groups have posted interactive maps online in the past three years that show which areas would flood under various scenarios. But their creators say it has been hard to persuade city planners to use them to assess flood hazards.

In a 2009 report for the California Energy Commission, the Pacific Institute, an Oakland‐based research group advocating for corporate environmental stewardship and social equity, estimated that property lost in the event of 4.6 feet of sea rise by 2099 would cost the Bay Area $62 billion (nearly two‐thirds the cost for all of California). This inundation would require rebuilding the airports serving San Francisco and Oakland, and moving parts of interstates 101 on the Peninsula and 80 in the East Bay. It could also put 270,000 people in danger during severe floods, the report warned, and “continued development in vulnerable areas will put additional areas at risk and raise protection costs.” Follow the Money

“Now is the time to look seriously at what will happen 50 or 100 years down the road,” said Gary Griggs, who directs the Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and contributed to the National Research Council’s most recent report on sea level rise on the West Coast. “What is the value of making a development, housing project or mall if we know it will have to be removed later, except for some short‐term temporary gains?”

Developers stand to profit handsomely from the waterfront land rush, but governments also benefit in the short run. The proposed megaprojects promise tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue. Some cities are offering developers tax credits, low‐cost land and flood‐control infrastructure to encourage building on their shorelines.

But there are signs of change. The Port of San Francisco in 2012 sketched a $2.7 billion concept to wrap a 10‐mile‐ long, elevated supplemental pier around the existing Embarcadero piers, and is considering adding pumping stations and dikes.

Acting alone, cities risk pushing floodwaters into neighboring areas. In the short term, to avoid ringing the whole bay with barriers, communities could surround themselves with small levees and extend them inland up creeks. This would keep water from neighboring communities out, until it got too high.

The Bay Conservation and Development Commission, formed 50 years ago to stop developers from filling in the bay, is urging caution and trying to play a regional coordinating role. But its jurisdiction stops just 100 feet inland from the current shoreline. The commission was chartered to ensure public access to the land, not to tell developers how to build.

To address the commission’s concerns, many development plans propose a strip of grass — heralded as “parkland” or “open space” — separating buildings from the bay. This does little to protect property if seas rise even a few feet vertically, sending floodwaters thousands of feet inland.

The common roadblocks that environmentalists face nationwide in raising concern over adaptation to climate change, such as distrust of science or lobbying by the fossil fuel industry, play only a small role in Bay Area politics. Here, the obstacles involve pressure from the real estate, construction and tech businesses emphasizing short‐term economic opportunity over more precautionary environmental perspectives. Capitalizing on Uncertainty

San Francisco planning staffers say they evaluate each application for its response to the threat of sea level rise and suggest a range of adaptation strategies. According to public records, in the last five years the city has approved more than 50 projects, each worth at least $1 million, in low‐lying waterfront areas. The estimated development costs of these projects exceed $4.5 billion.

A report in June 2014 from the city’s civil grand jury — a volunteer committee that examines local government — concluded that San Francisco was not moving nearly fast enough to protect public safety in the event of sea rise. David Behar, climate program director for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission who last year headed the city’s interagency Sea Level Rise Technical Committee, said scientists’ increasing confidence in their projections and the degree of agreement among them support taking action.

This year, Mayor Ed Lee convened a new panel, the Sea Level Rise Coordinating Committee, chaired by Gil Kelley, the director of citywide planning, and Fuad Sweiss, the city engineer. He said the group would produce a “high‐level assessment” of risks and vulnerabilities, and consider recommending stricter rules for private development.

Maryta Piazza, corresponding secretary of the civil grand jury, told a Board of Supervisors committee in September 2014 that the city should impose a moratorium on private developments until its codes are updated.

“If we don’t stay ahead of the trend,” Piazza said, “as we are now we’ll be forever catching up, fixing up, and ending up spending much more money in the long run.”

Kristina Hill, an associate professor of landscape architecture and environmental planning at UC Berkeley, said long‐ range planning is essential because sea level rise will be exponential.

“We are living in the last two stable decades of sea level rise,” Hill said. “Around 2045, 2050 or 2060, it’s going to get faster.”

Roger Kim, a representative of Lee’s office, said more research was needed. Lee said in a memo to the civil grand jury that requiring new buildings to withstand sea levels projected for 2050 or 2100 was unnecessary because many developments are not designed to last that long. He echoed developers, who often argue that if sea level rise becomes a problem, future generations can find engineering and financial solutions.

He added that any future regulation should be written with more nuance than determining whether a new building will flood. Rather, each development faces a different threat from storms, depending on its unique geography and the consequence if it is flooded. For example, a park is resilient to flooding in a way that an electrical substation is not. Regulations need to let planners adapt approvals to the circumstances, he said.

“It may be unwise — and expensive — to require immediate measures to adapt to wide‐ranging, highly uncertain SLR projections further out in time,” Lee wrote. Rethinking Mission Bay

On April Fools’ Day 2009, the cover story of Synapse, the student‐run weekly paper at UCSF, was headlined “Mission Bay: The Underwater Campus.” With sea waters likely to threaten the health science school’s new campus within decades, the paper joked, adaptations could include a “campus housing fishing hole,” “surgical scuba gear,” and a 10‐block “Third Street Ridge” cutting through Mission Bay to act as a seawall. Little did the editors know that at least one of these farcical suggestions could become reality.

In September 2014, consultants drafting a report to the city’s Public Utilities Commission and the Capital Planning Committee said sea level rise should not be addressed in a piecemeal fashion. The 303‐acre neighborhood, which was an inlet of the bay before it was filled and used for a sprawling rail yard, must be rethought comprehensively. One suggestion from the consultants is to put Third Street on top of a levee that would reduce flooding risk in most of Mission Bay.

“The entire shoreline is too low to be protected, so what can we do about that?” Laura Tam, environmental director at SPUR, a Bay Area urban planning and advocacy group, asked at a City Hall hearing. “We cannot just protect individual buildings. We need something that protects the whole area in the long term.”

Tam co‐authored the forthcoming report with Peter Wijsman, a consultant with the Dutch engineering firm ARCADIS, which has engineered solutions to sea rise in the Netherlands. Wijsman said options for Mission Bay ranged from “learning to live with water” to “armament” for the shoreline. Officials also discussed a “Venice‐style” system allowing water to flow around flood‐proof ground‐level shops and building entrances.

When UCSF began planning its new medical center in the 1980s, it stabilized the land in Mission Bay by adding more fill on top of the sand brought in from SoMa during the 19th century and debris added after the 1906 earthquake and fire.

Paul Franke, a senior planner for the medical center, said the grade was raised by 2 to 5 feet to ensure that hospital and research buildings could withstand 3 feet of sea level rise. He said that was meant to make the project last “in perpetuity.” When the city reviewed Mission Bay’s original sitewide permits in 1998, officials generally planned for 100‐year floods, those with a 1 percent chance of happening each year. They used older predictions of sea rise and less precise topographic mapping, focusing on relatively short time horizons (8 inches by 2025). But Franke said UCSF will monitor the science over the next 50 years to ensure “we were not tragically off in our predictions.”

Meanwhile, the hospital is planning more facilities even closer to the bay and recently bought a parcel east of Third Street near 16th. As an arm of the state, UCSF gets its permits from the Division of the State Architect, not the city. But San Francisco planners do have regulatory power over the Warriors arena. Developer Strada said it plans to explain in reports mandated by state law how it will safeguard the facility, whether by raising the land, permitting some flooding or building barriers.

With the Warriors’ environmental review scheduled months before the Mission Bay sea level rise report is due, and given the mayor’s unwavering support for the sports facility, it is hard to see the Planning Commission derailing the plan because of the threat of sea level rise.

Representatives of Prologis, the developer overseeing all Mission Bay planning, did not respond to repeated calls for comment on long‐term plans. Costly Fixes

At Treasure Island, the towers approved by city officials will include 8,000 homes and 235,000 square feet of retail space. Kheay Loke, a manager with development firm Wilson Meany, says the project makes sense because the area already has roads and electricity, so developing there is more environmentally sustainable than building in the suburbs. For the company, it means not having to install new infrastructure.

For years, the property’s developers have emphasized their plans to conserve energy, maintain open spaces and build walkable neighborhoods, linked to the rest of the city by public transit, including ferries. In an interview in a downtown conference room with a view of the island, Loke said there was an easy — if “sacrilegious” — solution to sea level rise.

“Fill in the bay,” he said. “You go 50 feet out, and you build yourself a levee.”

Wilson Meany and co‐developer Lennar Urban already plan to fortify existing berms around the 400‐acre island to make them broad enough to build higher in the future. And they plan to raise the land, at a cost of $1.2 billion. Construction will continue through 2035.

“We can adapt and protect,” Loke said. “Sea level rise and flood protection are problems that money can solve.”

In this case, the money probably will come from the island’s future taxpayers. Treasure Island property owners will pay a special fee, called a Mello‐Roos tax, to fund any future adaptation measures needed after the developers leave.

Brad McCrea, regulatory program director at the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, said Treasure Island’s developers brought “eyes‐wide‐open expertise” to their planning. But he said he was skeptical of applying this kind of technology‐centered approach everywhere around the bay, given that sea level rise could continue for centuries. “At the end of the day, this will be a levee‐protected community,” McCrea said. “There’s no getting around that.”

McCrea said Bay Area communities should be talking about retreating from the riskiest shoreline areas. “This is not about Treasure Island, but there are some basic questions here about where is the right place to build.”

Will Travis, who headed the commission for 16 years until 2011, said the region needed a more “thoughtful, reasoned, rational and financially sound solution.

“It will buy you 50 years of time to get our heads around this notion of ‘permanent temporary’ development,” he said. “Getting developers and local governments to think half a century ahead is very hard.”

Developers are spending millions of dollars on public relations to persuade voters that they are building safe and environmentally benign projects. In November, San Francisco voters approved Proposition F — which technically exempted Pier 70, a development south of Mission Bay, from height limits, but in effect endorsed the construction of commercial space and 2,000 homes (600 affordable) on 28 waterfront acres. Our maps suggest that large portions of the former industrial area could be submerged under several feet of water by 2100 in the event of 6.4 feet of flooding (the intermediate prediction for sea rise and extreme storm surge). After three years of public outreach, developer Forest City spent almost $3 million on the campaign, including paying $15,000 to the San Francisco Democratic Party, $10,000 to the Republican Central Committee and $25,000 the Sierra Club for mailing campaign fliers. The project won endorsements from the city’s last three mayors, all 11 current members of the Board of Supervisors and more than 50 community groups. Activists with the Sierra Club’s local chapter told a reporter last fall they never pressed the developer about sea rise.

Forest City has not yet sought environmental permits, so its specific plans are not public.

Other proposed waterfront projects that still need some approvals include the sprawling Hunters Point development that includes 1,600 homes now under construction at the old Naval Shipyard, and a commercial and residential complex rising at Candlestick Point to replace the eponymous stadium. Developers are raising the land there to keep buildings, streets and key infrastructure above the moderate estimate of the 100‐year flood level — a few feet of storm surge on top of 3 feet of sea level rise. Planners Value Flexibility

Chris Kern, a senior environmental planner for the city, said the lack of firm city codes allows easier adjustment to new scientific projections. It is sufficient that state law requires the city to assess whether new projects “expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,” he said. The city interprets that to include future flooding from sea rise.

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Behar said it was common for government to test regulations by applying them to public property before forcing compliance in the private sector. Perhaps surprisingly, the real estate and development industries are not uniformly opposed to regulation. Developers say working under clear rules makes it easier and less expensive to plan. “Sea level rise adaptation should be government mandated,” said Loke, of the Wilson Meany development firm.

Piazza, the civil grand jury member, said San Francisco should halt the rapid pace of development until it adopts comprehensive policies that protect both public safety and private property. If the city takes too long, all the gaps in the waterfront skyline will have been filled in by the time the rules go into effect.

Tam, a longtime advocate for regional climate adaptation planning at SPUR, sees hope in the city’s new approach.

“Five years ago, this topic was virtually unknown,” she told John Upton, a reporter for Climate Central, a nonprofit that researches and reports on climate change. “Today, many city departments have not only participated and worked together to produce this guidance, but they are working collaboratively to develop solutions.”

Kelley, the director of citywide planning, said it was too soon to recommend new planning codes. “We need to know what the problem is before we come up with an answer,” he said. “This will lead to some discussion of what we might do.” Silicon Valley Growth

When Google first proposed in February to build a massive new headquarters in Mountain View, it issued promotional videos and renderings showing 3.4 million square feet of office space under undulating canopies of glass and plastic.

Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute, blasted the tech giant’s choice of location.

“Their property at the south end of San Francisco Bay is extremely vulnerable to projected sea‐level rise,” Gleick blogged. “Google is a forward‐looking company. But are they looking forward to, and planning for, the now‐ unavoidable impacts of climate change as they design new multibillion dollar infrastructure investments?”

Mountain View’s North Bayshore neighborhood hosts Google’s current headquarters, as well as offices for Microsoft, Intuit and other companies. The city’s plan envisions a walkable community of corporate campuses, stores, hotels, services and entertainment. Flood maps show that much of the zone could be underwater with 8 feet of combined sea rise and severe storm surge. But the plan looks only to predictions for the year 2064, when, it asserts, seas are expected to rise a maximum of 3 feet.

Mountain View has set aside more than $43 million for proposals to bolster existing levees, pump stations and tide gates, the Bay Area News Group reported in June. In May, the City Council voted to award the majority of the developable office space to LinkedIn’s Shoreline Commons mixed‐use concept, based largely on its claims that it would “preserve business diversity” — a reference to Google’s already dominant footprint in the city.

