BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Wednesday, December 6, 2017 12:30 p.m. EBRPD – Administrative Headquarters 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California 94605
The following agenda items are listed for Committee consideration. In accordance with the Board Operating Guidelines, no official action of the Board will be taken at this meeting; rather, the Committee’s purpose shall be to review the listed items and to consider developing recommendations to the Board of Directors.
A copy of the background materials concerning these agenda items, including any material that may have been submitted less than 72 hours before the meeting, is available for inspection on the District’s website (www. ebparks.org), the Headquarters reception desk, and at the meeting.
Public Comment on Agenda Items If you wish to testify on an item on the agenda, please complete a speaker’s form and submit it to the recording secretary. Your name will be called when the item is announced for discussion.
Accommodations and Access District facilities and meetings comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If special accommodations are needed for you to participate, please contact the Clerk of the Board at 510-544-2020 as soon as possible, but preferably at least three working days prior to the meeting.
AGENDA
TIME ITEM STATUS STAFF 12:30 I. STATE LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION – N/A
B. OTHER MATTERS I Doyle/Pfuehler 1. Endowments Update 2. Park Bond Update 3. Other Possible Ballot Measures (transportation, water) 4. Other Matters
II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION R Pfuehler 1. H.R. 4208 (Thompson D-CA) and S. 1999 (Cantwell D-WA) – Wildland Fires Act of 2017
B. OTHER MATTERS 1. D.C. Trip Outline I Pfuehler 2. Other Matters
III. 2018 LEGISLATIVE AND GOVERNMENTAL R Pfuehler PRIORITIES
IV. MEASURE CC UPDATE I Pfuehler/Baldinger
V. STRATEGIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE R Pfuehler/Doyle
CONSULTANT CONTRACT
VI. ARTICLES
VII. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT Individuals wishing to address the Committee on a topic not on the agenda may do so by completing a speaker’s form and submitting it to the recording secretary.
VII. BOARD COMMENTS
(R) Recommendation for Future Board Consideration (I) Information (D) Discussion Legislative Committee Members Future Meetings: Ellen Corbett (Chair); Beverly Lane; Dennis Waespi January 27 July 21 Colin Coffey, Alternate February 24 CANCELLED August 25 Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager March 17 September 22 April 14 RESCHEDULED October 20 May 19 November 17 POSTPONED June 16 December 6 RESCHEDULED
Distribution/Agenda Distribution/Full Packet
District: Public: District: Public: Mimi Waluch Norman LaForce Board Members Pat O’Brien Kristina Kelchner Peter Rauch Robert Doyle Dr. George Manross David Zuckermann Afton Crooks AGMs Doug Houston (via-email) Ira Bletz Stana Hearne Erich Pfuehler Bruce Kern (via-email) Connie Swisher Judi Bank Lisa Baldinger Elissa Robinson (via e-mail) Sharon Clay Michael Kelley Jeff Rasmussen Rick Rickard (via-email) Rachel Sater Bruce Beyaert (via e-mail) Tiffany Margulici Peter Umhofer (via-email) Anne Kassebaum Joshua Hugg Steve Castile Sean Dougan Mona Koh Yolande Barial Knight Mark Pearson – Local 2428 Eri Suzuki – Local 2428 Xiaoning Huang – Local 2428 Tyrone Davis – POA Lobby/Receptionist
TO: Board Legislative Committee (Chair Ellen Corbett, Dennis Waespi, Colin Coffey)
FROM: Robert E. Doyle, General Manager Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager
SUBJECT: Board Legislative Committee Meeting WHEN: Wednesday, December 6, 2017 12:30 PM Lunch will be served
WHERE: Board Room, Peralta Oaks ______
Items to be discussed:
I. STATE LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION – N/A
B. ISSUES 1. Endowments Update The General Manager and Advocate Doug Houston will provide an update to the Committee about discussions with the California Fish and Wildlife Department about endowments as a response to the District sponsored bill SB 1020 (Wieckowski D-Fremont) in 2016.
2. Park Bond Update The General Manager, staff and Advocate Doug Houston will provide an update about the Park Bond (SB 5) and public education efforts.
3. Other Possible Ballot Measures There may be two other measures of interest to the District on the November 2018 ballot. One is primarily water focused and the other is primarily transportation focused.
The Water Supply and Water Quality Act of 2018: This “water bond” is being promoted by former Deputy Director of the California Department of Water Resources and longtime Planning and Conservation League Executive Director Jerry Meral. The “water bond” is $8.877 billion with about a quarter of it going toward watershed improvement. As the name would imply, significant portions of the funding go toward safe drinking water, groundwater storage and water conveyance. Within the watershed improvement section, the San Francisco Bay Area Program of the Coastal Conservancy receives a $100 million allocation and the Coastal Conservancy receives an additional $135 million for their overall work. Because the “water bond” has $2.355 billion in “watershed improvement” funding, a number of the folks who favored the park bond initiative (as opposed to SB 5) are tracking this effort closely.
The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 (SB 1): Efforts to repeal portions of this act through a ballot measure have the potential to impact the District. The initiative is being supported by Republican Assemblymember Travis Allen with a nod from California Republican Party Chair Jim Brulte. The initiative seeks to repeal the 12-cent gas tax, 20-cent diesel tax and
1
the increase in annual vehicle registration fees included in SB 1. Proponents believe an initiative to “repeal the gas tax” in November could help turn-out anti-tax voters. Currently, the initiative needs 365,880 signatures to qualify, but circulation efforts have been stymied by a dispute about the initiative’s title. The title Attorney General Xavier Becerra placed on the initiative reads: “Eliminates recently enacted road repair and transportation funding by repealing revenues dedicated for those purposes.” Sacramento Superior Court judge Timothy Frawley ruled in late September the Attorney General’s title was “misleading” and announced he would rewrite it. Attorney General Becerra appealed to the state Court of Appeals saying the judge overstepped his authority. On November 17, the 3rd District Court of Appeals in Sacramento overturned the Superior Court’s decision, noting that state law gives the Attorney General ‘considerable latitude’ in writing ballot titles. Assemblymember Allen’s attorney said he would appeal to the state Supreme Court. Assuming the initiative qualifies, it could have an impact on turnout in the General Election.
II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. H.R. 4208 (Thompson D-CA) and S. 1999 (Cantwell D-WA) – Wildland Fires Act of 2017 Representative Mike Thompson and Senator Maria Cantwell introduced companion legislation in response to this year’s significant wildland fire events. The Wildland Fires Act of 2017 will help further the Federal and State firefighting agencies’ “National Cohesive Fire Strategy” by authorizing additional funding for at-risk communities for wildfire and directing Federal agencies to treat their most-at-risk forests to better protect communities and to reestablish natural fire regimes. The bill directs the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to provide up to $100 million in funding to at-risk communities to plan and prepare for wildfires. The $100 million financial assistance program is for “at-risk communities adjacent to Federal land, including through States,” which limits opportunities in the East Bay. It does, however, set an important precedent. The legislation also establishes a pilot program that directs the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to treat their top one percent most-at-risk, least-controversial lands over the next 10 years (and in doing so install fuel breaks in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and, outside of the WUI, conduct prescribed fires). Again, this is largely for Federal lands, but the precedent and fact the Rep. Thompson represents a portion of Contra Costa County makes supporting this legislation consistent with the District’s Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan.
Staff Recommendation: SUPPORT
B. ISSUES 1. D.C. Trip Outline Staff will provide an outline of the District’s annual work week in Washington D.C. The proposed week is February 11-15, 2018 during the Partnership for the National Trails System’s annual Hike the Hill conference.
2. Other Matters
III. 2018 LEGISLATIVE AND GOVERNMENTAL PRIORITIES The Government Affairs Manager will provide a proposed summary of priorities to incorporate into the Government Affairs work plan for 2018.
2
IV. MEASURE CC UPDATE The General Manager and staff will provide an update about the public meetings and conclusion of the Stakeholder Advisory Working Group (SAWG).
V. STRATEGIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE CONSULTANT CONTRACT Strategy Research Institute (SRI), headed by Dr. G. Manross, has been under contract with the District to provide consulting services. The firm has developed research methodologies, managed surveys and provided expert interpretation of results that serve the District well in providing statistically accurate predictions of voter behavior, public interests, preferences and trends directly affecting this agency.
During 2017, the District, with the assistance of Dr. Manross, fielded a Measure CC extension support survey, district-wide voter survey and the launch of an extensive trail user survey.
In 2018, staff intends to continue working on these matters, including one to two more surveys on Measure CC extension, conclusion of the trail user survey and a study of “influentials” in the East Bay including social media engagement. SRI will also be tasked to work on data gathering and analysis to inform climate change policy and funding efforts, and expansion efforts for the Regional Parks Foundation. There are other significant planning efforts on the horizon for the District which could benefit from additional public research: Concord Naval Weapons Station transfer and financing, possible capital campaigns for environmental education / visitor centers, issues related to dogs and park planning, keeping parks open for all residents and other issues that may occur during the year. The assistance of Dr. Manross is an important element of these efforts. A copy of the proposed draft Board Material is attached.
VI. ARTICLES
VII. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT
VIII. BOARD COMMENTS
3
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI December 6, 2017
Editorial: East Contra Costa fiddles as fire service shrinks
Talk about fiddling while Rome burns — or, in this case, East Contra Costa.