But Google has designs on several additional waterfront properties. In neighboring Sunnyvale, it took over a 60‐year lease from NASA for part of the land at Moffett Federal Airfield, where the space agency had concluded it needed a buffer zone to keep rising waters out.

In Menlo Park, Facebook recently finished a new campus with a 430,000‐square‐foot building, featuring 9 acres of rooftop foliage, designed by Canadian architect Frank Gehry. According to recent U.S. Geological Survey data, parts of the site were below 8 feet in elevation before it was developed.

In its environmental impact report, Facebook said that although the average height of the land was 9 feet, the buildings themselves would be “raised above future flood risk.”

The environmental report also argued that Facebook was not technically obligated, under state rules, to judge environmental risk to the facilities, even though the company had taken various protective measures.

As the report put it, the purpose of state‐mandated review “is to evaluate the effects of the project on the environment, not the effect of the environment on the project.”

Facebook representatives declined to speak on the record about the company’s flood plain adaptation strategies.

Charlie Knox, a principal at PlaceWorks, a firm in Berkeley that helps cities plan for sea level rise, said the main Facebook building would probably be safe from flooding through the 22nd century. “They are pretty hip and they have over‐anticipated sea‐level rise,” he said.

In an extreme event such a building, elevated on concrete pillars, would probably survive, though the land around it would be submerged. “People would be sitting in their offices looking at the water,” he said. “It is a model for adaptation.”

Knox said technology firms know the risks they are taking by proposing and building tens of millions of square feet of new research and development facilities.

“There is a ton of good jobs, meaningful stuff that will help medicine and human life, and it is all going up like crazy,” he said. “And it is all in a place that sea level is going to rise.” East Bay Renewal

Large swaths of underused East Bay waterfront have been under construction for years, with some projects originally financed by redevelopment funds that the state pulled back after falling into deficit. At Oakland’s Jack London Square, the newest project includes a 1,700‐seat movie theater, restaurants, supermarkets and a 250‐room hotel with a marina and small beach. Developers said it faced no flood risk, though they did not address sea level rise in their 2004 environmental impact report.

But an addendum to the report released this May asserted that the company was not “required to analyze or mitigate impacts pertaining to the impact of the environment on the project.” The construction, the company explained, “is not causing sea level rise, sea level rise will occur regardless of the proposed project.”

Construction also is underway on 1 million square feet of warehouse space at the former Army base in West Oakland. Local officials laud this project as a restoration of the “working waterfront” because it will bolster a growing freight industry by connecting cargo ships with trains.

In Alameda, development is continuing on the site of a Naval Air Station that shut down in the 1990s. Currently in the works are 800 apartments and 600,000 square feet of retail space in a $500 million project by Alameda Point Partners, which proposes to raise the land and build levees in the future to keep land below sea level from flooding.

In addition to 26 current major development plans the Public Press found to be at least partly below the projected 8‐foot elevation, we found a 27th that for now seems to be off the table. Starting in 2009, Arizona‐based DMB Pacific Ventures sought permission from Redwood City to build 12,000 homes on 1,478 acres of bayside salt evaporation ponds owned by agricultural giant Cargill. It was withdrawn in May 2012 after a firestorm of protest from neighbors, some of whom were concerned about the environmental effects of building farther into the bay. Project attorney David Smith said there was “currently no development proposal whatsoever pending for the site,” though the project’s website said a “scaled back” plan was in the works. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concluded in 2014 that the federal government had no jurisdiction over most of the Redwood City site. But the federal Environmental Protection Agency — which has spent more than $40 million to restore San Francisco Bay wetlands — announced in March that it was investigating whether the land falls under the Clean Water Act. This could be a test case for whether the EPA can include sea level rise in assessing future flood risk or limiting shoreline development. Search for Solutions

Several regional initiatives aim to coordinate how bayfront cities cope with sea level rise. Most notable are the Resilient Shoreline Program, the San Francisco Bay Regional Coastal Hazards Resiliency Group and Our Coast, Our Future.

The state has created a $2.5 million California Climate Resilience Account to pay for planning. Legislation is also pending on a statewide database of preparedness work.

In the South Bay, a coalition of federal and state agencies including the Army Corps of Engineers, the Coastal Conservancy and the Santa Clara Water District are proposing the federal government spend $162 million for wetlands restoration and levee construction. Also in the South Bay, a regional authority is widening old levees and building new horizontal ones around San Francisquito Creek.

But creating consistent rules governing private property could be a challenge. “Regulations around climate change are in their infancy, or nonexistent,” said Behar of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.

Jasper Rubin, a professor of urban planning at San Francisco State University, said the common solution of raising land to raise the height of buildings fails to address the “larger systemic issues.” If one property is raised, he said, it “doesn’t mean the rest of the waterfront’s not going to get inundated.”

Kristina Hill, the UC Berkeley planning professor, said more experimentation is needed in waterfront construction techniques. But few businesses are invested in fortifying the properties they build beyond midcentury. It is hard to fund resilient architecture, Hill said, when developers “do not have a shared interest with the public about what will happen with those properties in the future.”

Some environmental and planning experts are appealing directly to the public to change sea level rise policies. The King Tides Project publishes reports on coastal erosion and flooding that occur when sun and moon align, known as king tides. These events offer a preview of sea level rise.

Project co‐founder Marina Psaros started working with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission to urge cities to pass new flood zone regulations. “Our theory was we need to get heads of planning and public works directors aware, concerned, activated on climate change,” Psaros said.

Discouraged by institutional inertia, she shifted her focus to public outreach, publishing dramatic photos of high tide events on social media.

Knox, the consultant who works on adaptation planning around the bay, said that the time horizons of developers and governments are too short to deal with the effects of climate change. The waterfront will change noticeably even in a single lifetime, but sea level rise will plague coastal communities for generations.

“One of the problems we face is that we do not live very long,” Knox said. “We think, ‘I’m going to move into this house and have kids here.’ People do not care what the house will be in 200 years. But now we have to think differently.”

ENERGY POLICY: Court strikes down FWS's eagle 'take' rule By Phil Taylor, reporter | 8/12/15

A federal court in Northern California has struck down a controversial Fish and Wildlife Service rule allowing developers to obtain 30‐year permits to harm protected eagles, marking a major blow for the wind energy industry.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled yesterday that FWS should have conducted a National Environmental Policy Act review prior to finalizing the rule in late 2013 that extended eagle take permits from five to 30 years.

The Obama administration crafted the rule to offer wind farms a legal path to accidentally kill eagles, as long as they agree to a suite of mitigation and monitoring requirements to ensure eagle populations remain stable (Greenwire, Dec. 23, 2013). But it hit major opposition from bird advocacy groups, which argued FWS lacked the resources or know‐how to ensure the permits actually benefit the nation's official bird and its golden kin.

Judge Lucy Koh wrote that there are "substantial questions" as to whether FWS's decision to extend eagle "take" permits from five to 30 years would have "a significant adverse effect on bald and golden eagle populations."

"FWS has failed to show an adequate basis in the record for deciding not to prepare an [environmental impact statement] ‐‐ much less an [environmental assessment] ‐‐ prior to increasing the maximum duration for programmatic eagle take permits by sixfold," Koh wrote in the 46‐page ruling.

But the court rejected the American Bird Conservancy's separate claim that Fish and Wildlife violated the Endangered Species Act by not considering how the eagle take rule might impact ESA‐listed species.

FWS spokesman Gavin Shire said the agency is "reviewing the court's ruling in conjunction with our solicitors."

The government could decide to appeal the decision to the circuit court.

ABC filed the lawsuit in June 2014, arguing that the rule undermines the purpose of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, which forbids unpermitted harm to either species, and lacks important safeguards to protect eagle populations.

"We are pleased that the courts agreed with us that improper shortcuts were taken in the development of this rule," said Michael Hutchins, director of ABC's wind energy program. "The court found that important laws meant to protect our nation's wildlife were not properly followed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, putting bald and golden eagles at greater risk."

The American Wind Energy Association intervened in the case in defense of the 30‐year take rule. Wind developers say they need 30‐year permits to prove to financiers that projects will not be shut down prematurely.

John Anderson, director of permitting policy and environmental affairs for AWEA, told the court that the longer permits are "necessary for the future of wind energy development" because "occasional, unintentional eagle mortality is an unavoidable reality for wind energy facilities."

AWEA today said, "The wind industry is doing more than any other known mortality source to find ways to reduce its comparatively small impact" to eagles.

"We disagree with the views of the court and others that the change in permit duration, from 5‐year permits (with an average wind farm needing 6 extensions over its life) to a 30‐year permit with 5‐year check‐ins materially changed the overall potential effects on eagles and their habitats requiring additional NEPA analysis," the organization said in a statement. "There is already precedent for life‐of‐project permits available under the Endangered Species Act, for species that are by their very nature more imperiled than eagles, so we view the 30‐ year permit duration as being both consistent with existing permit programs and fully protective of eagles and their habitats, while providing legal certainty to the wind industry and other applicants." Justice Department attorneys argued in the case that a full NEPA review of the rule was unnecessary because the "environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to the NEPA process, either collectively, or case‐by‐case."

They also argued that the rule was "primarily administrative in nature."

But the court rejected both claims.

It pointed to dissent from within FWS's ranks, particularly from Eliza Savage, whom the court identifies as FWS's eagle program manager. Savage, according to the court, said that the 30‐year permits "will be inherently less protective for eagles" than the five‐year permits and that it was a "no‐brainer that [FWS] needed to do a NEPA analysis."

The agency "has not adequately explained why the environmental effects of the Final 30‐Year Rule are 'too broad, speculative, or conjectural to lend themselves to meaningful analysis,'" the court ruled.

CAPITOL ALERT August 16, 2015 Health care, transportation, climate to occupy returning California lawmakers . Special sessions to fund roads and health care top agenda . Republican votes for one, much less both, will be a heavy lift . Opposition to climate bill is ramping up California Gov. Jerry Brown, right, speaks to reporters with Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, left, and Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard at the Climate Summit of the Americas in Toronto on Wednesday, July 8, 2015. Darren Calabrese AP

By Jeremy B. White | [email protected]

Higher taxes to fund health care and road repairs lead the agenda for the California Legislature’s closing month of business.

As a summer recess recedes in the rearview mirror, state lawmakers return to Sacramento on Monday for the final stretch of the legislative year. They have already begun counting votes for high‐priority special sessions, called by Gov. Jerry Brown, to handle health care and transportation funding.

“The very nature and gravitas a special session brings by the governor (being involved) means that we’re in a moment of real opportunity,” said Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, D‐Los Angeles.

Bills dealing with climate change and cannabis, as well as an unallocated budget bonanza, also loom large. Here’s what to watch for:

Transportation

Year after year, local government representatives implore Sacramento to better fund transportation infrastructure. They brandish studies that detail creaking bridges and potholed roads and put the cost of repairs in the billions. They could finally see some relief.

Brown called for better transportation funding in his agenda‐setting State of the State speech in January. Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D‐San Diego, months ago floated a plan incorporating a road user fee to offset dwindling gas tax revenue.

Winning Republican votes will be the crucial issue, since proposals to get more funding with higher gas taxes or vehicle licensing fees would require a two‐thirds vote. While the minority party backs the principle of addressing transportation, their aversion to higher taxes has mostly confined them to proposing things like redirecting dollars from cap‐and‐trade auctions and truck weight fees or eliminating what they see as excess Caltrans jobs.

“There is already plenty of money in the budget,” said Assembly Minority Leader Kristin Olsen, R‐Riverbank. “There is sufficient revenue in state coffers today to fund and fix our roads.”

Health

Complicating the quest for Republican transportation dollars is a separate push to augment health care revenue, which would also require a two‐thirds vote. In calling for a special session, Brown has focused on replacing an expiring tax on managed care organizations, and legislation to accomplish that has emerged.

But a coalition of medical organizations is determined to better reimburse providers who accept Medi‐Cal, California’s insurance policy for low‐income residents. An unusual labor‐hospital coalition has bankrolled a campaign to boost rates, and a similar group of union and medical advocates are pinning their hope to getting the revenue from a higher cigarette tax. They are taking no chances, pouring millions into a cigarette tax ballot measure to put extra pressure on lawmakers. “A lot of legislators are seeing the impact in their districts and seeing the inability of many of their constituents to see a physician and get the treatment they need,” said California Medical Association CEO Dustin Corcoran.

Tobacco policy will sit high on the agenda even outside the tax: Attempts to raise the smoking age to 21 and treat electronic cigarettes as tobacco products, both of which stalled in committee this year, have resurfaced in special session bills that have the blessing of leadership.

“Having a special session that focuses on health care funding, there’s an acknowledgment we need to reduce smoking in our state” to reduce “the cost tobacco inflicts on Medi‐Cal,” said American Cancer Society lobbyist Tim Gibbs.

Climate

When the governor and both legislative leaders advocate a policy, it has a fairly good chance of becoming law. So the odds were always good for a sweeping climate change bill that would slash California’s gasoline and diesel use and have half the state’s electricity flow from renewable sources.

What’s less clear is how it will work. From the start, utility companies have lobbied to shape which types of renewable energy would count.

“We are still busy negotiating around the clock,” de León said.

The road to passage has also become steeper. While Senate Bill 350 passed the upper house with votes to spare, oil companies opposed to the bill have bankrolled a statewide campaign of digital, television and billboard ads targeting moderate Assembly Democrats. De León denounced the push as a campaign of “distortion and misinformation.” Its industry backers say they are simply educating consumers.

“We’re looking at communities that we think would do well to be educated about this issue and whose members would appreciate hearing from their constituents,” said Beth Miller of the Western States Petroleum Association‐ backed California Drivers Alliance.

Cap‐and‐trade

Another landmark environmental policy will spur a dollars‐and‐cents debate. This year’s budget passed with minimal friction, but Brown and lawmakers agreed to set aside for later one of the most contentious points: how to spend the approximately $2.7 billion reaped by the state’s cap‐and‐trade system of selling permits for carbon emissions.

Much of that money is already locked into a formula setting aside funds for areas like housing, transit and the high‐ speed rail project. That still leaves over a billion dollars that could fund a wide array of emissions‐reducing projects.

Many lawmakers have ideas that would benefit their districts; Republicans want the money for road repairs. Lawmakers and the administration are debating how to divvy it up.

Cannabis

Another perennial problem could find resolution this year, as the prospect of voters legalizing recreational marijuana in 2016 has helped propel the most promising push yet to regulate medical cannabis. With the politically essential backing of cities and police, Assembly Bill 266 would create a system to license, permit and tax the plant.

The measure has cleared the Assembly floor and two Senate committees and now awaits judgment in the Senate Appropriations Committee – last year, a medical cannabis control bill advanced no farther than the Assembly Appropriations Committee. Pointing to the coalition they’ve built, backers hope this year will be different.

“We’re at a place that’s further along than any bill of this type in the history of California,” said Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D‐Alameda, the bill’s author. “I don’t think the level of this support at this stage in the game was the same” in past attempts.

What else?

Drones: Lawmakers have repeatedly wrestled with how unmanned aircraft collide with privacy and civil liberties. Senate Bill 142, which would bar drones from flying a certain distance over private property, has spurred a fight over privacy and the right to fly. Death: A polarizing measure allowing doctors to prescribe dying Californians lethal drugs halted earlier this year for lack of votes. But the authors vowed they were not finished yet. Controversial bills have a way of resurfacing in the final month of a session, so keep an eye out for this one.

Domiciles: Affordable housing has long been a priority for Atkins, so her bill to create a dedicated housing fund looked like a legacy push for the terming‐out Assembly leader. But Assembly Bill 1335 imposes a transaction fee that would need a two‐thirds vote, which will be even tougher with health care and transportation requiring the same.

Big Battles to Watch In California Legislature’s Final Month The Assembly Daily File in the Assembly Chambers at the State Capitol in Sacramento. (Max Whittaker/KQED) By John Myers and Marisa Lagos | August 17, 2015 At most, there are only 20 days of official business left at the state Capitol. By the time it’s over, huge policy and political fights will have been waged, some of which may set the stage for debates left for the voters to settle in 2016. Legislators return on Monday to Sacramento for the final sprint to the end of this year’s duties, the halfway mark of the two‐year legislative session that began in January. Hundreds of bills are left to be debated, covering topics from environmental policy to privacy rights and long‐term funding for roads and highways. Here are our top picks for the battles worth watching: The Biggie: Climate Clash California’s reputation on the international stage as a leader on climate change regulations has been front and center in recent months, and legislators may be on the verge of doubling down on that effort. Most notable are two bills to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and separate legislation to cut the state’s reliance on fossil fuels. The greenhouse gas bills (SB 32 and AB 1288) push beyond the state’s 2006 landmark law, which seeks to shrink emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. AB 1288, by Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins (D‐San Diego), would extend the state’s use of cap‐and‐trade as a tool to limit greenhouse gas emissions. SB 32, by state Sen. Fran Pavley (D‐Agoura Hills), would ratchet down emission levels by mid‐century to 80 percent below 1990 levels. State Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León is the author of SB 350. (Max Whittaker/KQED) Hard to believe, but those bills may spark debate that seems tepid compared to SB 350 by Senate President pro Tem Kevin de León (D‐Los Angeles). This bill is an attempt to pull off the equivalent of a climate change hat trick: More renewable energy, more energy efficient buildings, and a 50 percent reduction in the use of petroleum by cars and trucks.

That last element — a big downsizing of gasoline use — is the one the oil industry has vowed to kill, with an aggressive PR campaign over the last few weeks and a list of business‐leaning Democrats in the Assembly who they hope will lead the charge to weaken the Senate leader’s bill. Historically, a bill authored by a legislative leader can be hard to stop. And de León holds some powerful cards in his hand — namely, the bills of assemblymembers that have made it to the Senate, bills he could amend or kill to get his way with SB 350. This is the biggest of the final legislative battles. And keep your eye on Gov. Jerry Brown, who may play a key role behind the scenes on an issue which he seems to increasingly view as a big part of his legacy. Money Talks: Health Care and Tobacco Lawmakers will be working both on regular‐session issues and, concurrently, on two special legislative sessions — dealing with health care and transportation. While Brown’s call for a special health care session is mostly aimed at finding a way to fund Medi‐Cal, it seems a new round of tobacco wars will be taking front and center in the debate as well. Several Democratic lawmakers have already introduced legislation as part of the special session that would define e‐ cigarettes as tobacco products and bring them under the state’s existing anti‐smoking laws. Both Senate Bill xx5 by Senator Mark Leno (D‐San Francisco) and Assembly Bill xx6 by Assemblymember Jim Cooper (D‐Elk Grove) are essentially do‐overs of Leno’s SB 140, which was unceremoniously gutted in July by Assemblyman Adam Gray (D‐Merced), chair of the lower house’s powerful governmental organization committee. So it seems that legislation, combined with other bills, could set up an interesting battle in the Assembly, whose more moderate members have recently been loath to expand anti‐tobacco laws. (By the way, the “x” in the bill numbers refers to the fact that these were introduced in the special session.) Also on the tobacco docket: Assembly Bill xx10 by Assemblyman Richard Bloom (D‐Santa Monica), which would allow counties to impose their own tobacco taxes; Senate Bill xx7 by Sen. Ed Hernandez (D‐San Gabriel Valley) and Assembly Bill xx8 by Assemblyman Jim Wood (D‐Healdsburg), which would both raise the smoking age to 21; Senate Bill xx6 by Sen. Bill Monning (D‐Carmel), which would close some loopholes in the state’s workplace smoking laws; and Senate Bill xx8 by Sen. Carol Liu (D‐La Cañada Flintridge), which would expand tobacco‐free programs to charter schools. The health care session, of course, is actually aimed at finding a way to backfill $1.1 billion in funding for Medi‐Cal that will dry up next June, when the federal government starts enforcing new rules around how the low‐income health insurance is funded. Democrats and Republicans also want to increase reimbursement rates for doctors who serve Medi‐Cal patients and to increase funding for developmental disability services; Democratic lawmakers are pushing, too for more funding for the state’s In‐Home Supportive Services program. Assemblyman Marc Levine (D‐San Rafael) has proposed a flat tax on all managed care organizations in the state of $7.88 per patient, per month. He said the tax would raise the $1.1 billion for Medi‐Cal, as well as money for the other programs. Republicans say that tax is unnecessary, and they would like to see the state instead dedicate any new general fund revenues above and beyond 2015 budget levels to developmental disability services and Medi‐Cal rates. Transportation’s Tax Troubles The other big special session debate over the final month will be over new dollars for California’s aging roads, highways and bridges. Getting consensus on the seriousness of the issue was the easy part; finding a way to pay for it — given that most revenue remedies will require a supermajority, bipartisan vote of each house — is the hard part. How much money? An all‐star coalition of local governments, business, and transportation groups says it needs to be at least $6 billion. Annually. That’s a heavy lift in the political world. Key debates will include how much to earmark for things like roads and bridges, and how much some urban legislators may demand for public transit; how many different fees or taxes can or should be raised, from gas taxes to vehicle registration fees; how much of the ever‐growing pot of cash from cap‐and‐trade’s auction of emission allowances should be tapped; and the idea of moving away from per gallon taxes and towards “road charging,” where drivers pay based on how many miles they drive. Crime … and Accountability Two controversial criminal justice bills will also be up for debate this month, both of them opposed by law enforcement. Assembly Bill 953, by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (D‐San Diego), is billed by supporters, including the ACLU, as the “Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015.” It would mandate a system for law enforcement to collect information on each stop they make, data that would have to be reported to the attorney general each year. AB 953 would also expand the state’s definition of profiling beyond race to include things such as gender, national origin, religion and sexual orientation. It’s supported by a long list of civil rights groups and opposed by most of the state’s large police organizations. Police protests around the nation, including this one in San Francisco, helped spur AB953. (Mark Andrew Boyer / KQED) Leno is again attempting to curb warrantless searches of phones, computers and other electronic devices with Senate Bill 178. It’s his fourth run at the issue, which has repeatedly been embraced by lawmakers but vetoed by Brown in the face of law enforcement opposition. The bill would require law enforcement to secure a court order before they compel service providers to give them personal communications, or before they search an electronic device. It has some exceptions for emergency situations. It’s supported by tech companies, consumer organizations and civil liberties groups, but opposed by prosecutors, police and sheriffs. Elections and Disclosure Laws A handful of notable bills in the final month may make important changes in the conducting of elections and campaigns, starting as soon as next year’s contest. The most talked about of these is AB 1461 by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D‐San Diego), requiring DMV and state elections officials to automatically register to vote those who are eligible. Other bills that will be worth watching include a state‐funded recount for razor‐thin statewide candidate or ballot measure elections, and new donor disclosure rules on campaign mailers. Speaking of disclosure: Keep an eye on AB 1200, the effort by Assemblyman Rich Gordon (D‐Menlo Park) to apply lobbying reports for those who seek government contracts — an area, as we reported last week, that’s virtually opaque when it comes to seeing who’s influencing what. Affordability Issues Democrats are also attempting to change a handful of state laws that they argue will make life easier for working families and individuals. Efforts to raise the minimum wage are also happening at the local level. (Peter Jon Shuler/KQED) Assembly Bill 908, by Assemblyman Jimmy Gomez (D‐Los Angeles) would expand paid family leave in California; Senate Bill 406, by Sen. Hannah Beth Jackson (D‐Santa Barbara) would also expand job protections for Californians that take paid family leave; Jackson’s Senate Bill 358 would strengthen California’s gender pay protections; and Leno’s Senate Bill 3 would raise the state’s minimum wage to $13 an hour by 2017, with automatic future increases based on the rate of inflation — the same kind of inflation “indexing” that’s been opposed in previous incarnations by Gov. Jerry Brown. Ripped From The Headlines? And finally, there will be legislative debates that, even more than some of the bills mentioned above, are largely driven by the state or national news cycle. Republicans are vowing to fight for more information on Planned Parenthood’s use of state tax dollars, after the summertime controversy over a hidden video and accusations of selling fetal tissue for medical research. While GOP‐dominant legislatures in other states are provoking a fight with the feds on the issue, a debate in the heavily Democratic statehouse in Sacramento would be mostly symbolic. The summer’s tragic headline of a San Francisco murder, allegedly carried out by an undocumented felon who was released from custody just days earlier, may also make its way to the Legislature. Republican state Sen. Jeff Stone (R‐Murrieta) plans to introduce a bill to require that local law enforcement notify federal immigrations officials before releasing a convicted felon. Less sensational, but also part of a national narrative, is SB 142 by Sen. Hannah‐Beth Jackson (D‐Santa Barbara) to ban drone aircraft within a 350‐foot zone of privacy over private property. Jackson and other legislators also are calling for new laws regarding drones interfering with firefighting efforts.

Main Street Menace: Senate Bill 1X 1 (Beall)

By Tom Scott CA State Director, NFIB | Monday, August 17th, 2015 While the legislature is in session, the National Federation of Independent Business/California will be profiling anti‐ small business bills and initiatives and the adverse effect they would have on California’s job creators. This is the second of the 2015 series. The end of summer isn’t the only bad news in Sacramento. The Legislature is back in town beginning today – and they are attempting to increase fees and taxes yet again. One of the worst proposals from the regular session has been reintroduced in a special session dedicated to raising revenue for road repair: Senate Bill 1X 1 by Senator Jim Beall. The laundry list of tax increases and fees is unreal, and proves yet again that the majority of those representing small businesses have no clue about the impacts their proposals have on the economic engine of our state. Some of the many increases that SB 1X 1 proposes include: 1) Adding an additional 12 cent per gallon tax to some of the highest gas taxes in the nation (California has the highest prices for gasoline in the country). For those who try to stock up on gas before an increase can take effect, the bill adds a 12 cent per gallon storage fee to ensure that the state gets the revenue from taxpayers. 2) Raising the cost of diesel by 22 cents per gallon, again with a 22‐cents storage fee for earlier purchases. 3) Increasing the vehicle registration by $35, and by $100 for zero‐emission vehicles. 4) Adding a $35 “road access charge” to everyone’s registration. Isn’t the ability to drive on the roads the reason we pay to register vehicles? And where do all these fees and taxes go? Part – not all – are to be deposited into a Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account. Does anyone really believe that this additional revenue will be spent on what it is intended for, to improve roads? Maybe I’ve been in Sacramento too long – but I am a bit skeptical myself. Decades of inaction by the Legislature has led to this demand for more money and drivers are being told that they need to pay more because government failed to act, much like our current water crisis. Small businesses have good reason to be concerned – all of the above fees and taxes will impact their bottom line and increase their cost of doing business. In recent years, California’s small employers have absorbed an increase in the minimum wage and increased costs for providing paid sick leave and health insurance as mandated by the Affordable Care Act. Elected officials always feel like their individual proposals aren’t overly onerous, but when combined with everyone else’s, they add up quickly and only serve to squash small business. I call this the “pancake effect.” We start to sound like a broken record every time another cost on small employers is proposed, but the reality is that the only way to absorb any additional costs will be to lay off staff, raise prices or throw in the towel and close the doors. Small businesses operate on fixed budgets, and just because the state adds new taxes and fees, it doesn’t mean that business owners have the ability to pay those increases. NFIB’s most recent Small Business Optimism Index showed no further decline from June, but that is the best that can be said. California was also ranked as the second hardest place to find full time employment – perhaps small business owners are nervous about hiring because of the onslaught of taxes and fees headed their way. And the state is consistently ranked as the worst place to do business. In any case, the news isn’t good – and those returning to the Capitol today need to know that and act accordingly. Small business is watching and counting on you. ### For more than 70 years, the National Federation of Independent Business has been the Voice of Small Business, taking the message from Main Street to the halls of Congress and all 50 state legislatures. NFIB annually surveys its members on state and federal issues vital to their survival as America’s economic engine and biggest creator of jobs. NFIB’s educational mission is to remind policymakers that small businesses are not smaller versions of bigger businesses; they have very different challenges and priorities. Learn more at www.NFIB.com/ca.