The fire district serving 249 square miles there once had eight operating stations but is now down to three. The substandard protection for Oakley and Brentwood, and unincorporated communities stretching from Morgan Territory to Bethel Island and Discovery Bay, is potentially deadly.
But instead of solving the problem, the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District will waste money in March on a special election having nothing to do with improving service.
Meanwhile, some residents spin their wheels on plans that have little chance for success and, as we’ve previously noted, Assemblyman Jim Frazier, D-Oakley, proposed a ludicrous idea to essentially steal $10.5 million annually from the East Bay Regional Park District. Come on folks, get real. This problem is solvable if voters engage, and the district demonstrates it can responsibly manage money it has and budget for the future. Unfortunately, the district has done the opposite. In 2012, it asked voters to pass a 10-year parcel tax. But the proposal lacked a viable financial plan. Voters wisely said no. In 2014, the district proposed a legally questionable and complex assessment district levy, which voters also rejected. And, in 2016, the Oakley and Brentwood councils asked their voters to approve utility tax increases to help fund the fire district. But there were no legal restrictions on the money’s use. Those measures failed too. It’s time to go back to basics and consider another parcel tax. This time, however, the district needs to produce a viable long-term financial plan using the new money. And, because of a quirk in state law, residents must lead the campaign.
If the district puts a tax increase on the ballot, it requires two-thirds voter approval. But, as the state Supreme Court recently clarified, if residents qualify an initiative through a signature-gathering drive, that measure would require only a simple majority. That’s the easiest and cleanest solution. But it would require residents to perform heavy political lifting, and the fire district to provide the financial plan.
Instead, the district board is fixated on how many members it should have. Last year, at the board’s urging, voters approved a measure making the nine-member board elected rather than appointed. The first election is scheduled for November 2018.
But now the current appointed board plans to ask voters in a special March election, costing an estimated $225,000, to reduce the size of the elected board to five members. What a waste.
Reducing the board size could have been done in last year’s measure. Or it could be addressed in the upcoming June general election, when voters are going to the polls anyhow, at half the cost of a special election.
It’s a distraction that undermines public confidence in the district. It’s time to focus on the real issue. The North Bay fires this fall should have been a wake-up call to what’s at stake.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI December 6, 2017
Urban Parks’ Emerging Role as Transportation Infrastructure
With more and more people using them to get where they need to go, reclaimed railways and industrial corridors are connecting neighborhoods rather than dividing them. NOVEMBER 28, 2017
New Orleans transformed the Lafitte industrial corridor into the Lafitte Greenway. (Flickr/Bart Everson)
By Catherine Nagel | Contributor
Executive director of City Parks Alliance
By Kari E. Watkins | Contributor
The Frederick Law Olmsted Associate Professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology In recent decades, once-struggling cities have been reimagining themselves by evolving from 20th-century- style manufacturing centers to 21st-century hubs of commerce and culture. While each city realizes its own evolution in its own way, one important ingredient of these transformations is consistent among them all: city parks. Like the cities that house them, urban parks take on different forms, from signature downtown parks to reclaimed industrial railways and corridors. Now these corridors, or linear parks, are coming to be recognized as an important part of modernized transportation systems, connecting neighborhoods and residents to new opportunities.
In New Orleans, for instance, residents use over 100 miles of walkable, bike-able pathways every day. Before Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005, New Orleans had just 10 miles of trail. In 2009, the city received $9.1 million from the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Disaster Community Development Block Grant program, making the transformation of the Lafitte industrial corridor into the Lafitte Greenway possible with help from the Friends of Lafitte Greenway.
In 2015, its first full year of use, 272,000 people walked or bicycled the Greenway. That's an impressive number, but it contained a surprise: A study by the Georgia Institute of Technology showed that 80 percent of weekday morning and afternoon cyclists use the Greenway not for recreation but for transportation to and from work, school and shopping.
Linear parks like the Lafitte Greenway demonstrate what is possible when we fully consider the role of parks as transportation infrastructure. The Greenway concept is a roadmap to a more sustainable future for New Orleans, supporting public health, recreation, stormwater management, neighborhood investment and job opportunities through connections to low-cost public transportation.
Best of all, the Lafitte Greenway is but one example among many. In Chicago, the 606 line of the Chicago & Pacific Railroad once ferried freight atop an elevated track running along Bloomingdale Avenue on Chicago's northwest side. Back then, it was a symbol of American industrial might and engineering prowess. Today, it is a symbol of the strength of public-private partnerships needed to revitalize aging infrastructure to improve quality of living for city-dwellers.
About a decade ago, with help from the Trust for Public Land and the Chicago Park District, the 606's long- dormant tracks were transformed into a park, and its rumbling, rusting cars were replaced by people on bikes and on foot. This 2.7-mile-long linear park, which once bisected communities, now connects them, linking bikeshare and transit stations with nearby residences, restaurants, schools and businesses. Each day, more people than ever walk, bicycle, run, scooter or skateboard to work and the surrounding neighborhoods. Traffic averages 3,531 trips every day, most of it during commuting hours, and according to Georgia Tech 60 percent of weekday morning and afternoon cyclists are using the 606 for transit, not recreation. Credit for the 606's success can be spread equally among sectors. Public agencies oversaw its design and construction, public and private donations gave it a financial footing, the federal government contributed nearly half of the $95 million cost through the Federal Highway Administration's Congestion Mitigation Air Quality Program, and volunteers and local stewardship groups enliven it with community activities.
There are similar successes in cities across the country. The City Parks Alliance and Georgia Tech have collected stories and images of these vibrant parks in a new video, City Parks: America's New Infrastructure -- Traffic & Transportation, that features elected officials, designers, researchers and planners talking about transportation as just one of many benefits of city parks that stretch from public health and fitness to environmental management to economic stimulation and job creation.
The substantial and growing returns that parks provide are not always accounted for in balance sheets but are critically important to urban livelihoods and the future of our cities. As leaders at the federal, state, and local levels look ahead to allocating scare resources among infrastructure investments, parks must be a part of the solution.
Catherine Nagel | Contributor | [email protected] | @CityParksAll
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI December 6, 2017
Multibillion-dollar water measures heading to state ballot
By Kurtis Alexander November 24, 2017 Updated: November 27, 2017 11:14am
• Photo: Michael Macor, The Chronicle IMAGE 1 OF 2 Repairs are made on the main spillway of the Oroville Dam in October. The dam, in the Sierra Nevada foothills, is the nation’s tallest. The main and emergency spillways sustained damage during winter storms.
With a five-year drought and then a winter of floods having exposed the limits of California’s vast network of reservoirs, dams and canals, voters are likely to have the chance next year to decide whether to pay for major upgrades to the state’s waterworks. Two multibillion-dollar bonds are expected to go before voters that promise to boost water supplies, offer flood protection and restore rivers and streams. One measure, sponsored by the Legislature, also would fund new parks and hiking trails. The second, a privately backed initiative, would go further to improve the infrastructure that moves water to cities and farms.
Regardless of whether state voters approve either measure, a handful of reservoirs will be built or expanded with billions of dollars from a previously approved water bond.
Supporters of the new initiatives say the need to upgrade the state’s water-storage system has been apparent for some time, and that with the near-failure of Oroville Dam last winter and drought-induced water shortages still fresh in voters’ minds, now is the time go to the public to fund long-term improvements. But with two measures likely to add a combined $14 billion-plus to the state’s bond debt, some skeptics say the would- be water overhaul is an overreach.
“It’s a great time to be talking about California water needs and funding and financing,” said Sara Aminzadeh, executive director of California Coastkeeper Alliance, an advocacy group for clean water and healthy watersheds. “But there’s a danger that the political capital for water projects is misappropriated and we have a missed opportunity.”
With only so much voter goodwill, and competing demands on the state budget, familiar fault lines are re-emerging among those invested in how the state stores its water. Some argue the priority should be improving water infrastructure by upgrading dams and aqueducts; others push for alternatives such as recycling and conservation programs that would reduce demand for new water supplies.
The proposed bonds would commit money to both, though in different proportions.
The Legislature’s $4.1 billion measure on the June ballot was forged as a compromise among several interest groups, with the support of Gov. Jerry Brown. Its water-related components lean away from traditional infrastructure projects such as new dams, and toward funding for recycling, construction of flood-control levees and cleanup of polluted waterways. Close to half the bond money, however, would have little or nothing to do with water projects. Some would go to park acquisition and maintenance, much of it in Southern California. Money would be allocated for trail construction and land conservation in the Bay Area. Low-income communities would be given priority for the funding.
“Over 1 million Californians still lack access to safe drinking water, and too many children lack access to healthy outdoor spaces,” said state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, who wrote the enabling legislation for the bond. The initiative, he said, “will finally give voters a chance to fund these critical priorities and protect our quality of life.”
Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, Associated Press Gov. Jerry Brown backs a June ballot measure, a compromise between several interest groups, crafted by Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (right).