More than 10,000 acres in Sierra Nevada protected in deal that aims to boost water supply, reduce fires

By Paul Rogers [email protected] | Posted: 08/16/2015 12:03:37 PM PDT

An equestrian rides near Lyons Ridge on the property purchased in the Sierra Nevada by the Northern Sierra Partnership, Nature Conservancy and American River Conservancy. (American River Conservancy) More than 10,000 acres of scenic meadows, forests and trout streams in the Sierra Nevada 10 miles west of Lake Tahoe have been preserved in a deal in which environmentalists hope to prove that thinning out overgrown forests can increase California's water supply.

The Northern Sierra Partnership, an environmental group based in Palo Alto and founded by longtime Silicon Valley leaders Jim and Becky Morgan, joined with the Nature Conservancy and the American River Conservancy to buy the land for $10.1 million from Simorg West Forests, a timber company based in Atlanta.

The deal, which closed Aug. 5, preserves a landscape south of Interstate 80 in Placer County adjacent to Granite Chief Wilderness in the Tahoe National Forest. The land contains more than 20 miles of blue ribbon trout streams.

Home to black bears, mountain lions, deer, songbirds and other wildlife, the remote property also includes the headwaters of two of California's popular whitewater rafting rivers, the North and Middle forks of the American River.

"There are forests and meadows, and granite outcroppings," said David Edelson, Sierra Nevada director for the Nature Conservancy. "There are terrific views looking down the American River watershed and toward the Granite Chief Wilderness."

For years, loggers turned the property's evergreen forests into wooden crates for Central Valley fruits and vegetables. Now the environmental groups plan to remove old logging roads and restore the landscape.

But more significant, the purchase could change how California, now suffering through the fourth year of a historic drought, manages its Sierra Nevada forests in ways that might provide more water to cities, farms and the environment.

Many Sierra Nevada forests, including the ponderosa pine, white fir and Jeffrey pine forests on this property, burned roughly every 10 years in lightning‐sparked fires before California became a state in 1850. Those natural fires thinned out dead trees and brush.

But starting roughly 100 years ago, the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies began putting out the fires, often to protect communities that had sprung up through the mountains. As a result, the forests grew thicker. Now, across millions of acres of the Sierra, around Lake Tahoe and in other parts of the West, some evergreen forests have five times or more trees per acre as they would naturally.

The trees are small, spindly and often prone to disease and beetles.

UC Merced and UC Berkeley scientists have done research indicating that if these forests are thinned it could increase the amount of water flowing from the Sierra Nevada into streams, rivers, the Sacramento‐San Joaquin River Delta and San Francisco Bay. Talbot Creek is seen on the property purchased in the Sierra Nevada by the Northern Sierra Partnership, Nature Conservancy and American River Conservancy. (American River Conservancy)

"We're trying to keep the trees in check so the forest is in a more sustainable condition," said Roger Bales, a UC Merced engineering professor who directs the university's Sierra Nevada Research Institute. "One of the benefits is that you get more water."

The Sierra Nevada provides 40 percent or more of California's water supply through snow and rain.

The trees in unnaturally dense forests drink up precipitation that falls in the mountains, allowing less to run off. And often snow stays on top of their tight forest canopy and evaporates, rather than naturally flowing into the soil and streams, researchers say.

Worse, dense forests increase the intensity of fires when they burn. The huge fires create erosion, which damages streams and lakes.

By thinning about 25 to 50 percent of the trees in many of these areas, Bales said, the amount of water flowing into streams could increase from 9 to 16 percent. Sierra‐wide, that could increase the water running off by 500,000 to 1 million acre feet a year, enough for up to 5 million people for a year. Much of that would flow into rivers, where it could be stored behind existing dams.

But thinning forests isn't cheap. It can cost $1,000 to $2,000 per acre. And spindly trees and brush have limited value as timber to offset costs.

The environmental groups who purchased the Sierra property, known as the American River Headwaters, have raised $3 million to work with scientists to measure the impact of thinning and controlled burns on water runoff.

One of the many high‐elevation creeks is seen on the property purchased in the Sierra Nevada by the Northern Sierra Partnership, Nature Conservancy and American River Conservancy. (American River Conservancy)

"What we're most excited about is the potential to use this as a living laboratory," Edelson said. "This could be a game changer for the Sierra's forests."

If they can show that thinning forests generates more water, that could convince water districts and other agencies to invest water bond money and other funds in expanding Sierra forest thinning to boost water supplies and reduce fire risk.

To pay for the $10.1 million land purchase, the state provided $5 million, most of which came from Proposition 84, a parks and water bond act passed in 2006 by California voters. The other $5.1 million and the $3 million research fund came from private donations, including $1 million from the Morgan Family Foundation in Los Altos.

That foundation was established by Jim Morgan, former CEO of Applied Materials, and his wife, Becky, a former Santa Clara County supervisor and Republican state senator.

In 2007, the Morgans were the driving force behind setting up the Northern Sierra Partnership, an alliance of conservation groups that set a goal of preserving 100,000 acres between Lake Tahoe and Mount Lassen. So far, the partnership has preserved 50,715 acres by purchasing land or development rights from willing sellers, much of it adjacent to national forests in checkerboard‐patterns that originated with federal grants to railroads in the mid‐ 1800s.

"This was the largest piece of unprotected land along the Sierra Crest south of Donner Summit," Lucy Blake, president of the Northern Sierra Partnership, said of the recent purchase. "This is a big win for water quality, for wildlife and for everyone who loves the splendid landscapes of the Sierra Nevada."

Aug 17, 2:29 PM EDT AP EXCLUSIVE: California measure fails to create green jobs By JULIA HOROWITZ Associated Press SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) ‐‐ Three years after California voters passed a ballot measure to raise taxes on corporations and generate clean energy jobs by funding energy‐efficiency projects in schools, barely one‐tenth of the promised jobs have been created, and the state has no comprehensive list to show how much work has been done or how much energy has been saved.

Money is trickling in at a slower‐than‐anticipated rate, and more than half of the $297 million given to schools so far has gone to consultants and energy auditors. The board created to oversee the project and submit annual progress reports to the Legislature has never met, according to a review by The Associated Press.

Voters in 2012 approved the Clean Energy Jobs Act by a large margin, closing a tax loophole for multistate corporations. The Legislature decided to send half the money to fund clean energy projects in schools, promising to generate more than 11,000 jobs each year.

Instead, only 1,700 jobs have been created in three years, raising concerns about whether the money is accomplishing what voters were promised.

"Accountability boards that are rubber stamps are fairly common, but accountability boards that don't meet at all are a big problem," said Douglas Johnson, a state government expert at Claremont McKenna College in Southern California.

The State Energy Commission, which oversees Proposition 39 spending, could not provide any data about completed projects or calculate energy savings because schools are not required to report the results for up to 15 months after completion, spokeswoman Amber Beck said.

Still, she said she believes the program is on track.

Not enough data has been collected for the nine‐member oversight board of professors, engineers and climate experts to meet, she said.

The AP's review of state and local records found that not one project for which the state allocated $12.6 million has been completed in the Los Angeles Unified School District, which has nearly 1,000 schools. Two schools were scheduled this summer to receive lighting retrofits and heating and cooling upgrades, but no construction work has been done on either site, LAUSD spokeswoman Barbara Jones said.

The office of Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D‐Los Angeles, previously estimated LAUSD would save up to $27 million a year on energy costs; projects proposed by the district so far would save only $1.4 million.

De Leon, the primary booster of Proposition 39 in the state Legislature, was not available to comment, spokeswoman Claire Conlon said. She said the program is working as planned, and that school districts are encouraged to let funds build up to make "bigger, more comprehensive investments."

School district officials around the state say they intend to meet a 2018 deadline to request funds and a 2020 deadline to complete projects. They say the money will go to major, long‐needed projects and are unconcerned schools have applied for only half of the $973 million available so far, or that $153 million of the $297 million given to schools has gone for energy planning by consultants and auditors.

"If there's money out there, we're going for it," said Tom Wright, an energy manager for the San Diego Unified School District, which has received $9.5 million of its available $9.7 million.

Leftover money would return to the general fund for unrestricted projects of lawmakers' choosing.

"It's probably high time there is a hearing that shows where the jobs have landed in these communities," said Strela Cervas, director of the California Environmental Justice Alliance. The proposition is also bringing in millions less each year than initially projected. Proponents such as de Leon and billionaire investor and philanthropist Tom Steyer, who funded the ballot measure with a personal $30 million, told voters in 2012 that it would send up to $550 million annually to the Clean Jobs Energy Fund. But it brought in just $381 million in 2013, $279 million in 2014 and $313 million in 2015.

There's no exact way to track how corporations reacted to the tax code change, but it's likely most companies adapted to minimize their tax burdens, nonpartisan legislative analyst Ken Kapphahn said. He also said the change applies to a very small number of corporations.

Steyer's office declined to make him available for an interview or to comment on the lower revenue figures.

"Proposition 39 has already accomplished its goal of protecting California jobs and employers by closing a corporate tax loophole for companies that ship California jobs to other states," Steyer said in a statement. His team sought to distance Steyer from the measure's implementation, saying the billionaire wanted to respect the process of the Legislature.

It's undeniable that Proposition 39 has created a disappointing number of jobs, said Kirk Clark, vice president of the California Business Roundtable, which opposed the measure but did not aggressively lobby against it.

"We've got a long track record in California of over‐promising green jobs and under‐delivering," said Clark, who also expressed concern that most of the jobs created so far appear to be consulting positions.

Neither the Energy Commission nor Tim Rainey, director of the California Workforce Investment Board, could identify the types of jobs created by Proposition 39 projects. They said that information would be available when the oversight board meets for the first time, likely in October or November.

Clark also noted that nearly half the approved projects have been lighting retrofits, which don't create as many jobs as work‐intensive projects such as replacing heating and air conditioning systems.

Schools often prioritize lighting projects because they work well with the Energy Commission's formula, which requires schools to save at least $1.05 on energy costs for every dollar spent. The Energy Commission said its jobs number is based on dollars spent and doesn't take the type of project into account.

Johnson said the slow results show the oversight board should have gotten involved much earlier.

"They should have been overseeing all stages of this project, not just waiting until the money's gone and seeing where it went," Johnson said.

More Consider the Gov. Race in 2018, but Not the Senate in 2016

By Joel Fox Editor of Fox & Hounds and President of the Small Business Action Committee | Friday, August 14th, 2015

The story last week that state Treasurer John Chiang is “contemplating” a run for governor in 2018 potentially expands the field in what could prove to be a very interesting and competitive race. Already announced for the seat is Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom. Former state controller, Steve Westly is said to be considering another run for the corner office. Other well‐known names have been floated as well, including both the current and former mayors of Los Angeles, Eric Garcetti and Antonio Villaraigosa and environmentalist Tom Steyer.

Democrats all.

But don’t count out a credible Republican candidate. As noted here previously, one Republican consultant said he expects a strong contender backed by influential Republican donor Charles Munger. Who might that contender be? Already discussions have focused on San Diego mayor Kevin Faulconer or Fresno mayor Ashley Swearengin as possible candidates. Other possibilities include Assembly Minority leader Kristin Olsen or Pete Peterson who ran a credible race for Secretary of State. There is the perennial talk about a Condoleezza Rice candidacy.

With all this attention on a governor’s race years away, it makes you wonder why there are not more candidates with strong name identification willing to challenge for the United States Senate seat that is opening up next year.

Attorney General Kamala Harris seems to have the field nearly to herself with congresswoman Loretta Sanchez making an effort to challenge. There are some Republican challengers as well, but none that have the name ID or well‐established positions from which to launch their campaigns.

Who knows—considering Harris’s official title and summary on the pension reform initiative released this week — once again blasted by the measure’s authors — maybe instead of taking the issue to court the proponents will seek some sort of retribution by taking on the AG herself. Chuck Reed or Carl DeMaio for Senate anyone?

BUSINESS & REAL ESTATE August 17, 2015 Records: California plans taking land for huge water tunnels

By ELLEN KNICKMEYER Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO – State contractors have readied plans to acquire as many as 300 farms in the California delta by eminent domain to make room for a pair of massive, still‐unapproved water tunnels proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown, according to documents obtained by opponents of the tunnels.