The other bond measure is being headed by Jerry Meral, a former deputy director of the California Department of Water Resources and a longtime water-project advocate. Meral supports the Legislature’s bond but says it wouldn’t go far enough. He is leading a signature drive to qualify an $8.9 billion bond for the November ballot, and appears to have the financial support, largely from farmers, to get it there. Like the Legislature’s measure, Meral’s proposed bond would support recycling, groundwater and clean-up programs. But it would also pay for traditional water projects such as improved canals for farm irrigation in the Central Valley. The measure wouldn’t fund new dam construction, but would include $200 million for Oroville Dam repairs and millions more for other reservoir upgrades.
“We are a hydraulic society and we have invested millions of dollars in water infrastructure, and it needs to be maintained,” Meral said.
The initiative has won support from several agricultural water agencies, urban suppliers and wildlife groups. Many say it would complement the Legislature’s bond. But unlike the Legislature’s measure, Meral’s effort has drawn opposition. Some worry about the high price, while the Sierra Club calls it a “pay-for-play” deal that will serve big growers and other wealthy water users.
Agribusiness is still holding out hope for new reservoirs that would be funded by $2.7 billion left over from a 2014 bond measure, Proposition 1. The front-runners are proposals for a Sites Reservoir on the Sacramento River in Colusa County and a Temperance Flat Dam on the San Joaquin River east of Fresno.
Also, the Santa Clara Valley Water District is seeking money to build a dam at Pacheco Pass, and the Contra Costa Water District wants money to raise its dam at Los Vaqueros Reservoir near Livermore.
California has a long history of using bonds to finance major water projects. More than a dozen have been approved since the 1970s. Such measures allow state officials to borrow money for programs that they can’t afford up front and are too expensive to be financed locally, then pay it back with interest over 20 to 30 years.
Mark Baldassare, president of the Public Policy Institute of California who runs public opinion surveys, said voters are generally supportive of water bonds.
“We’re not in a crisis anymore about water because the drought has passed,” he said. “But many Californians have been left with the impression that this is a recurring problem and something we need to take care of.” Kurtis Alexander is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @kurtisalexander
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI December 6, 2017
Bears Ears perfects America’s best idea by including tribes
President Trump has stated he plans to begin a prolonged legal battle with five Native American tribes next month by eliminating large swaths of Bears Ears National Monument in Utah. He should rethink this plan, given our evolving legacy of our national parks and continued mistreatment of the 567 sovereign tribes. The United States rightfully claimed what Wallace Stegner called “America’s best idea,” the first national parks, with the establishment of Yellowstone National Park in 1872.
Beloved, heavily visited, patriotic, bipartisan and emulated around the world, our national parks are American treasures. But there is a darker story, and that is of the displacement of Native Americans from their aboriginal lands by force, broken treaty and disease. Then largely unoccupied, these extraordinary lands were easy to designate as national parks, ignoring the fact that Native Americans had occupied, and actively and sustainably stewarded, these lands since time immemorial.
The U.S. concept of national parks spread around the world, encountering lands of national park quality that were essential to the traditions of the indigenous peoples who still inhabited them. A new park model was adopted that incorporated traditional activities, such as hunting and gathering, protection of sacred sites and cultural practice. The best of these new park models included management of the park by the local indigenous people, giving them a leadership role in the future of the lands that had sustained them for centuries. While other nations have embraced this new model, the United States has not, at least not until 2016, when President Barack Obama established Bears Ears National Monument.
Bears Ears presented the opportunity to preserve an area of extraordinary natural and cultural resources, rich with archaeological sites and essential to the culture and subsistence of at least five tribes. The Obama administration responded to the petition of a tribal coalition — a voice that historically has been ignored — and engaged it in a meaningful role in the future of 1.35 million acres of stunning forest and canyon landscapes. I traveled there twice with delegations from the Interior Department.
I sat with and listened to elders tell their stories of how sacred the land was to their way of life. I also sat on the stage at the public meeting in Bluff, Utah, and heard the opposition from residents who were fearful of the change, of federal restrictions, and the potential loss of jobs. I do not for a second discount their concerns. But for me, the native voice is more compelling. Any reduction of the Bears Ears National Monument, as suggested by President Trump, would result in the conversion of these lands to short-term commodities. That would not only be a desecration, a loss and a tragedy, but is extremely disrespectful to the tribal members who tirelessly worked for its permanent protection. We must consider the legacy we want to prevail. We must embrace the opportunity Bears Ears presents to truly bring the United States into a new era of land management — one that respects and incorporates the native peoples who have lived on these lands for thousands of years.
Jonathan B. Jarvis is the former director of the National Park Service.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI December 6, 2017
California threatens to sue Trump admin. over park fee hikes
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra led top attorneys from 10 states Wednesday in threatening legal action against the Trump administration for planning to more than double national park entrance fees.
A letter drafted by Becerra and signed by representatives of the mostly blue states says the proposal to increase the price of admission at Yosemite and 16 other marquee parks — to $70 per vehicle during the busy season — is not only unfair to many less affluent Americans but is inconsistent with national park policies.
“Our goal as a nation should be to make our national parks supremely inviting and encourage more families to visit them,” Becerra said in a prepared statement. “Instead, the Trump administration proposes the complete opposite.”
Since the rate plan was introduced last month, more than 65,000 people have logged comments about the hikes, most with concerns about people being priced out of such iconic spots as the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone. California’s Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks and Joshua Tree are also slated for the increase.
The state attorneys general — in the letter scheduled to be mailed on Wednesday to Michael T. Reynolds, acting director of the National Park Service — accuse administration officials of failing to justify the fee increases, as required by federal law. For example, officials did not show that the proposed rates are commensurate with visitor benefits, nor did they document what effects they would have on park users, the letter asserts. The lawyers also say the administration is providing too little time for public input.
If the concerns laid out in the letter are not addressed, Becerra’s office said litigation would follow.
Becerra’s opposition to the rate hikes is just the latest of many legal challenges he’s made to the Trump White House. The first-year attorney general has taken stands against the president’s proposed border wall, restrictions on travel from some majority- Muslim nations and efforts to cut funding to sanctuary cities, often winning court battles and putting the brakes on administration policies.
Administrators of the Department of Interior, the target of Becerra’s new objections, have defended higher park fees as a way to pay down the National Park Service’s mounting maintenance backlog. The federal parks are estimated to need $11.3 billion of repairs to roads, trails, campgrounds, water systems and other infrastructure, well beyond the means of the agency’s annual $2.8 billion budget.
National Park Service officials did not immediately return calls for comment Wednesday.
The agency’s proposed rate plan would raise vehicle fees, which are good for a week, at “highly visited” parks during peak seasons. At Yosemite and Sequoia-Kings Canyon parks, as well as such hot spots as Yellowstone, Bryce Canyon and Glacier, the $70 price would apply May 1 through Sept. 30. At Joshua Tree, the new rates would run Jan. 1 through May 31.
The 17 parks slated for increases currently charge $25 or $30 per vehicle. The parks are also scheduled to raise motorcycle entrance fees to $50 and pedestrian fees to $30. The new rates are scheduled to kick in next year after a public comment period, which was recently extended from Thursday to Dec. 22.
The annual park pass, which provides admission to all parks throughout the year, would remain $80.
The attorneys general joining Becerra in signing the letter of opposition are from many of the same states that have sided with California in other fights against the Trump administration: Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Washington. Right-leaning Arizona is also a signatory. So is the District of Columbia.
Beyond the legal arguments, the attorneys concur with other critics of the Trump administration who say the parks plan doesn’t make fiscal sense. Though higher entrance fees will bring in more money, as much as $70 million a year, according to federal estimates, the administration is simultaneously proposing a roughly $300 million cut to the agency’s annual budget.
“While we acknowledge and appreciate the ongoing, critical funding needs faced by the service, addressing these needs should not come at the expense of making national parks less accessible,” the attorneys write. “Given the size of the deferred maintenance backlog, the most prudent step for the administration to take would be to seek additional funding from Congress.”
Kurtis Alexander is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @kurtisalexander
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI December 6, 2017
Huge wildfires can wipe out California’s greenhouse gas gains
Most years, the amount of greenhouse gases spewed by California’s cars, factories and power plants drops slightly — a hard-won result of the state’s fight against global warming.
And in any given year, one big wildfire can wipe out that progress. Over the course of just a few weeks, a major fire can pump more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than California’s many climate change programs can save in 12 months. Scientists debate whether California’s vast forests are emitting more carbon dioxide through fires than they absorb through plant growth.
As global warming raises temperatures, making fires like the ones that tore through the Wine Country last month more likely, it could turn into a vicious cycle.
“That’s the reality, as painful and ugly as it may be,” said Jim Branham, executive officer of the Sierra Nevada Conservancy, a state agency charged with protecting the ecological and economic health of the Sierra region. “The sooner we get people looking at that reality, the sooner we can address it.”
To get a sense of the problem, look at 2015.
Greenhouse gas emissions across the California economy inched downward by 1.5 million metric tons that year, the most recent for which emissions data are available. And just one fire in 2015 — the Rough Fire, in the foothills of Fresno County — produced 6.8 million metric tons of greenhouse gases, according to an estimate from the U.S. Forest Service.
Other fires that year on federally managed land within California emitted 16 million metric tons.
And 2015 was not an isolated case. In 2013, for example, the state’s economy cut 3.89 million metric tons of emissions, while wildfires produced as many as 22.4 million metric tons, according to the Forest Service. The Rim Fire alone, started near Yosemite National Park that August by a runaway campfire, emitted between 10 million and 15 million metric tons.
The Rim Fire burned 257,314 acres of forest. For comparison, this year’s Wine Country fires together burned about 210,000 acres of forest, grassland, vineyards and urban neighborhoods.
The huge scale of the fire emissions calls into question the ability of California to meet its climate change goal of slashing greenhouse gas emissions 40 percent by 2030.
The state agency that oversees most of California’s global warming programs — the California Air Resources Board — does not include wildfires in its annual inventory of emissions, the official scorecard of the state’s progress on global warming. When state officials talk about how much California has managed to cut its emissions so far, they don’t factor in wildfires.
That could change. The board has spent much of the last decade researching how to calculate and track wildfire emissions and is working on a year-by-year tally.
“There’s a lot of uncertainties in quantifying this,” said Dave Edwards, chief of the board’s greenhouse gas inventory branch. “It’s not like power plants burning fossil fuels.”
Not all fires, after all, will produce the same amount of carbon dioxide for each acre that burns. Far less carbon is stored in the plants found on an acre of open grassland than on an acre of redwood forest, whose massive trees have been absorbing CO2 for centuries and using it to grow wood.
In climate policy, forests are usually seen as one of the only available tools for extracting carbon dioxide — the most common greenhouse gas — from the atmosphere at a significant scale. And yet large, severe fires have become so common in California that scientists debate whether the state’s forests have turned into net producers of carbon dioxide, rather than carbon sinks. The balance could tip from one to the other over time, said Dick Cameron, director of science for California land programs at the Nature Conservancy environmental organization.
“We can go from carbon sink to source in a five- to 10-year period,” he said.
One study commissioned by the Air Resources Board estimated that from 2001 through 2010, the amount of carbon stored in California’s natural and working lands decreased by 150 million metric tons, with 80 percent of those losses coming from wildfires.
With at least 43 people killed by this year’s Wine Country fires and thousands more lives upended, the emissions that fires produce may seem a distant, abstract problem. But measures to prevent those emissions may also help prevent wildfire deaths.
Those measures include careful management of California’s forests by removing dead or smaller trees that have been allowed to proliferate through decades of fire- suppression policies. That can be done through targeted logging or by small, intentionally set fires during times when weather conditions aren’t likely to spread them out of control — as is already done in many forests around the state.
“We just have way too much fuel in our forested landscapes,” Branham said. “The forests of today do not at all look like the forests John Muir would write about.”
David R. Baker is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @DavidBakerSF
David R. Baker Business Reporter
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI December 6, 2017
Greenhouse gas auction results show California cap-and-trade back on track
By David R. Baker November 21, 2017 Updated: November 21, 2017 2:31pm
Photo: Santiago Mejia, The Chronicle Gov. Jerry Brown delivers remarks during a ceremony at Treasure Island in July during which he signed AB 398, a bill extending California's cap-and-trade system. This month Brown said he would explore creating a common greenhouse gas market with the European Union, which has its own cap-and-trade system.
Its fate uncertain just a few months ago, California’s cap-and-trade system for reining in greenhouse gas emissions appears to have pulled out of its slump. Results released Tuesday from the latest quarterly auction of cap-and-trade allowances — essentially, permits that allow a business to emit greenhouse gases — showed that all the allowances sold, with a closing price slightly higher than the previous auction’s.
The price for emitting a metric ton of greenhouse gases in California now stands at $15.06, up from $14.75 in the August auction. In the most recent auction, held Nov. 14, 79.5 million allowances were purchased for the program’s current compliance period, while buyers also snapped up 9.7 million allowances that can be used in future years.
The cap-and-trade system, a centerpiece of California’s fight against global warming, had been plagued by legal uncertainty about whether it was authorized to continue after 2020. As a result, businesses had scaled back their buying of allowances, waiting to see whether the state government would reauthorize the program.
That happened in July, when Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation to continue the program. Both auctions held since then have sold all of the allowances offered, with closing prices for current allowances at least $1 above the floor price.
Although California started the cap-and-trade system on its own, the Canadian province of Quebec now participates in it, and Ontario has agreed to join. This month, Brown said he would explore creating a common greenhouse gas market with the European Union, which has its own cap-and-trade system.
Under cap and trade, the government sets a declining annual limit on greenhouse gas emissions, shrinking the amount of allowed emissions each year. Businesses that produce large amounts of greenhouse gases must obtain an allowance for each metric ton they emit, buying them at the state’s quarterly auctions or purchasing them from each other. The amount of allowances available in any given year is equal to the emission limit, or cap, for that year.
David R. Baker is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @DavidBakerSF
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI December 6, 2017
GOP sees prospective gas-tax election fight as oasis in California desert
By John Wildermuth November 4, 2017 Updated: November 4, 2017 7:38pm
Photo: Paul Chinn, The Chronicle Bicyclists wait at a stop light where Barry Graynor, Howard Epstein and Lisa Remmer protest against the statewide 12-cents per gallon gas tax in front of the Arco station at Fell and Divisadero streets in San Francisco, Calif. on Saturday, Nov. 4, 2017.
When the price of gas went up 12-cents last week, thanks to a Democrat-backed state transportation bill, California Republicans responded with reproachful head shaking and murmurs of concern for those who will be paying higher prices. “We’re overburdened with taxes in California,” said Sue Caro, chairwoman of the Alameda County Republican Party and a state party official. “This just makes life more expensive, especially for low- and middle-income residents and seniors.”
But behind the scenes there was likely backslapping and high fives as GOP officials beamed at the prospect of putting a gas tax repeal initiative on the November 2018 ballot that could bring out droves of tax-hating Republican voters.
In a state where GOP registration is falling fast, Republicans are shut out of statewide offices and half the party’s Congress members are being targeted by anti-Trump Democrats, GOP leaders are fighting for any edge they might get, and the gas tax might be their best shot.
The SB1 transportation bill, along with the $5.2 billion in annual taxes and fees it authorized, is “a #Gastaxtrophe,” they proclaimed.
“Thanks to Gov. Brown and the out-of-control California Legislature ... every California commuter will be reminded how Sacramento’s failure to govern directly impacts their pocketbook,” Jack Pandol, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said in a statement Wednesday. “California families living paycheck-to- paycheck will hold Democrats accountable for this regressive tax on the poor.”
But those GOP complaints are more about hardball politics than any concern for California voters and the needs of the state, said state Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, the author of the transportation measure.
After more than four years of study, hearings and negotiations on the state’s road and transportation needs, “the people who reviewed the information on a factual basis, we convinced,” Beall said. “But the people who reviewed it based on political considerations, we didn’t.”
For Beall and the Democrats who pushed the bill through the Legislature and narrowly got the needed two-thirds vote, the decision was a no-brainer. Not only hadn’t the state increased the per-gallon gas tax since 1994, the fuel efficiency of cars and trucks also has improved substantially, which means people are going farther on less gas — and paying less in gas taxes.
Photo: Paul Chinn, The Chronicle Barry Graynor (left) and Howard Epstein joins a local protest organized by state Republican Party leaders against the statewide 12-cents per gallon gas tax in front of the Arco station at Fell and Divisadero streets in San Francisco, Calif. on Saturday, Nov. 4, 2017.
The new transportation bill not only boosts the gas tax, but also adds 20 cents to each gallon of diesel fuel, increases the diesel fuel sales tax by 4 percent, raises the vehicle registration fee and, beginning with the 2020 model year, requires owners of electric cars and other zero emission vehicles to pay an annual $100 road improvement fee in lieu of the gas taxes they don’t pay.
That adds up to $52.4 billion in new transportation money that will go to the state and local governments over the next 10 years for road and bridge improvements, with some of the money earmarked for mass transit, and bike and pedestrian paths.
Supporters of the transportation bill say new taxes are the only way to provide the money needed to pare down what transportation officials say is a $59 billion backlog of highway repairs and $75 billion for work on local streets and roads.
“Some people want to oppose this for their own political purposes,” said Michael Quigley, executive director of the construction-friendly California Alliance for Jobs and a leader of Fix Our Roads, a coalition of supporters of the transportation bill. “But most people realize the gas tax is a users’ fee and ultimately represents a good thing for them, the roads and the state.”
Two separate GOP-friendly groups already are pushing measures for the November 2018 ballot that would repeal the various transportation taxes and fees, but both are still awaiting the final OK from the state before they can begin to collect the hundreds of thousands of signatures needed to qualify for next year’s ballot.
California Republicans see the gas tax repeal as a welcome oasis of opportunity in what’s otherwise a GOP political desert. With two little-known Republican candidates, San Diego-area businessman John Cox and Assemblyman Travis Allen of Huntington Beach (Orange County), currently in the race for governor, there’s a chance that a pair of more visible — and far better financed — Democrats could finish first and second in June’s top-two primary and crowd out the GOP at the top of the November ballot.
But even with a Democrats-only governor’s race, a hot battle over the gas tax could bring out Republicans and anti-tax independents who would also vote for down-ballot Republican candidates, such as the seven GOP members of Congress now being targeted by Democrats.
That prospect has led to bruising tactics on both sides. GOP opponents of the gas tax already are pushing to recall state Sen. Josh Newman, D-Fullerton (Orange County), who won a Republican-held seat last year and then voted for the transportation bill.