Farmers whose parcels were listed and mapped in the 160‐page property‐acquisition plan expressed dismay at the advanced planning for the project, which would build 30‐mile‐long tunnels in the delta formed by the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers.

"What really shocks is we're fighting this and we're hoping to win," said Richard Elliot, who grows cherries, pears and other crops on delta land farmed by his family since the 1860s. "To find out they're sitting in a room figuring out this eminent domain makes it sound like they're going to bully us ... and take what they want."

Officials involved in the project defended planning so far ahead regarding the tunnels.

"Planning for right‐of‐way needs, that is the key part of your normal planning process," said Roger Patterson, assistant general manager for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, one of the water agencies that would benefit from the twin tunnels.

The district serves 17 million people in Southern California as well as large farms and businesses.

Brown's administration said re‐engineering water flows of the delta — the largest estuary on the West Coast — is essential to undoing mistakes of past water projects and to supplying water to Southern California.

Brown has pushed for a massive delta makeover since his first stint as governor in the 1970s and 1980s. In May, he told critics of the tunnels to "shut up."

Opponents say the tunnels would jeopardize delta farming and destroy vital wildlife habitat.

"If these reports are correct, then we have further confirmation that the tunnels project has been a forgone conclusion," state Sen. Lois Wolk, D‐Davis, who chairs a committee on the delta, said in an email Monday.

The environmental review, "which should be used to choose a project, is simply being used to justify the favored project," she wrote.

Through October, the project officially is in a period of public comment on the environmental impact of the tunnels. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which opposed an earlier version of the project, also must still weigh in.

Restore the Delta, a group of farmers, fishing associations, environmental groups and other opponents, released the property plan that was obtained with a request made under the state open records law. The plan targets public and private land in Sacramento, San Joaquin, Contra Costa and Alameda counties to be acquired for the project.

Under the plan, landowners would have 30 days to consider and negotiate a one‐time state offer, while officials simultaneously prepare to take the land by forced sale if owners declined to sell. "Negotiations to continue in parallel with eminent domain proceedings," the plan notes.

Contractors also appear to call for minimal public input.

"All transactions are conducted, reviewed and approved internally by DCE staff and managers to maintain control and avoid unnecessary delays to schedule," the property plan outlines. "DCE shall seek to minimize external review and approval requirements."

DCE is short for Delta Conveyance Facilities Design and Construction Enterprise, a private‐contractor group embedded within the state Department of Water Resources to work on the proposed tunnels. In a June interview, Neil Gould, an attorney for the Department of Water Resources, said planning for the proposed tunnels was no more than 10 percent complete and had focused on assessing the environmental impact.

Asked if planning the process of eminent domain was warranted as part of the project's environmental review, Department of Water Resources spokeswoman Nancy Vogel said Monday in an email, "identification of properties that may be within the project area is necessary ... as DWR needs to estimate the proposed project's potential impacts to those properties."

Public water agencies paid for the property acquisition plan, Vogel said. Those include water agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area and Central California, as well as Southern California, she said.

Patterson, with the Metropolitan Water District, said the latest revisions to the overall tunnels project laid out using more public land and less private land.

Osha Meserve, an attorney for some of the delta farmers fighting the project, said the latest plans still proposes taking roughly the same land as before.

California Legislature looking more and more like Congress: Dan Walters Posted: 08/17/15, 2:34 PM PDT | By Dan Walters

The institutional evolution of the California Legislature has taken many forms over the last half‐century. One of them, unfortunately, has been a tendency to emulate Congress.

The Legislature once prided itself on being different from its larger cousin in Washington — more transparent, more creative, less hidebound, etc.

Politicians who made the transition from the Legislature to Congress would often lament losing their ability to draft and carry single‐subject pieces of legislation, being relegated to seeking tiny amendments in large omnibus bills, or being compelled to focus on minor local matters rather than major policy issues.

Slowly, but surely, the Legislature has adopted Washington’s ways.

The sneaky congressional practice of inserting unrelated “riders” into bills on other subjects, for example, is now mirrored in the Legislature’s sneaky practice of using “trailer bills,” meant to implement the state budget, as last‐ minute vehicles for non‐budgetary matters to bypass an open process.

The latest budget cycle, which ended in June, included its usual ration of complex trailer bills that surfaced only hours before they were to be passed with minimal discussion.

That, however, is just one way the Legislature’s budget process has begun to resemble what Congress does.

Once, the state budget was a single bill enacted one time each year after a well‐defined process, unlike the congressional habit of passing a series of “authorization” and “appropriation” bills, some of them just stopgaps, that rarely add up to a coherent whole budget.

As this year’s state budget cycle demonstrated, that’s more or less become the model for Sacramento.

The Legislature passed a “budget” on June 15 to meet the technical constitutional deadline, knowing that it was unacceptable to Gov. Jerry Brown, and a day later re‐enacted it with changes he demanded.

Meanwhile, however, it also passed a batch of trailer bills that not only implemented the revised budget, but contained, as mentioned above, provisions — some of them special‐interest favors — that have nothing to do with the budget.

Even so, Brown and legislators left undone big chunks of what should be considered the budget. The to‐do list includes financing much‐needed maintenance work on the state highway system, spending more than $2 billion in “cap‐and‐trade” fee revenue and financing the state’s fast‐growing Medi‐Cal program for the poor.

Dealing with them will involve many billions of dollars in taxes and fees. It will be, in effect, a second budget process. And we are already seeing efforts to exploit the special sessions Brown called for highways and Medi‐Cal by reviving legislation that had failed previously.

Moreover, we’ll probably see budget revisions later during the fiscal year. And thanks to Brown’s use of an “accrual” accounting system, even past years’ budgets can be revised.

Nor is emulating the obtuse and opaque ways of Congress confined to the budget.

Another Washington‐like tendency is passing sweeping legislation but leaving the sticky, all‐important, details to unelected bureaucrats, such as the Air Resources Board’s multibillion‐dollar “cap‐and‐trade” fees to curb greenhouse gases.

That propensity is especially indolent and feckless.

CA lawmakers square off against drones by James Poulos | August 17, 2015 10:27 am In an all‐too‐real conflict between man and machine, a string of high‐profile clashes between drones and public servants has helped spur an effort to crack down on the airborne bots in California. But at the same time, civil libertarian concerns have prompted a parallel controversy over law enforcement’s desire to use more drones to fight crime. Crossing the line Along with Golden State legislators, members of California’s Congressional delegation have grown concerned that so‐called recreational drones, flown by private citizens, have become a serious threat to the state’s ability to safely operate in its own airspace. “Without common sense rules, I believe it’s only a matter of time before there’s a tragic accident,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, in an emailed statement reported by Emergency Management: “Feinstein and other lawmakers are demanding that regulators revise existing law to plug a loophole sparing recreational drones from the regulations. They are also are seeking the use of software that would prevent drones from flying in prohibited areas.” In Sacramento, meanwhile, lawmakers faced a battery of drone bills. One group focused on invasions of privacy; as the Orange County Register reported, state Sen. Ted Gaines, R‐Rocklin, offered bills aimed at clearing the skies over public schools, prisons and jails — measures that have already passed the state Senate and await a vote in the Assembly appropriations committee. Other bills would extend trespassing and other privacy laws to cover the use of drones over private property and in otherwise private areas. Gaines has also partnered up with Assemblyman Mike Gatto, D‐Glendale, to target drones flown over wildfires. As CalWatchdog reported previously, drones disrupted aerial firefighting in California four times over the course of the month of July alone. The Gaines‐Gatto bills would make that kind of interference a misdemeanor and exempt firefighters from liability for neutralizing offending drones. A spreading problem In addition to complicating California’s efforts to fight fires, dismaying drone‐related incidents have begun to spread across the country. As the Washington Post noted, “drones have smuggled drugs into an Ohio prison, smashed against a Cincinnati skyscraper […] and nearly collided with three airliners over New York City.” “Earlier this summer, a runaway two‐pound drone struck a woman at a gay pride parade in Seattle, knocking her unconscious. In Albuquerque, a drone buzzed into a crowd at an outdoor festival, injuring a bystander. In Tampa, a drone reportedly stalked a woman outside a downtown bar before crashing into her car.” But California has remained a drone hotspot a cut above the rest. Drug runners have begun testing out the use of drones to ferry payloads across the border. “Drones as a drug‐smuggling tool made news in January when one hauling meth crashed in the parking lot of a Tijuana shopping center, two miles from the U.S. border,” according to U‐T San Diego. “It was loaded with about seven pounds of drugs and was likely being ferried from neighborhood to neighborhood, Mexican law enforcement said.” Just this month, U‐T added, two men pleaded guilty to picking up 28 pounds of heroin delivered by drone near Calexico, “a pickup that was captured on Border Patrol cameras on April 28, according to court records.” Also this month, a helicopter air ambulance taking a patient to the hospital “had to take evasive action to avoid a mid‐air collision with a drone aircraft Wednesday afternoon north of Fresno Yosemite International Airport,” according to the Fresno Bee. Police interest The sense of uncertainty pervading the airspace has been compounded by Sacramento’s inability to deal with the prospect of expanded law enforcement drone usage. One bill underscoring the problem, AB56, set out to strike a balance by requiring warrants for drone surveillance over private property and new police standards for privacy, including the storage and deletion of video footage recorded by drone, as the Associated Press noted. But the bill hit against opposition from both sides, with the ACLU and law enforcement organizations both expressing displeasure over the attempted compromise. The bill’s author, Assemblyman Bill Quirk, D‐Hayward, expressed his frustration to the AP. “There’s a middle ground that nobody likes,” he sighed. Wildfires emit more greenhouse gases than assumed in state climate targets By Sarah Yang | April 15, 2015 A new study quantifying the amount of carbon stored and released through California forests and wildlands finds that wildfires and deforestation are contributing more than expected to the state’s greenhouse gas emissions.

The 2013 Rim Fire in California burned more than 257,000 acres, the second largest wildfire in the Sierra Nevada and the third largest fire in California since 1932. A new study finds that carbon released through wildfires contribute more than expected to greenhouse gas emissions in the state. (Photo by Mike McMillan, US Forest Service)

The findings, published online today (Wednesday, April 15), in the journal Forest Ecology and Management, came from a collaborative project led by the National Park Service and UC Berkeley. The results could have implications for California’s efforts to meet goals mandated by the state Global Warming Solutions Act, or AB 32, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The bill, which passed in 2006, assumed no net emissions for wildland ecosystems by 2020.

The researchers noted that the information available at the time the bill was passed may have underestimated the release of carbon through landmass conversions and wildfires, which are projected to increase in intensity in the western United States due to climate change. The authors pointed out that California is one of the few jurisdictions in the world to set mandatory greenhouse gas emissions targets.

“Determining the balance between carbon storage and emissions is essential for tracking the role of ecosystems in climate change. Growing vegetation naturally removes carbon from the atmosphere, reducing the magnitude of climate change,” said study lead author Patrick Gonzalez, the National Park Service climate change scientist. “Conversely, burned or dead vegetation releases carbon into the atmosphere, exacerbating climate change.” Gonzalez worked with forest ecologist John Battles, a professor in UC Berkeley’s Department of Environmental Science, Policy and Management and the principal investigator on the project to quantify carbon storage and emissions in the state’s wildlands. The darker green areas in the map on the left show regions in the state that store more carbon. In the map on the right, brown areas show carbon losses, mainly due to fires, while green areas show carbon gains. (Figure by Patrick Gonzalez, NPS) The study, funded by the California Air Resources Board, used 2001‐2010 data from multiple public sources, including plot‐level carbon stocks from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Forest Inventory and Assessment Program and U.S. Landfire remote sensing data of vegetation at a 30‐meter spatial resolution. The analysis confirmed that California’s forests are huge carbon reservoirs for the state. Previous research has found that redwood forests near Redwood National Park contain the most carbon per hectare on the ground of any ecosystem in the world. One hectare of redwood forest can store an amount of carbon equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions generated by more than 500 Americans. The giant sequoia forests of Sequoia and Kings Canyon National parks come in second. Altogether, the forests and vegetation of state wildlands stored an estimated 850 million tons of carbon in 2010. However, those areas also accounted for approximately 69 million tons of carbon emitted between 2001 and 2010. Two‐thirds of the carbon loss came from fires that burned just 6 percent of the area of wildlands in nine years. Annual carbon losses from forests and wildlands in California represent as much as 5 to 7 percent of state carbon emissions from all sectors between 2001 and 2010, according to the study.

“National parks and other protected areas clearly provide an important function in removing carbon from the atmosphere and storing it,” said Battles. “But we also know from previous research that a century of fire suppression has contributed to a potentially unsustainable buildup of vegetation. This buildup provides abundant fuel for fires that contribute to carbon emissions. Projections of more wildfires in the West mean that we need to account for this source of carbon emissions. Meeting the state greenhouse gas targets for 2020 might require a reconsideration of wildland management policies.”

This research is among the latest examples of the long, productive partnership between UC Berkeley and the National Park Service, highlighted in the recent “Science for Parks, Parks for Science” summit commemorating the centennial of the National Park Service.

Other co‐authors of the study include researchers from the U.S. Forest Service, the Spatial Informatics Group in Pleasanton, California, and the University of San Francisco.

Optimism reigns in California, new poll shows By John Wildermuth | September 30, 2015 After years of economic gloom, California residents finally are convinced things are good and getting better in the Golden State, according to a new poll by the Public Policy Institute of California.