In September, the Fix Our Roads group, which includes not only labor, construction industry and local government representatives, but also business-oriented groups like the California Chamber of Commerce, sent a letter to the 14 GOP California members of Congress, warning them to stay out of the gas tax fight since “with so much at stake, our organizations will have no option but to mount a robust and powerful effort in opposition to this initiative, using the voice of the California business community to counter your efforts.”
But 11 of those GOP congressmen quickly sent a letter saying they would back a repeal of the new taxes and fees, betting the stand would bolster their support next year.
Republicans and other opponents of the gas tax don’t say road repairs aren’t needed, but argue that SB1 isn’t the way to go. “California keeps receiving more tax revenue, more than enough to fix our roads and expand our freeways without raising taxes a dime,” said Allen, the Orange County assemblyman who wrote one of the repeal initiatives.
“The argument that we need money for roads is absolutely correct,” but the Democrat- led Legislature shouldn’t be able to vote new taxes in on their own, said Jon Coupal, president of the anti-tax Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association who backs a competing repeal effort. “What we’re saying is that changes like this have to go to the voters.”
Democrats and other supporters of the transportation bill are doing what they can to ease the impact — and the visibility — of the new fees. For instance, the gas tax took effect Nov. 1, the day oil companies can begin pumping the less-expensive winter-blend gasoline. And with gasoline prices being as volatile as they typically are, the extra 12- cents could quickly disappear into the usual ups and downs of pump prices.
Republicans also should be worried that get-out-the-vote efforts work in both directions, especially with supporters of the transportation bill ready to spend $30 million or more to fight off repeal, said Rob Stutzman, a GOP consultant working with Fix Our Roads.
“People don’t like taxes, but it’s a trade-off, since if you cut the taxes the road repairs go away,” he said. “And to beat back the repeal, supporters will spend a lot of money turning out Democrats.”
And while any repeal measure won’t be on the ballot for a year, the state and cities already are filling potholes and repaving roads with the promise of new state money. It’s a safe bet that for the next 12 months transportation officials across California will be reminding voters just where the cash for those repairs is coming from.
“It’s not taxes we’re supporting, but the results, the outcome,” said Quigley of the California Alliance for Jobs.
John Wildermuth is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @jfwildermuth
John Wildermuth Political Reporter
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI December 6, 2017
California Democrats buoyed by national election wins as focus turns to 2018
Democrat Ralph Northam takes the stage after winning the gubernatorial race in Virginia on Tuesday. Democratic victories have enthused California activists. (Washington Post photo by Michael Robinson Chavez)
By CASEY TOLAN | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group PUBLISHED: November 8, 2017 at 5:53 pm | UPDATED: November 9, 2017 at 4:20 am
One year after Donald Trump’s election as president crushed liberals’ hopes and reshaped America’s political map, Democrats woke up Wednesday morning to an unfamiliar sensation: optimism.
As they celebrated wins in Virginia, New Jersey, Washington and other states, ebullient California Democrats were already focusing on House races next year, arguing that their victories on Tuesday could presage a blue wave in 2018 — and potentially lead to Democrats taking back the House.
Since Trump’s election, “there’s still a little bit of PTSD in a lot of Democrats,” said Maclen Zilber, a Democratic consultant in Los Angeles working on several California House races. “That’s why you’re seeing such jubilation that maybe the tide is turning.”
After a series of losses in red-state special elections this year, Democrats finally had the night they needed to prove that the much-heralded “Trump resistance” movement can be an electoral force. They notched a showy win in the Virginia governor’s race, where Ralph Northam won by nearly nine points.
The New Jersey governor’s race was a Democratic blowout. Maine voters approved a Medicaid expansion by a 20-point margin, a vote that was seen as a referendum on former President Barack Obama’s health care law.
Republicans will still control far more statehouses than Democrats around the country — 26 to eight after Tuesday. The Democrats’ biggest wins were in blue states. And a lot can change in the year left before the 2018 midterm elections, when the Democrats will need to gain 24 seats to recapture the House.
But Democrats showed that anti-Trump anger could spur a huge turnout even in an off-year election. Virginia saw the highest voter turnout in a governor’s race in 20 years, despite a rainy election day.
Many Democrats are especially enthused about their wins in the Virginia House of Delegates, which swung from a wide Republican advantage to a close divide between the two parties (a few seats are still too close to call). Because these down-ballot candidates tend to be less well- known by voters than statewide candidates, some political analysts say the results show the increased support for candidates with a D next to their name compared to those with an R.
Demographically, many of the suburban Washington, D.C., districts where Democrats performed the best are similar to key Orange County and San Diego-area Republican-held House seats in California. These districts tend to have more affluent and college-educated voters. They also voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016.
“A very large fraction of Virginia voters were deliberately casting a vote against Trump,” said Jack Pitney, a former GOP official who now teaches politics and government at Claremont McKenna College. “If that pattern repeats itself in California, suburban Republicans should be concerned.”
Republicans also took a beating in New York, where the GOP executives of suburban Westchester and Nassau counties were unseated by Democrats.
And by winning a special Senate election in Washington, Democrats erected a “blue wall” along the West Coast. Washington state will now join California and Oregon as states where Democrats control the governor’s office and both houses of the Legislature. That lays the groundwork for new progressive policies like universal health care or perhaps even a regional cap-and-trade system aimed at reducing global warming. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, told reporters on Wednesday: “The door is certainly opened for us” to take back the House.
Some Democrats are also hopeful that they could take back the Senate — although, with more Democratic incumbents up for election in states won by Trump, that will be a lot tougher.
And many political analysts caution against drawing overly broad conclusions about Tuesday’s election results. Most of the districts Democrats won were solidly blue-leaning, so it doesn’t necessarily mean Democrats will succeed in retaking the House next year on more Republican-friendly terrain.
California’s House Republicans are well aware of the tough election fights facing them, said Ken Khachigian, a GOP strategist in Orange County. “There’s nobody sitting back on their haunches,” he said.
“Our incumbents have their own well-defined brands that are independent,” said Jack Pandol, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. “It’s a higher bar for Democrats to be able to knock off these incumbents, especially if they’re relying solely on the national environment to carry them over the finish line.”
Several Democrats pointed to party unity as a powerful asset in Virginia. After Northam beat a more progressive opponent, Tom Perriello, in the primary, Perriello wholeheartedly endorsed and then campaigned for Northam — avoiding the Hillary Clinton-Bernie Sanders schism that bedeviled the party in 2016.
It remains to be seen whether California Democrats will come together as effectively. There are still hard feelings among party activists from the bruising, contested race for state party chair earlier this year. Last week, two of the top Democrats running against Darrell Issa, R- Vista, arguably the most vulnerable House Republican in the country, started attacking each other over fundraising numbers and who was the most qualified.
Democratic leaders also are hoping that Tuesday’s results could inspire more Republican incumbents to retire and more Democratic candidates to jump into races. Already, more than two dozen House Republicans around the country — although none from California — have announced that they’re calling it quits.
Since Tuesday night, some Democratic and liberal groups have similarly reported spikes in fundraising. “When you win, there’s a cascade of goodwill,” said Bay Area Democratic strategist Katie Merrill.
Tuesday was also a banner night for women, minority and LGBT candidates. Transgender candidates made history in several races: Virginians elected Danica Roem, a former journalist who will be the nation’s first openly transgender state lawmaker. Andrea Jenkins won a City Council seat in Minneapolis, and Tyler Titus won a school board race in Pennsylvania.
In California, Lisa Middleton won a City Council seat in Palm Springs, becoming the first openly transgender, nonjudicial elected official in the state.
“What we saw last night was a response to the divisiveness coming from our president,” Middleton said Wednesday. “People are looking for a different kind of leadership.” Staff writer Patrick May and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI December 6, 2017
Editorial: On gas tax initiative, attorney general tries to deceive voters
By MERCURY NEWS & EAST BAY TIMES EDITORIAL BOARDS | PUBLISHED: November 15, 2017 at 10:28 am | UPDATED: November 16, 2017 at 3:50 am
California has a long-history of election meddling by state attorneys general who try to put a thumb on the scale before voters weigh in on ballot measures.
Now Xavier Becerra is using his entire fist to squash attempts to repeal the state’s new 12- cent-a-gallon gas tax increase and $25 to $175 boost in annual vehicle registration fees.
Repealing the taxes championed by Gov. Jerry Brown would be terrible for California, whose roads and bridges have deteriorated to a dangerous degree over the past decade. But the attorney general is stooping to new lows of electoral deception to try to stop it, and that’s just plain wrong.
The issue is an initiative by Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach, to repeal the increased tax and fees. He hopes to qualify it for the November 2018 election. Becerra insisted that the title on the signature petitions make no mention of repealing “taxes and fees.” Instead, he directed that it say it would “repeal revenues” for road repair and transportation funding.
Seriously. “Repeal revenues.” Whatever that means.
Becerra’s obfuscation is a pathetic attempt to hide the truth and discourage voters from signing the petitions. That is essentially what Sacramento County Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley concluded when Allen appealed the attorney general’s petition language.
The judge called Becerra’s title and summary “confusing, misleading, and likely to create prejudice against the proposed measure.” It “obscures the chief purpose of the initiative: repeal of the recently enacted taxes and fees.”
Frawley ordered new language explicitly stating that the initiative would repeal those taxes and fees. Becerra has appealed to the state Court of Appeal, saying the judge overstepped his authority. That legal issue is for the appellate court to decide, but common sense tells us the judge got the substance right. While this fight is over the initiative petition language, the attorney general also controls the wording on the ballot and the short summary in the ballot pamphlet. In each case, the wording is supposed to be true, impartial and convey the measure’s chief purposes and points.
But, like his predecessors, Becerra, who must stand for election next year, is using his power over initiatives to sway voters and score political points with supporters — in this case to protect the governor’s transportation tax plan. It was Brown who earlier this year appointed Becerra to replace Kamala Harris as attorney general.
There’s a remedy for this. The responsibility for presenting clear information to voters should be taken away from politicians and turned over to the non-partisan state legislative analyst.
Political leaders aren’t big on giving up power. So it will probably take a good-government initiative to get it done. We can only imagine what that petition title might say.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI December 6, 2017
Sexual harassment controversy threatens to ensnare Kevin de León
State Sen. Tony Mendoza, D-Artesia, watches as the votes are posted for his school bus safety measure, Friday, Aug. 26, 2016, in Sacramento, Calif. The Senate unanimously approved the bill, SB1072, that would require school buses to have child safety alarms that sounds when the engine is turned off, requiring the bus driver to walk to the back of the bus to turn it off. The bill comes in response to the death of 19-year-old autistic boy, Paul Lee, of Whittier, who was left for hours on a hot school bus. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
By KATY MURPHY | [email protected] and CASEY TOLAN | [email protected] | PUBLISHED: November 10, 2017 at 5:55 pm | UPDATED: November 11, 2017 at 8:10 am
SACRAMENTO — The controversy surrounding sexual harassment in the state Capitol deepened on Friday and threatened to ensnare one of the Legislature’s leading Democrats, Kevin de León, as questions swirled over when the Senate leader became aware of complaints against his weekday roommate. The plot thickened after a lawyer for a fired Senate staffer told Capital Public Radio that her client and two other employees were handed termination letters in the same meeting in which they detailed inappropriate behavior by their boss, Sen. Tony Mendoza, toward a young female intern. The attorney’s account contradicted the timeline provided Thursday by De León’s office, raising questions about what the Senate leader, who is challenging U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, knew about the harassment allegations.
Mendoza, 46, repeatedly invited the 23-year-old woman to visit him at night at the Sacramento apartment he shared with De León and once invited her to spend the night at his hotel room at a Yolo County resort, according to Micha Star Liberty, an Oakland attorney for one of the fired staffers. Mendoza’s alleged misbehavior was first reported Thursday by the Sacramento Bee. The three Mendoza aides reported the harassment to Senate officials several times in September before detailing their allegations in a meeting on Sept. 22 — when they were promptly fired by being handed a letter on Rules Committee letterhead bearing De León’s name, Liberty said. “This smacks of retaliation,” the attorney told the radio station. The secretary of the Senate, Daniel Alvarez, on Thursday painted a very different picture of events, saying that the employees were fired before the harassment complaint against Mendoza was made. He argued that there was “no connection” between the staffers’ allegations and their termination. “Senate Rules take any allegation of inappropriate workplace behavior extremely seriously – and this is no different,” Alvarez said in a statement provided by De León’s office. “These allegations are being rigorously reviewed and investigated consistent with our legal process, employment standards and privacy protections – and has been for months.” Mendoza said on Thursday that he would never knowingly abuse his authority, but didn’t address whether he had ever invited the young intern to his apartment. “If I ever communicated or miscommunicated anything that made an employee feel uncomfortable, I apologize,” he said in a statement issued to this news organization. A spokesman for De León told the Associated Press Thursday that the Senate leader did not know about the allegations against Mendoza or the investigation into his colleague. “The Senate is the employer of Senate staff, not individual members, and Senate Rules Committee has the responsibility for thoroughly investigating complaints in consultation with outside counsel,” Alvarez said in a follow-up statement on Friday night. “As the process requires, the Senate will take action once Senate Rules completes their investigation.”
Several former Senate staffers said it was the procedure in past years for the president pro tem — who also serves as chairman of the Rules Committee — to be notified right away of harassment investigations. Kathy Dresslar, who served as chief of staff to former Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg, said Friday that her boss was always instantly made aware of all harassment allegations about his members by the Senate secretary, to whom Human Resources personnel report. “When I worked in the pro tem’s office and the secretary of the Senate was Greg Schmidt, he would have come in and told us — and he did come in and tell us — when there was a complaint about a member,” she said. “Immediately.” Schmidt died last year at age 69 after a brief battle with cancer. Sara Velasco, a Rules Committee staffer in the ’90s who helped write the Senate’s sexual harassment policies, said she had no doubt that in the past, the pro tem would be aware of any probe. “If there’s an investigation started, I’m sure he would know,” Velasco said. But a De León spokesman said he did not know about the allegations.
Some political insiders questioned how De León could not be aware of the allegations against one of his members when the three staffers were fired.
“It’s unfathomable that someone in that position would not know what’s going on,” said Larry Gerston, political science professor emeritus at San Jose State. “It’s beyond belief. It’s beyond comprehension.” Mendoza, a married father of four who chairs the powerful committee on Insurance, Banking and Financial Institutions, is the second state legislator in recent weeks to deal with headlines over harassment allegations. The Los Angeles Times reported last month that Assemblyman Raul Bocanegra, a San Fernando Valley Democrat who is a member of the Assembly’s leadership team, was secretly disciplined after he was accused of groping a female staff member at an after-work event in 2009 when he was a legislative staffer. Attention on sexual harassment in the Capitol has sharply intensified since more than 100 female staffers, elected officials and lobbyists wrote an open letter last month decrying what they called a culture of harassment in the statehouse. De León has publicly condemned sexual harassment and hired a law firm to conduct an independent investigation into allegations. Political analysts say that even the appearance of an attempted coverup could be a black mark on the Los Angeles Democrat’s campaign for U.S. Senate, which is just ramping up. “There’s a lot riding on how he handles the fallout of this,” said Sherry Bebitch Jeffe, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California. “It’s a Pandora’s box.” Asked whether he was worried the controversy could become an issue in the U.S. Senate race, De León’s campaign spokesman, Roger Salazar, said in an email Friday night that “it is disheartening to see such a serious issue be manipulated for political purposes.”
He described De León as a “tireless champion for gender equity” who was “working with his colleagues to demand greater workplace protections for Senate employees.”
Salazar said that he wasn’t surprised that the candidate’s opponents would use “every dirty trick in the book” against him, adding, “one would hope that Feinstein’s supporters would reject any blatant politicization of sexual harassment.”
But Bebitch Jeffe said the simple fact that De León rooms with a senator accused of harassment will be hard to ignore.
Voters will wonder, “What did they do in the apartment?” she predicted. “Did they put a sock on the door?”
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI December 6, 2017
California flooding, sea-level rise linked
BY SOPHIA BOLLAG POSTED 11.15.2017 TWITTERFACEBOOKEMAIL As officials in Washington try to repair the nation’s flood insurance program, scientists in California are grappling with a looming threat that will complicate flooding hazards in the state: sea-level rise.
Creeping ocean waters are already flooding coastal areas more frequently and eroding sea cliffs more rapidly. They’re also worsening damage from extreme weather events like high tides and torrential rains. Flooding issues will worsen as sea levels rise, Griggs said, both in coastal regions and inland areas. Scientists can’t predict exactly how much sea levels will rise over time because there are too many unknown factors, particularly how much more climate-warming greenhouse gas humans will produce, said Gary Griggs, a geologist at UC Santa Cruz who studies the coast.
Some parts of the coast will experience greater sea level rise than others. Ocean levels don’t change uniformly along the entire California coast due to geographical variation, but the whole coastline will be affected as sea levels rise. Griggs and a team of other scientists published a report on California sea-level rise in April. In the most extreme scenario they considered, they projected sea levels could rise over 10 feet by the end of the century.
Flooding issues will worsen as sea levels rise, Griggs said, both in coastal regions and inland areas where water systems will also be impacted by rising ocean levels.
Congress faces a December deadline to reauthorize the National Flood Insurance Program, which provides flood coverage to millions of Americans. The program relies on floodplain maps many criticize as out-of-date. The program is billions of dollars in debt, and congressional leaders have said they plan to overhaul it as part of the reauthorization process. “Mother Nature doesn’t read flood maps.” — Frank Mansell When studying flood risk in parts of California, Griggs said he has found some federal maps of flood zones to be “way off” and not reflective of flood risks from sea-level rise.
Flood maps are costly and take three to five years to create, said Frank Mansell, a spokesman for the Federal Emergency Management Agency in California. Although some parts of the maps have “phenomenal” accuracy, some may be out of date because flood zones change constantly with new construction and environmental changes. “Sometimes they’re out of date by the time you finish revising,” he said, adding that, even when they’re accurate, “mother nature doesn’t read flood maps.”
The maps don’t account for sea-level rise projections because they reflect only current conditions, Mansell said.