They like the job Gov. Jerry Brown is doing, think the state is moving in the right direction, and are convinced that California and the nation are looking at financial good times in the next 12 months. State residents are even giving some love to the much‐maligned Legislature, with 45 percent pleased with the job that’s being done in Sacramento. That’s up from 39 percent in the July survey and 37 percent a year ago.

The survey “shows a pretty optimistic state of affairs,” said Mark Baldassare, the institute’s president and director of the poll. After a long, slow recovery from a harsh recession, “the findings reflect that people are beginning to feel economic conditions have become more stable and that we’re not going to fall back into bad times.”

That optimism can be seen when people were asked what they believed was the most important issue facing California. For 32 percent of those surveyed, the drought and water problems took the top spot, with 20 percent most worried about jobs and the economy.

But nothing else was close, with concerns about immigration, schools and education, and the environment and global warming all at 6 percent or lower.

That’s a big change from just a few years ago, when economic worries completely overshadowed every other concern in the state, Baldassare said.

The feeling of better days ahead even has Californians willing to consider votes for new taxes. An extension of Prop. 30, a temporary tax increase passed in 2012, has the support of 55 percent of the state’s adults, although that number drops to 49 percent when only likely voters are surveyed. Likewise, a bare majority of both Californians and likely voters favor a plan that would rewrite Prop. 13 to allow commercial property to be taxed based on its current value, instead of taxes only rising when the property is sold.

While two‐thirds of voters would back higher taxes on cigarettes, only 42 percent of adults support a tax on oil and natural gas extraction.

None of those numbers are as strong as they might appear at first glance, Baldassare warned, since support for ballot measures typically falls as opponents roll out high‐powered — and high‐priced — campaigns against tax measures.

Crime continues to be a concern, with 52 percent of adults saying it’s a big problem. But that’s way down from the first time the poll asked the question in 1998, when 66 percent of those surveyed made it a major concern.

“It’s not that there aren’t pockets of crime in the Bay Area, but the stronger economy can make people feel less threatened,” Baldassare said.

The numbers vary wildly across the state, however, with two‐thirds of those in Southern California’s Inland Empire listing crime as a serious problem and only 44 percent of those in the Bay Area feeling the same way.

There are plenty of partisan divisions in the state, and not just the obvious political ones, like the approval rate for Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer (Democrats: 73 percent; Republicans: 17 percent).

While 72 percent of Democrats believe immigrants are a benefit to California, only 35 percent of Republicans feel the same way. Likewise, 71 percent of Democrats surveyed believe it’s more important to control gun ownership, compared with 74 percent of Republicans who believe it’s more necessary to protect the right of Americans to own guns.

The numbers in the poll generally show that the recent upheavals in the stock market and political battles in Washington, D.C., have had little effect on Californians’ view of the world, Baldassare said. Those concerns have, however, affected their view of Congress. While 60 percent of California adults are pleased with the job President Obama is doing, only 32 percent are happy with Congress, while 62 percent disapprove of what’s being done on Capitol Hill. Those numbers are even worse with likely voters, where 17 percent approve and 79 percent are unhappy.

The unhappiness stretches across party lines. While Republicans control both the House and the Senate, only 22 percent of California Republicans support the job Congress is doing, the same percentage as the state’s Democrats.

“Californians don’t seem to feel that Washington is moving ahead on the issues important to them,” Baldassare said.

The poll is based on a telephone survey taken Sept. 13‐22 of 1,708 California residents, including 1,391 identified as likely voters. The margin of error for all adults is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points and plus or minus 4.4 percentage points for likely voters.

Editorial: GOP water bill in Congress should be rejected The Times Editorial Board Contact Reporter | July 10, 2015, 5:00 AM

Rich Kissee, operations manager for the Santa Margarita Water District, stands on the edge of a water runoff reservoir in Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif., on July 2. (Chris Carlson / Associated Press)

The latest version of a bill by House Republicans to override California's management of its water system and undermine environmental protections — in the name of emergency drought relief and food security — is longer and more detailed than the ones that preceded it, but much the same in its substance: It offers little in the way of actual drought relief and even in years of abundant supply would serve Central Valley agricultural interests with new taxpayer‐financed dams.

Like several previous iterations, H.R. 2898 by Rep. David Valadao (R‐Hanford) is moving forward with no public hearing. The Republican‐controlled House, which ought to reject the bill as a big‐government boondoggle, is instead likely to pass it and quickly send it on to the Senate.

A competing Democratic bill, H.R. 2983 by Rep. Jared Huffman (D‐San Rafael), has some areas of overlap. Like the Valadao bill, it reasonably calls on the federal government to accelerate feasibility studies for a number of proposed dams that have been stuck for years in the planning phase. Republicans, of course, have faith that the dams will pencil out and will be funded. Many Democrats are convinced that the yield numbers — the amount of additional water that would be stored and the associated dollar cost — would be so paltry as to finally put an end to the discussion.

In other areas, though, the Huffman bill is starkly different and frankly much smarter, focusing on updating federal water policies and practices that today are firmly rooted in outdated, mid‐20th century knowledge and technology. It would keep on track a court settlement requiring gradual restoration of an essential state resource, the now dried‐up San Joaquin River (Valadao's bill would attempt, somehow, to supersede the agreement), and would keep intact a process under which scientists rather than politicians determine how much flow through the Sacramento‐ San Joaquin River Delta is needed to protect endangered fish species (Valadao's bill would grant Congress micromanagement power over the process; Valadao has acknowledged that his ultimate goal is to repeal the Endangered Species Act). Huffman's bill would demand that a good business case be made for any new infrastructure.

In the upside‐down world of California water, where conservative Republicans often sound like liberal Democrats and vice versa, the fate of any federal legislation to help the state deal with its water crisis is likely in the hands of Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who introduced and then withdrew her own bill last year. It had many elements of the House Republican package. She set forth her case for this year's version, which is not yet public, in a Times op‐ed last month.

In the article, Feinstein, like Valadao and Huffman, called for quick completion of feasibility studies for dams and other infrastructure. And yes, by all means, it is high time that federal engineers and number‐crunchers complete their work and tell us how much new dams would cost, how they expect to fill them using the same number of rivers that can't currently fill the dams we already have, and how their costs and projected yields compare with the bevy of local recapture, recycling, desalination and conservation projects that are coming online all over Southern California and are financed mostly by the ratepayers who reap the benefits.

The rest of the federal government's role in water — not just in California but throughout the West — could stand some rethinking. Through much of the 20th century that role was in building monumental storage projects, usually based on grossly underestimated costs but often deemed worth the deception and expense — and the government‐ subsidized windfall reaped by a few lucky landowners — because of the agricultural abundance and urban growth that resulted. That role should not continue unchallenged. California certainly grew, likely beyond its capacity to produce and deliver water using the techniques and relying on the goals of the past. Now Westerners need federal assistance in understanding, planning for and coping with the widely predicted continuing climate volatility and the loss of water supplies that were once deemed limitless but can no longer be taken for granted. Local governments could perhaps use federal help with the kinds of alternative projects that Feinstein proposed in her op‐ed, such as wastewater recycling — if, that is, federal investments can be reasonably justified as benefits to the public, broadly, and not merely as subsidies for particular communities or interest groups that want water but don't want to pay what it costs to capture and deliver it. There may well be a federal role in building dams and other infrastructure, if the numbers support them. California and other states may need federal assistance in brokering interstate water transfers. But federal “help” based on outdated needs, technologies and interests is no help at all.

Crises like California's drought can force positive and productive change. Last year offered two such examples: Gov. Jerry Brown demanded and lawmakers passed a bill to finally begin a process to measure and govern the use of groundwater, despite seemingly eternal resistance to such a move by water rights holders. And Brown and the Legislature finalized, and voters approved, a water bond that had been kicked around Sacramento for nearly a decade before coming to the ballot.

But crises can produce bad ideas as well, through panic, opportunism or inattention. The Valadao bill is chock‐full of such bad ideas. California is counting on Feinstein not to embrace them, because whatever federal role in water is crafted now, during the drought, will shape the state for decades to come, for good or bad, and whether or not the rains return.

Oakland City Council packed for special hearing on controversial coal shipping proposal

By Mike Blasky [email protected] Posted: 09/21/2015 07:38:36 PM PDT | Updated: 15 days ago

OAKLAND ‐‐ Kwame Nitoto doesn't want to hear about "safer" coal or the economic benefits of shipping fossil fuels through Oakland.

There will always be new commodities to ship, more jobs to create. But coal isn't the future, and Oakland's residents can't afford to live in the past, he said ‐‐ not when their health is at stake.

"Let's stop pretending this is coal versus jobs. It's not about that," said Nitoto, program director for Positive Communication Practices, a Bay Area agency that works with at‐risk youth. "If we're going to say health and safety is a priority, don't do it. Just don't do it."

Chambers were completely filled at a special meeting of the Oakland City Council to discuss the status of a plan to ship coal through the Port of Oakland, Monday, Sept. 21, 2015, at City Hall in Oakland, Calif. Two other overflow chambers allowed hundreds more spectators to watch the proceedings. (D. Ross Cameron/Bay Area News Group) Nitoto was one of the hundreds of speakers who drew applause or jeers at a crowded, passionate special council meeting Monday to discuss a developer's contentious plan to ship millions of tons of Utah coal through the city's $250 million bulk shipping and logistics terminal development at the former Army Base, a cornerstone project for the city.

The hearing was a first step for city officials, many of whom have already publicly slammed the plan, to gather testimony about the health and environmental impacts of shipping coal and other fossil fuels through West Oakland before taking steps to formally reject it. That wasn't an option for the council on Monday, as the hearing was only a fact‐finding mission.

Most of the speakers focused on the health and environment concerns.

Dr. Muntu Davis, Alameda County's public health director, said children and seniors are particularly vulnerable to coal dust from rail transport, especially those in the city's poor neighborhoods.

Children in West Oakland are already twice as likely to suffer from asthma and respiratory disease, he said.

"Coal dust always comes out, and that dust will sit there. It's not like it will just blow away," he said. "And if it does get washed away, it will wash into the bay."

A group of women billing themselves as The Occupellas sing songs of protest and resistance outside a special meeting of the Oakland City Council where participants would discuss the status of a plan to ship coal through the Port of Oakland, Monday, Sept. 21, 2015, at City Hall in Oakland, Calif. (D. Ross Cameron/Bay Area News Group)

The coal proposal by developer Phil Tagami, who is also the city‐ designated agent for the project, has drawn the ire of many elected officials since it was uncovered this year by a Utah newspaper reporting on the state's interest in shipping coal at the new bulk terminal adjacent to the Port of Oakland.

Terminal Logistics Solutions, or TLS, will start building the Bulk and Oversized Terminal at the Oakland Global Trade & Logistics Center later this year and hopes to finish the 35‐acre project in 2017. Tagami didn't attend the hearing, but many of his supporters did. A lawyer working for Tagami's company told the council the city might not have jurisdiction to ban coal from the terminal because the project was already approved and the federal government has jurisdiction of rail transport.

Jerry Bridges, president of TLS and a former executive director of the Port Authority, told the council that his company is reviewing the viability of all commodities, including coal. But if the terminal chooses to export coal, Oakland has an opportunity to show the world it's possible to safely transport it.

"Our commitment to the safety and health of our workers is a top priority, and we will operate in a manner that meets and exceeds all industry standards," Bridges said.

The council chambers were filled to capacity as soon as doors opened Monday, sending extra speakers to the city's overflow meeting rooms downstairs.

Dozens of residents wore red "Beyond coal exports" shirts and carried "no coal" exports sign.

Others came to the meeting concerned about the prospect of losing jobs if the city passes on coal, a lucrative but increasingly scarce resource as more people stop using fossil fuels for energy.

Several dozen construction workers wearing yellow "I Support Oakland Jobs" T‐shirts packed City Hall a few hours before the hearing to support the coal plan, although not every worker seemed interested in the night's content. Many of the workers said they weren't sure which side of the argument they were on, and most only ceded their speaking time to pro‐coal lawyers and executives without making a statement.

Debbie Niemeier, a civil and environmental engineering professor at the UC Davis, and an expert in emissions, said 10.5 million tons of coal means 30 million tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

And coal‐burning in Asia impacts U.S. residents on the West Coast, she said, with greenhouse gases a real concern for the world.

"Climate change is responsible for the sea level rise, and exacerbating the California drought," Niemeier said.

Others took a blunt view of the situation.

Kevin Barnes, a pastor at Abyssinian Missionary Baptist Church, told the council that many of Oakland residents were poor and starving and need real jobs that pay living wages.

There is a drug crisis impacting the city's youth, he said.

"With all this cocaine in the streets," Barnes said, "you're worried about coal?"

But others cautioned that the short‐term economic benefits of coal aren't necessarily good for the long‐term residents.

Derrick Muhammad, a member of the International Longshore & Warehouse Union Local 10, which recently voted to oppose the handling of coal, said prostitution is a form of employment. But not all money is good money.

Any benefit from coal, Muhammad said, "is far outweighed by its detriment."

Banking on Coal in Oakland Records show that a secretive plan to ship coal through the Port of Oakland is being driven by a company that wants to massively expand its coal mining operations in Utah and by a public official who stands to profit personally. By Darwin BondGraham | August 19, 2015 News & Opinion » News

Local environmental activists Lora Jo Foo and Aaron Reaven traveled to Utah to protest a planned investment in the Oakland Army Base that could result in the shipment of coal through Oakland. (Bert Johnson)

Last April, when plans to ship coal through the old Oakland Army Base became public, Phil Tagami, the master developer of the base, came under fire from local officials and community groups. Tagami, however, downplayed the news, claiming that coal is only one of many goods that might be shipped through a new maritime bulk terminal that he's building on the base. He also said in statements to the press that a $53 million investment that four Utah counties hope to make in the marine terminal would allow these counties to ship potash, hay, salt, and other Utah goods, perhaps including coal, through the facility.