At the state level, California lawmakers have had numerous discussions about sea-level rise, but have done little in the way of actual policy. Opponents say Stone’s bill infringes on Californians’ right to protect their property from ocean rise by building sea walls. “The Legislature hasn’t really done that much other than worry about it a little bit,” said Assemblyman Mark Stone, a Democrat whose coastal district includes Santa Cruz and Monterey. “It’s going to have a dramatic impact on homeowners along the coast.”
This year, Stone introduced a bill he says is the first major piece of state legislation to adapt the coast to sea-level rise. His bill, AB1129, would give the state more power over sea walls, which can protect properties from ocean rise but can shrink beaches and shift problems to other coastal areas.
The effort has proven to be a “struggle” because changing local land use rules is politically unpopular, Stone said. The bill didn’t make it out of the Assembly, the house where it originated. Stone said he will continue to try to pass the bill next year. It must clear both houses of the Legislature and secure approval from the governor to become law.
Opponents say Stone’s bill infringes on Californians’ right to protect their property from ocean rise by building sea walls.
“We think that it’s unfair to property owners to have the government approve developments, allow people to move in and then turn around and not allow for the protection of those properties from erosion,” a representative from the California Association of Realtors said at a committee hearing on the bill earlier this year. “AB1129 works against communities and property owners trying to protect themselves against rising sea levels”
Moving forward, Stone says the Legislature needs to give resources to local communities to help them address sea-level rise.
Rising ocean levels also threaten major public infrastructure, particularly structures intentionally built at sea level near the coast, such as power plants and sewage treatment facilities. The airports in San Francisco and Oakland that are built on landfill also face catastrophic damage from sea- level rise.
Griggs said he is aware of only a handful of projects to move infrastructure away from the coast. The structures being moved are mostly roads and parking lots in areas with space nearby to relocate them. He described the projects as positive, but “low hanging fruit.” More substantial changes will require greater political will.
“It’s a lot easier to talk about it than it is to take that first step,” Griggs said. “It keeps creeping up on us.”
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI December 6, 2017
Repeal gas tax or end revenue for road repairs? It’s the same ballot measure
By Bob Egelko / November 13, 2017
Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, Associated Press In this photo taken Monday, Oct. 30, 2017, gasoline prices are displayed at a Chevron station in Sacramento, Calif. Gasoline taxes will rise by 12 cents per gallon Wednesday, Nov., 1, to raise money for fixing roads and highways. It is the first of several tax and fee hikes that will take effect after they were approved by the Legislature earlier this year. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli)
The future of California’s new fuel tax — 12 cents a gallon for gasoline, 20 cents for diesel fuel — is likely to go before the voters in November 2018. What’s less clear is whether the official title on the state ballot pamphlet, an important source of voter information, will start by saying it “repeals taxes” or “eliminates ... revenues” for transportation and road repair. Both descriptions are accurate. Which one will accompany a Republican-sponsored initiative to repeal the tax, as of January 2019, is a question now before a state appeals court in Sacramento. The justices must weigh their duty to inform the voters against the authority provided by law to Attorney General Xavier Becerra, whose office prepares the title and summary for every proposed ballot measure.
Becerra, a Democrat, drafted a title for the initiative that referred only to its impact on repair programs and revenue, though his more-detailed summary that followed listed each tax that would be repealed. In September, a Sacramento County judge, in an unusual but not unprecedented action, found the title misleading and rewrote it to lead with the gas tax repeal.
The attorney general’s office challenged the judge’s action to the Third District Court of Appeal.
Photo: Paul Chinn, The Chronicle Anthony Ballester and others protest California’s 12-cent gas tax increase in San Francisco on Nov. 4. The tax is intended to help the state repair roads.
“Courts have stated that considerable deference must be afforded to the attorney general’s title and summary,” lawyers from Becerra’s office said in the filing. The judge, the lawyers said, “simply substituted (his) judgment for the judgment of the official vested by state law with the task.” On the other hand, the attorney general is also a politician, from the party that steered the gas tax through the Legislature. He was appointed to his current position by Gov. Jerry Brown, “the very governor who champions this” tax increase, to replace Kamala Harris after her election to the U.S. Senate, noted Benjamin Pugh, lawyer for Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach (Orange County), sponsor of the tax repeal initiative.
The new taxes and fees, signed into law by Brown in April, are intended to raise more than $5 billion a year to repair the state’s deteriorating streets and highways. Besides the gas tax, they include a vehicle registration fee of $25 to $175, depending on the value of the vehicle, starting next year, and a $100 fee on zero-emission vehicles, starting in 2020.
In a USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times poll conducted online among 1,504 Californians from Oct. 27 to Nov. 6, 54 percent said they would vote to repeal the tax.
Becerra’s title said the repeal initiative “eliminates recently enacted road repair and transportation funding by eliminating revenues dedicated for those purposes.”
In response to a lawsuit by Allen, a prospective Republican candidate for governor next year, Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley recast the title to say that the measure “repeals recently enacted gas and diesel taxes and vehicle registration fees. Eliminates road repair and transportation programs funded by these taxes and fees.”
But under state law, Becerra’s appeal of Frawley’s ruling automatically reinstated the attorney general’s language on initiative petitions, at least until the appellate court acts. Pugh said a speedy ruling is needed so that supporters will have a chance to collect 365,880 valid signatures and submit them by the June 28 deadline.
The title of a proposed ballot measure, written in all capital letters, and the summary that follows appear on signature-gathering petitions as well as the state ballot pamphlet, and represent most voters’ first view of the measure’s contents. Their importance was illustrated in 1996 in a dispute over Proposition 209, which eliminated any consideration of race or sex in state education, employment and contracting programs. Then-Attorney General Dan Lungren, a Republican who supported Prop. 209, gave it a title and summary that said it prohibited “discrimination or preferential treatment” based on race or gender. In a suit by civil rights groups, a Sacramento judge ordered Lungren to also state that the measure would ban “affirmative action” for minorities — a ban that most Californians opposed, according to opinion polls.
The appeals court disagreed, saying Lungren had taken his wording from the text of the initiative, which did not mention affirmative action. Prop. 209 passed with 54.6 percent of the vote.
Other challenges to ballot titles have occasionally succeeded, and there have been a few unsuccessful legislative efforts to shift responsibility for titles and summaries to a less partisan office. The drafter of the current law that assigned those tasks to the attorney general says he now regrets it.
The Legislature’s nonpartisan fiscal analyst now does assessments of each ballot measure’s likely financial impact for the ballot pamphlet, and “we should have put them in charge of the titles as well,” attorney Robert Stern said. “The legislative analyst, as far as I can remember, has never been accused of playing politics.”
The law was part of the state’s Political Reform Act, a 1974 ballot measure that also regulated political contributions and spending. Stern helped to write it as legal counsel to then-Secretary of State Jerry Brown and later served as the first general counsel of the enforcement agency, the Fair Political Practices Commission.
He now teaches an extension class at UCLA, where Becerra appeared as a guest speaker last month and defended his role in writing the state’s official descriptions of ballot measures.
There is “no one who has more expertise on this than the attorney general’s office,” Becerra said, responding to questions by Stern. “It doesn’t make any difference to me if you’re a Republican or a Democrat. ... We are the attorney for the state.”
Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @egelko
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI December 6, 2017
Syria joins Paris climate accord, leaving only U.S. opposed
By Lisa Friedman / November 7, 2017
WASHINGTON — Then there was one.
Syria announced during U.N. climate talks Tuesday that it would sign the Paris agreement on climate change. The move, which comes on the heels of Nicaragua signing the accord last month, will leave the United States as the only country that has rejected the global pact.
According to several people who were in a plenary session at the climate talks in Bonn, Germany, a Syrian delegate announced that the country was poised to send its ratification of the Paris agreement to the United Nations.
“This is the very last country that actually announced, so everyone has joined and the U.S. is now so isolated,” said Safa Al Jayoussi, executive director of IndyAct, an environmental organization based in Lebanon that works with Arab countries on climate change.
A White House spokeswoman, Kelly Love, pointed reporters to a statement the administration made when Nicaragua joined the pact, noting there had been no change in the United States’ position.
“As the president previously stated, the United States is withdrawing unless we can re- enter on terms that are more favorable for our country,” the statement said.
President Trump announced in a Rose Garden speech this summer that the United States would quit the deal, calling it bad for the U.S. economy. The Paris agreement, struck in 2015 under former President Barack Obama, calls on nearly 200 countries to voluntarily curb greenhouse gas emissions. At the time, only Nicaragua and Syria did not join, for very different reasons.
Nicaraguan leaders argued that the deal did not go far enough toward keeping carbon emissions at safe levels and helping vulnerable countries protect themselves from the effects of climate change. But last month Daniel Ortega, Nicaragua’s president, and Rosario Murillo, his vice president and wife, said in a joint statement that the country would sign anyway. “The Paris agreement, despite not being the ideal agreement, is the only instrument that currently allows this unity of intentions and efforts,” they said.
Syria has been mired in a civil war since 2011. And because the Syrian government is subject to European and U.S. sanctions, its leaders were unable to send representatives abroad to negotiate or sign the pact.
It is not clear what has changed, and the Syrian delegate who spoke Tuesday did not offer an explanation for the government’s decision.