But emails, contracts, and reports reviewed by the Express show that the proposed investment in the bulk marine terminal by the Utah counties is, in fact, driven by a secretive Kentucky‐based coal company, Bowie Resource Partners, that wants to massively expand its coal mining operations in Utah. And if accepted, the Utah counties' investment in Oakland's Army Base redevelopment project would make the proposed bulk terminal a major export hub for millions of tons of new coal from Bowie's mines in Utah. Records also show that a Utah public official who is leading the deal stands to profit personally.

Commissioners from four Utah counties — Sevier, Carbon, Emery, and Sanpete — are marshalling millions in public subsidies to build the infrastructure that will carry the coal from Bowie's mines to Oakland, where it will be loaded onto ships bound for Asia.

Jeffrey Holt, who has been the chairman of Utah's Transportation Commission since 2009 and is an investment banker with the Bank of Montreal, is advising the four counties on their Oakland port investment. In March, Holt led a field trip from Utah to Oakland to scope out the terminal site. In April, Holt helped the counties obtain the $53 million public loan from a Utah state agency to help build the coal export terminal at the Oakland Army Base.

Holt is also helping to assemble financing for another group of Utah counties that is building a railroad that will haul coal from a Bowie Resources mine in Utah — known as the Sufco mine — and would establish a rail link to the Union Pacific Railroad, thereby allowing for the shipment of coal to Oakland's waterfront.

Holt and the Bank of Montreal stand to earn millions if the railroad and coal terminal in Oakland are built. Bowie Resources would earn millions more shipping Utah coal through Oakland. The details of these plans to expand coal mining in Utah and to establish Oakland as a massive coal export hub have — until now — been kept under wraps by the parties involved, including the Oakland team building the export terminal led by Tagami.

But Bowie's coal export scheme, heavily dependent on public subsidies, is by no means assured. The Utah railroad and Oakland terminal investments, masterminded by Holt, are incredibly risky. Expanded coal mining in Utah faces opposition from environmentalists. And many in Utah question the use of public funds to subsidize coal companies. Finally, coal exports from Oakland face growing opposition, with the Oakland City Council scheduled to consider the matter on September 21. Three councilmembers — Dan Kalb, Lynette Gibson McElhaney, and Rebecca Kaplan — have already spoken out against the idea of coal moving through the Army Base terminal.

Bowie's plan to secure Oakland as its coal export hub emerged in February 2014 when the Port of Oakland, citing environmental concerns, rejected a bid by the company to build a coal export facility at the Howard Terminal. Stymied at the port, Bowie looked to the small slice of city‐owned waterfront where Tagami's company CCIG is planning to build a bulk commodity terminal as part of the massive Army Base redevelopment it has been contracted to complete by the city. In April, the Utah Permanent Community Impact Fund Board (CIB), a special state agency that makes grants to rural Utah counties for sewers, fire stations, and other municipal improvements, quietly approved an unusual $53 million low‐interest loan to Sevier, Carbon, Emery, and Sanpete counties. In a presentation to the CIB, Holt and several commissioners representing the four counties said the funds would contribute to a $200 million maritime terminal in Oakland that would export many different commodities. Appearing with Holt and the county officials was Mark McClure, vice president of CCIG.

When the CIB loan was first reported by a small Utah newspaper as securing access specifically for Bowie Resources' expanded coal exports through Oakland, Holt and others worried the revelation could kill the project. On April 8, the day after the Richfield Reaper newspaper reported the loan, Holt emailed commissioners of the four Utah counties. "We've had an unfortunate article appear on the terminal project," wrote Holt. "If anything needs to be said, the script was to downplay coal, and discuss bulk products and a bulk terminal."

Holt also wrote that Tagami was disappointed that the plan to export coal had been made public. "Phil Tagami had been pleased at the low profile that was bumping along to date on the terminal and it looked for a few days like it would just roll into production with no serious discussion," wrote Holt.

"Less press is best," Holt added. "Controlled message is critical."

Tagami did not respond to emails and phone calls seeking comment for this report.

Records also show that Bowie Resources' plan to mine coal from Sufco appears to depend on the Oakland deal going through and that the company might not otherwise find a market for the fossil fuel. As such, shipping coal through Oakland likely will lead to a massive expansion of coal mining in Utah that might not otherwise occur.

Official Utah records and a recent business prospectus issued by Bowie show that Bowie Resources bought the Sufco mine in 2013 from Arch Coal, one of the largest US coal companies. In financial reports from previous years, Arch Coal described the Sufco mine as facing a significant production decline, because its existing leased coal reserves were depleted. But in a prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in June, Bowie's executives explained their business strategy: Bowie is seeking access to a vast coal deposit, not in the Sufco mine, but in an area accessible through the mine known as the Greens Hollow Tract, which is buried under the Fishlake and Manti‐La Sal National Forests in Utah. "We expect to obtain a lease from the [Bureau of Land Management] through the lease by application process for the Greens Hollow tract, which contains approximately 50.5 million tons of non‐reserve coal deposits, including those in the Lower Hiawatha seam, accessible through our Sufco mine," the prospectus states.

"[W]e expect long‐term international demand for thermal coal to increase," Bowie executives wrote in the prospectus. "Given our low cost of production [...] and unique access to U.S. West Coast terminals, we believe we will be competitive selling our coal into the seaborne market in the future."

James Wolff, chief financial officer of Bowie Resources, declined to comment about Bowie's plans. Representatives of Trafigura, a Swiss commodities trading corporation that owns 46 percent of Bowie and sells its coal in overseas markets, also declined to comment on its plans for the Utah coal.

Records show that Holt, the Utah public official spearheading the Oakland deal, could personally profit from it. During his time as Utah's transportation commissioner, Holt has worked to convince county commissioners in resource‐rich parts of Utah to use public funds for fossil fuel infrastructure projects. In 2014, Holt also signed a contract with Sevier County to be the county's financial advisor to help it build the Central Utah Railroad, which would transport Sufco coal to the Union Pacific Railroad's mainline, and then on to Oakland. According to the contract's terms, Holt and the Bank of Montreal will receive at least $2 million from Sevier County taxpayers if the railroad is built, regardless of whether the Oakland deal goes through.

Holt did not return emails or phone calls seeking comment for this report.

Bowie Resources, Holt, and Tagami face increasing resistance in Utah and Oakland. In Utah, environmentalists are appealing a decision by the US Forest Service and US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to lease the Greens Hollow Tract to Bowie. Meanwhile, some Utah residents and officials believe that the Utah Permanent Community Impact Fund Board (CIB) has been hijacked by Holt and others to illegally subsidize the fossil fuel industry. And in Oakland, a coalition of community groups and environmentalists are searching for ways to ban coal exports from the Army Base terminal.

Taylor McKinnon of the Center for Biological Diversity said in an interview that his group has already appealed the US Forest Service and BLM environmental impact statements for the proposed coal lease of the Greens Hollow Tract. "If they deny our objections out of hand, we'll consider taking the Forest Service and the BLM to court," said McKinnon.

Jeremy Nichols of Wildearth Guardians, another group fighting the Greens Hollow Tract mineral lease, said expansion of the Sufco mine would damage habitat in the region, and worsen global warming.

According to Chris Baird, a commissioner of Grand County, Utah, CIB dollars come from federal mineral leases and are supposed to mitigate the harms of fossil fuel extraction. For years the CIB has made grants and loans to build schools, fire stations, and water treatment plants. But according to Baird, when Holt was on the CIB the board, he and other board members attempted to use CIB funds to build a railroad into the Uintah Basin to serve oil companies interested in extracting tar sands deposits. That deal fell through. The $53 million loan for coal exports through Oakland is the latest example of Holt and other Utah officials steering CIB money into fossil fuel projects, according to Baird. But this time, Holt has been working not as a CIB board member, but as a private investment banking consultant who stands to profit from the deal.

"I see it as straight up subsidization," said Baird. "All this money they are spending won't go into projects like senior centers."

"In my opinion, recent decisions of the Community Impact Board violate state and federal law," said Christina Sloan, a Utah attorney who has also criticized the fossil fuel infrastructure projects promoted by Holt.

In Oakland a coalition of community groups and environmentalist say they welcome investments in the Army Base — so long as fossil fuel exports are excluded. "If they want to invest $53 million, we welcome it, but not for coal," said Lora Jo Foo, an Oakland resident and member of the Oakland Fossil Fuel Resistance coalition.

On August 4, Foo and Aaron Reaven, a member of the environmental group 350 Bay Area, traveled to Utah to a CIB board meeting. "We handed out a packet to all the CIB board members at eight in the morning, so they all know, here's ten reasons Oakland may not accept your investment if it includes coal," said Reaven.

"Phil Tagami's expertise is rounding up public funds to make his projects happen," added Reaven. "The Utah end of this counts as public money also, just from another state, so we wanted to get the message across to the developers that the coalition here is going after every funding stream possible to make sure coal doesn't come to our city."

BUSINESS & REAL ESTATE October 7, 2015 California wants renewable energy for half its power by 2030 By MICHAEL R. BLOOD and JUDY LIN Associated Press

California Gov. Jerry Brown in a June 2014 file photo. AP

Gov. Jerry Brown dramatically increased California's climate‐ change goals on Wednesday, committing the state to use renewable energy for half its electricity and make existing buildings twice as energy‐efficient in just 15 years.

Brown tried for an even stronger measure that also would have enforced a 50 percent drop in petroleum use by 2030, but was defeated by oil interests. He called that a short‐term setback, and insisted that the world needs to wean itself off fossil fuels as quickly as possible.

"What has been the source of our prosperity now becomes the source of our ultimate destruction, if we don't get off it. And that is so difficult," Brown said at a signing ceremony at the hilltop Griffith Observatory, overlooking the haze of downtown Los Angeles.

California already has some of the world's toughest air quality standards, and set a mandate in 2006 to derive a third of its electricity from renewable sources such as solar, wind and geothermal by 2020. State regulators say they already hit 25 percent last year, as huge solar farms sprouted in the desert and towering windmills went up along mountain passes.

"It's monumental," said Alex Jackson, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. "For an economy the size of California to commit to getting half of its power needs from renewable energy resources, I think, is a game changer."

Few question whether the new goal of 50 percent is achievable by 2030, but critics worry that the complex regulations needed to speed the transition from fossil fuels will add unknown costs for consumers and businesses.

Republican state Sen. Jim Nielsen of Gerber predicts more expensive "energy, food and all things that require abundant affordable energy to produce and transport, particularly hurting those California families least able to afford it."

Just how California will meet the new goal isn't clear. The bill by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, a Los Angeles Democrat, left the details to the state's Air Resources Board, Energy Commission and Public Utilities Commission. These boards are led mostly by gubernatorial appointees and have broad influence over economic life.

California's utilities favored the measure. They mostly use natural gas, nuclear energy and some coal, but solar, wind, geothermal and biomass are growing sources of electricity, and regulators are expected to allow them to pass some costs of the transition on to consumers.

The new law also encourages utilities to expand by building many more charging stations for electric vehicles, and provides for fines or penalties if utilities don't meet the goals.

Supporters say Californians can keep saving money through rebates and subsidies as they purchase electric vehicles, replace inefficient light bulbs and appliances, and install solar panels or double‐paned windows.

Brown, a Democrat, began this year with a vow to push the most aggressive greenhouse‐gas emissions benchmark in North America. He took his campaign around the world, even meeting with the pope in July.

But he lost a key political battle among moderate Democrats in Sacramento amid intense lobbying by the oil industry, which financed a multimillion‐dollar advertising campaign that raised fears of job losses if cuts in petroleum use were imposed. Catherine Reheis‐Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association, said petroleum remains a "safe, reliable and affordable" energy source and that the state already requires clean‐burning fuels.

Some lawmakers were willing to accept forced cuts in petroleum use if the Legislature could have more power over the Air Resources Board, which has been implementing the greenhouse gas emissions law.

But Brown refused to give up what he sees as his executive authority.

Both houses are controlled by Democrats, but on Wednesday, Brown squarely accused Republicans of failing to do enough to reverse global warming. He recalled that Ronald Reagan was California's governor when the state created the Air Resources Board in response to the Los Angeles smog, and that President Richard Nixon signed the Clean Air Act.

"That was a time when Republicans really got it. We hope they are going to come back to the good old days of Reagan and Nixon, when people cared about clean air and clean water," he said.

California's new goal builds on landmark legislation signed by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006, which laid the groundwork for the first U.S. program to set up a cap‐and‐trade emissions system, aiming to reduce pollutants to 1990 levels by 2020.

That program, second only to the European Union's in size, enables polluters to buy and sell credits on a market, generating billions in revenues since the state held its first carbon auction in 2012.

Businesses will pay an estimated $2 billion in the current budget year to help fund mass transportation including a planned high‐speed rail system and pay for appliance rebate programs, building upgrades and forestry and wetland conservation.

Opponents say all this raises costs for consumers, but supporters say initial fears of economic harm have not come true. California's economy is relatively healthy, with an unemployment rate of 6.1 percent in August. That's above the 5.1 percent national average, but the lowest it's been since January 2008.

CA17: Khanna outraises Honda again, though closer

By Josh Richman | Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 7:00 am in Mike Honda, U.S. House.

Congressional candidate Ro Khanna raised only slightly more money than incumbent Rep. Mike Honda in this year’s third quarter, but has more than twice as much cash banked for the race, according to both campaigns.

Both Democrats want to represent the 17th Congressional District, which lies in the heart of Silicon Valley and is the first district outside Hawaii in which Asian‐Americans make up a majority of voters. Khanna, a Fremont resident who served for two years in President Barack Obama’s Commerce Department, lost last year’s bruising, nationally watched election by 3.6 percentage points as Honda held on for an eighth term.

Khanna collected about $380,000 – mostly in the quarter’s last 10 days – and spent about $103,000 from July 1 through Sept. 30, leaving him with about $1.3 million cash on hand and about $41,000 in debt, according to his campaign’s news release.

“These past few months my priority has been, of course, my wedding and honeymoon,” Khanna said in the release. “So, I am humbled to still see the outpouring of support. It’s a signal that this district wants a new beginning.”

Despite being embroiled in an ongoing House Ethics Committee investigation into whether his office and campaign blurred or crossed their lines, Honda, D‐San Jose, raised about $350,000 and spent about $160,000 – including $26,000 on legal fees – during the third quarter, campaign spokesman Adam Alberti said Tuesday.

That left him with about $545,000 cash on hand as of Sept. 30, though his campaign declined to provide the amount of outstanding debt he has. At midyear, Honda had reported almost $35,000 in debt.

“Overall the pace of fundraising is steady, and we are on plan to have the resources necessary to fend off what know will be a big‐money challenger who outspent the congressman 3‐to‐1 in his last attempt,” Alberti said.

Neither candidate’s full report to the Federal Elections Commission is available yet; the filing deadline is Oct. 15.

Khanna outraised Honda in the year’s first and second quarters, too.

Santa Clara Valley Water District board begins process to remove CEO

By Paul Rogers [email protected] Posted: 10/05/2015 06:19:10 PM PDT | Updated: 3 days ago

SAN JOSE ‐‐ The board of Silicon Valley's largest water agency is moving to oust its CEO, who is under fire over his performance on a variety of issues, including Gov. Jerry Brown's controversial Delta water tunnels plan and a district attorney's investigation into no‐bid contracts.

The Santa Clara Valley Water District board has been negotiating CEO Beau Goldie's departure in closed session meetings and is now working out the timing of the announcement, compensation and benefits that Goldie will receive, multiple sources familiar with the issue said Monday.

"He's lost the confidence of the employees and the board," said one source. "I expect he'll be gone by December."

In an interview Monday, Goldie, who has held the job since 2009, denied that he is on the way out.

"I am not aware of them taking a vote to remove me," he said. "That would be the process under the contract."

With California mired in the worst drought in state history and potentially large storms looming this winter, Goldie said "rumors are not uncommon" of his leaving his $290,000‐a‐year job as one of the Bay Area's top water officials.

"I'm focusing on getting the work done, getting ready for El Niño and getting our purified water system built," he said, referring to an expansion of recycled water. "All of this other stuff is a distraction."

The district is a public agency that provides water and flood control to 1.9 million people in Santa Clara County.

Goldie has been under increasing pressure on a number of fronts.

On Friday, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office confirmed with Metro Silicon Valley that it has begun an investigation into the district's authorizing $10 million in no‐bid contracts. One, a $1.3 million agreement that Goldie approved this summer, was to RMC Water and Environment, a company based in Walnut Creek, for work to expand the district's recycled water system. One of the company's principal owners, Tom Richardson, is married to Melanie Richardson, a deputy operating officer at the water district.

Goldie said Monday that Melanie Richardson, who has listed the relationship in public disclosure documents, had no role in the contract. He said that he did nothing wrong, that speed was of the essence and that the issue will be discussed Oct. 27 at a public board meeting.

"We had to do that so we could bring drought‐proof supplies into our groundwater basin as quickly as possible," he said. "We don't know how far this drought is going to go."

Goldie also has run afoul of many of the 691 employees at the district, a public agency based in San Jose with a $478 million budget this year.

A recent employee survey found that only 20 percent of workers had trust in the district's executive management. On Sept. 10, the three unions representing the district's workers sent a letter to the board noting that under Goldie there have been more grievances, arbitrations and unfair labor practice complaints filed than under any other CEO; that the district's diversity council was disbanded; and that Goldie has created "a lack of transparency throughout the organization."

"The majority of conversations I've had with my members is that they are done," said Liz Bettencourt, president of the district's employees association AFSCME Local 101. "They are ready to have somebody who really wants to make this organization thrive."

Goldie also has had numerous run‐ins with board members, including not responding as quickly as longtime board member Dick Santos, of Alviso, has wanted to address flooding issues in that low‐lying community. He also has upset some board members by failing to diversify the district's staff enough and by representing to the public strong support for Gov. Brown's $17 billion plan to build two giant tunnels to move water through the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta, even though the board has not endorsed the project.

The district also has been slow to finish key projects, critics say, including earthquake retrofits of dams and flood control work on San Francisquito Creek in Palo Alto and Llagas Creek in Morgan Hill.

On Monday, board members said they could not discuss specific details of Goldie's future because they are holding meetings to review his job performance.

"I'm pleased with some things and not with others," said board member Tony Estremera. "We're in the middle of evaluation, so it's hard for me to say more right now."

Added board chairman Gary Kremen: "It's public record that we have held at least five times more closed‐session evaluations of the CEO this year than last year. Our job is to scrutinize people's performance. And we're doing our job."

Board member Linda LeZotte did not return a call seeking comment. Board member Barbara Keegan, who voted against the no‐bid contract, said she welcomes the district attorney's investigation.

"The fact that it has risen to the level where the DA is investigating is appropriate," she said. "It's part of checks and balances."

During the tenure of Goldie, an engineer who has worked at the district for more than 30 years, voters in 2012 approved a $548 million parcel tax for flood control and water projects. Residents of Santa Clara County also have reduced water use 35 percent this summer ‐‐ exceeding the governor's 25 percent request.

But Goldie also ran into a buzz saw of criticism this year when he proposed a 31.5 percent increase in the "pump tax" that cities and private companies like San Jose Water Co. pay the district for wholesale water. The board cut that hike to 19 percent. The district also drew controversy in recent years for spending $54,000 on a promotional film before the tax election and for asking state taxpayers to reimburse it $384,395 to cover the costs of preparing and posting agendas for 42 board meetings, more than nearly any other government agency in the state.

"This isn't about one issue," said one source familiar with the process to remove Goldie. "It's about a lot of issues."

CAPITOL ALERT October 2, 2015 Tom Torlakson doing double duty for schools, his candidate wife . He’s attending schools conference in northern San Diego . Mae Torkakson has a campaign fundraiser at the same location . Organizers said reception scheduled there out of convenience

Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson greets his supporters during an election night watch party at the Citizen Hotel in Sacramento, Calif. (Andrew Seng)

By Christopher Cadelago | [email protected]

This weekend, state schools chief Tom Torlakson is promoting two of his loves: education, and his wife.

Torlakson is scheduled to headline an education conference at a posh hotel across the street from the Del Mar Racetrack. The state superintendent reception on Saturday is being held in conjunction with the California Latino School Boards Association Utility Conference.

On Sunday, some of those same schools officials are likely to mosey over to the pool area of the same Hilton hotel to fête Torlakson’s wife, Mae, a Democratic candidate for the East Bay Assembly seat being vacated by Assemblywoman Susan Bonilla, D‐Concord. The fundraiser for Mae Torlakson is sponsored by political consultant Paul Fickas and the California Alliance Group.

An invitation lists the entry price as $1,000 for a super sponsor, $250 for Team Captain, and $100 for Team Torlakson. General admission is $50. As for the special guest, it’s Tom Torlakson.

Asked about the proximity, Fickas said he and his wife are personal friends with Mae, and offered to host the reception because she planned to be in Del Mar. Fickas said it’s possible some of the guests from the conference, with business before the state, and Tom Torlakson, would be appearing and donating to his wife.

But, he added, “I am not organizing the conference (and) I do not have access to (their) guest list.”

County Supervisor Piepho facing re-election battle next year

By Matthew Artz [email protected] Posted: 10/03/2015 09:38:37 AM PDT | Updated: 5 days ago OAKLEY ‐‐ A year after voting herself an ill‐fated 33 percent raise, Supervisor Mary Piepho finds herself in a re‐ election battle against two opponents angered by the episode.

Contra Costa County Mary Piepho is finding herself in a re‐election battle against two opponents angered by her voting herself an ill‐fated 33 percent raise. (Jose Carlos Fajardo/Bay Area News Group archives)

"When people do that, it's clear they've lost sight of what they are supposed to be doing, which is serving the people," said Oakley Mayor Doug Hardcastle, who filed papers to run against Piepho in next June's Primary election.

Also challenging Piepho will be East County NAACP President Odessa LeFrancois. The Antioch resident said Piepho's handling of the raise was one of several reasons she was running, although she declined to discuss her candidacy in a telephone interview.

Oakley Mayor Doug Hardcastle will challenge Supervisor Mary Piepho in next June's election. (Dan Rosenstrauch/Bay Area News Group archives)

Piepho, whose district stretches from Antioch across East County and south to the Tassajara Valley, might be the only incumbent supervisor to face an opponent next year. No one has stepped forward yet to challenge incumbents Federal Glover and Candace Andersen, who are both seeking re‐election.

The daughter of former state Sen. John Nejedly, Piepho, 53, of Discovery Bay, has established herself as a formidable politician in her own right. She won her seat in 2004 by beating an incumbent Democrat, Millie Greenberg, and defended it four years later against her former boss, termed‐out Republican Assemblyman Guy Houston. No one challenged her in 2012.

It's too early to tell whether Piepho will pay a political price for last year's pay raise dust‐up. Supervisors rescinded the 33 percent pay hike amid the threat of a public referendum, and union leaders accused Piepho in court papers of threatening retaliation against them if they didn't end their campaign to overturn the raise.

Piepho acknowledged that "the salary piece is controversial," but said she still had a strong record including her work to protect the Delta.

"People may not agree with me on every vote, but my record of leadership is my mainstay," she said.

Odessa LeFrancois, president of the East County NAACP, will challenge Supervisor Mary Piepho in next June's election. (Anda Chu/Bay Area News Group archives)

Hardcastle, who owns an RV center, appears tough to pin down politically. The Republican wants to increase spending on criminal prosecutions, give raises to unions whose members are making well below their peers, and tap county reserves to prop up the East Contra Costa Fire District.

The county still has a $2.6 billion liability in unfunded pension and retiree health benefits, but Hardcastle insists there is plenty of fat.

"I know for a fact there is room for tightening the belt," he said. "I've got to do it in my business. Why shouldn't they?"

Cendana Torlakson, Grayson announce runs for state Assembly

By Sam Richards [email protected] Posted: 07/21/2015 08:54:43 AM PDT | Updated: 3 months ago

Mae Cendana Torlakson, the chairwoman of the Ambrose Park and Recreation District board in Bay Point/Pittsburg, said Monday she is running for the 14th District Assembly seat to be vacated next year by Susan Bonilla of Concord. (Courtesy)

BAY POINT ‐‐ Concord Mayor Tim Grayson and Mae Cendana Torlakson, the chairwoman of the Ambrose Recreation and Park District board in Bay Point and wife of state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson, both announced Monday they will seek the state Assembly seat now held by Susan Bonilla.

Bonilla, of Concord, is scheduled to "term out" of that 14th District seat in 2016.

Cendana Torlakson is the corporate partnerships liaison of the Mathematics, Engineering, Science Achievement program helping educationally disadvantaged students pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. That program is administered by the University of California Department of Diversity and Engagement. She has been a UC staffer since 2000.

"I want to provide resources for business, and providing an educated, well‐trained work force is an important resource," Cendana Torlakson, a Democrat, said Monday. And helping make a college education more affordable, she added, is needed to make that happen.

Incumbent Tim Grayson during an election night party for Concord City Council incumbents, Nov. 4, 2014. (Susan Tripp Pollard/Bay Area News Group) (SUSAN TRIPP POLLARD)

Grayson, a Concord councilman since 2010 who works as a general contractor and serves as pastor of Calvary Apostolic Church in Concord, joined Cendana Torlakson in saying that opening up college to more people, and making it more affordable, is central to his platform. He also said he would work to bring a full‐fledged Cal State University campus to Contra Costa County. He said he, too, is running as a Democrat.

Cendana Torlakson, a Pittsburg resident, is serving her third term on the board of Ambrose, a district that operates nine parks in the unincorporated community of Bay Point and a small section of Pittsburg, and recreation services within the district. She bills herself as the first Filipina elected to office in Contra Costa County.

Separately, Cendana Torlakson, 57, is also the chairwoman of the Friends of the Delta Trail, working to raise $4.5 million for the Great California Delta Trail. She said that, along with her work with Ambrose to preserve park lands, has helped inform her on how to make headway advocating for environmental causes.

Grayson, 47, said other key issues for him are improving the district's transportation system, and working to curb crime and improve public safety.

"These are quality‐of‐life issues, and for me these are priorities," said Grayson, adding that being a mayor and councilman in District 14's largest city has helped prepare him for life in the Assembly. He also said he plans a formal campaign kickoff in the near future.

Cendana Torlakson in 2009 married Tom Torlakson, who served as 11th District assemblyman (East Contra Costa) from 1996 to 2000 and as a state senator from 2000 to 2008. Cendana Torlakson said she is counting on campaign help from her husband. "I have a very good mentor and coach," she said.