Syria has not yet submitted targets for cutting greenhouse gases. Syria produces only a tiny fraction of global emissions, but every country that is party to the accord, including poverty-stricken and war-torn nations and tiny islands, has produced a plan for cutting carbon output.
Under the rules of the Paris agreement, the United States cannot formally withdraw until late 2020. Until then, administration officials have said, they will continue to negotiate the terms of the deal, but they have not specified what changes would be sufficient for the United States to reconsider quitting. U.S. negotiators are attending the talks under way in Germany.
Lisa Friedman is a New York Times writer.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI December 6, 2017
Opinion: Democrats Go from the Window Ledge to Giddy
Walter Shapiro / Posted Nov 8, 2017 9:17 AM
For those Democrats who still revere the memory of Franklin Roosevelt, Tuesday night was a time for many lusty choruses of his theme song, “Happy Days Are Here Again.” In 48 hours, the Democrats have gone from the fetal crouch to giddy exuberance. New Jersey offered few surprises as former Goldman Sachs executive Phil Murphy bridged his Wall Street background to cruise to any easy victory over Chris Christie’s lieutenant governor, Kim Guadagno.
But in Virginia, Democrats had lived in mortal terror that the seemingly bland campaign of Lt. Gov. Ralph Northam would be no match for the Donald Trump-esque posturing of former Washington lobbyist and Republican national chairman Ed Gillespie.
Instead, Northam carried the state by a larger margin than Gov. Terry McAuliffe in 2013 or Hillary Clinton in 2016. Instead of fulminating about Latin American gangs, Gillespie probably would have done better had he emulated Haley Barbour, another former lobbyist and party chairman, who was elected Mississippi governor in 2003 promising to be a tireless lobbyist for his state.
Many will be tempted to over-hype Tuesday night’s results (including a Maine vote to expand Medicaid under Obamacare) as a precursor of a Democratic takeover of the House in 2018.
What is clear is that the northern Virginia suburbs have become as safely and as permanently Democratic as any major urban area. Northam’s vote percentage in Fairfax County (66.6 percent) was actually greater than New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio’s total (66.5 percent) in winning a second term. The anti-Trump fervor in northern Virginia should be particularly worrisome for endangered two-term GOP Rep. Barbara Comstock, who represents parts of Fairfax County and other Washington-area bedroom communities.
But there are also reasons for caution in extrapolating too much from the limited 2017 returns. Odd-year elections are like a crooked roulette wheel in a small town — everyone still bets because it’s the only game in town.
Here are just a few of the still unknown factors that could shape the 2018 elections:
• Will the economy still be healthy or have we dipped into the recession that is inevitable someday? • Will the Republicans pass a tax cut? If so, will middle-class voters feel that they have more take-home pay when the new 2018 withholding schedules are calculated? • What will be Donald Trump’s approval rating? Has the president risen above the 40- percent mark or drooped into pre-resignation Richard Nixon territory? • Will American be engulfed in a new war on the Korean peninsula or in the Middle East where the Saudis (egged on by Jared Kushner) seem to want to foment a crisis? • Has Trump opened up a new front in the never-ending culture wars — again forcing Americans to choose sides as they had to do with kneeling players in the NFL? • Will there be another terrorist attack like New York? If so, will Trump fan the flames of controversy or offer a more traditional presidential reaction? • Will the Democratic civil war between the establishment and the Bernie Sanders militants lead to divisive congressional primaries and unelectable nominees? • Will a continuing wave of Republican retirements put more once-safe GOP House seats into play? • And, perhaps most important of all, what will be the status of Robert Mueller’s investigation? Has he wrapped matters up with a few high-profile cases like Paul Manafort and maybe Michael Flynn? Or in November 2018 will Mueller be getting ever closer to Trump and his family?
That’s a lot of wills that can lead in a lot of ways. Anyone who thinks that the next 12 months will be a straight-line projection from today simply hasn’t been paying attention.
But Tuesday night’s Democratic wave has important short-run implications. There will be many rational Republicans wondering if Jeff Flake doesn’t have the right idea about how to behave in an age of Trump. Suddenly, the strategy politics of writing off a large chunk of college-education white voters, millennials and minorities seems like a dicey electoral proposition.
Just 48 hours ago, the biggest political story of the week was the publication of former interim Democratic chair Donna Brazile’s book, “Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns That Put Donald Trump in the White House.”
By revealing new details of a deliberate tilt towards Hillary Clinton by the DNC under Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Brazile’s campaign memoir aroused another wave of pro-Sanders conspiracy theories claiming that the 2016 primaries had been rigged. But, in truth, Brazile’s story underscores that the DNC was too broke and too inept to successfully rig anything, no matter how heavy-handed Wasserman Schultz’s efforts were.
To a large extent, the Democratic National Committee in 2016 was like a failed state on a map of the world. It looks impressive when all that you see on the map are its name and its borders. But its ability to govern itself and assert power over events can easily be exaggerated. Election Night 2017 proved to be an apt time to review the Faustian bargain that another party chairman, the GOP’s Reince Priebus, made with Trump in 2016. By embracing the bilious billionaire and cutting the Republican primary race short, Priebus was convinced that he had cleverly co-opted and tamed the outsider who took over the party.
Now a year after Trump’s unlikely victory, nobody has tamed the tiger. Priebus, in fact, has been carted off by Trump to the dustbin of history. And the Republicans are paying the price for their continuing alliance with an unpopular president whose only accomplishments have been spreading division and inspiring disdain.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI December 6, 2017
Governor Signs Toll Bill, Puts Comprehensive Traffic Relief Plan on Bay Area Ballot
Tuesday, October 10, 2017 Contact: John Goodwin, 415-778-5262 Rebecca Long, 415-778-5289
Governor Brown’s action today to sign into law Senate Bill 595 clears the way for Bay Area voters to decide – potentially as early as next June – on Regional Measure 3 (RM 3), which would raise tolls by up to $3 on the region’s seven state-owned toll bridges to finance the sweeping $4.5 billion package of congestion relief and mobility improvement projects identified in the bill. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), in its role as the Bay Area Toll Authority, is expected to decide by early 2018 when the RM 3 question will appear on ballots in the nine Bay Area counties. The Commission also will decide the amount of the proposed toll increase and whether the proposed increase would be instituted all at once or phased in over several years. The RM 3 expenditure plan provides mobility improvements in each of the region’s seven state-owned bridge corridors, helping to speed up commutes and provide better travel options, particularly for those traveling to major job hubs, such as San Francisco and Silicon Valley. The plan includes numerous congestion relief projects in the bridge corridors, including new express lanes, a direct freeway connector from northbound U.S. 101 to eastbound Interstate 580 in Marin County to improve access to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge as well as improvements to the westbound approach in Contra Costa County; constructing a direct connector between Interstates 680 and 880 in Fremont and improvements to the I-680/State Route 84 interchange in Alameda County serving the Dumbarton Bridge; upgrading the I-680/State Route 4 interchange in Contra Costa County serving the Benicia Bridge corridor and the U.S. 101/State Route 92 interchange in San Mateo serving the San Mateo-Hayward Bridge; various improvements to relieve congestion in the Dumbarton Bridge corridor and improve State Route 37 in Marin, Sonoma, Napa and Solano counties; completing the widening of U.S. 101 to three lanes in each direction through the Marin-Sonoma Narrows. Major public transit improvements that would be funded by the measure include 306 new BART cars that will expand the fleet to accommodate record ridership; new ferries and expanded service and terminals across San Francisco Bay; further extension of BART’s Silicon Valley service to downtown San Jose and Santa Clara; extending Caltrain to downtown San Francisco; expanding transbay bus service and AC Transit’s bus rapid transit lines serving the transbay corridor; extending the new SMART rail system to Windsor; and expanding San Francisco’s fleet of Muni Metro rail cars to improve transit access not just to San Francisco, but within it as well. RM 3 also would fund a $150 million grant program to improve bicycle and pedestrian access to regional transit hubs and to close gaps in the San Francisco Bay Trail. “Nobody likes higher tolls,” commented MTC Chair and Rohnert Park Mayor Jake Mackenzie. “But nobody likes traffic jams or crush-loaded train cars either. The Bay Area has been blessed by seven straight years of strong economic growth. But the price we’ve paid is the growing congestion on our freeways, railways and ferries. If our region is going to maintain its economic leadership, we have to invest in projects that will keep businesses and their workers moving. Gov. Brown and the state Legislature deserve a lot of credit for shaping RM 3 into a comprehensive and integrated strategy that will modernize both our highways and our transit networks.” For details on the complete range of investments that would be funded if a majority of voters in the nine Bay Area counties approve RM 3, click here. MTC is the transportation planning, financing, and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.
Related: Regional Measure, Regional Measure 3
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI December 6, 2017
Resolve public safety emergency by merging fire, parks districts
Bryan Scott East County Voters for Equal Protection / Oct 26, 2017
Fire Chief Brian Helmick and the firefighters of the East Contra Costa Fire Protection District (ECCFPD) do an outstanding job providing essential services to a 249-square-mile service area.
As a team and individually, they are doing a great job providing government services that are critical to the health and safety of our community. But our community has grown beyond the capability of our regional fire district and beyond the funding level established four decades ago. We now have cities of more than 60,000 and 40,000 people, with more residential and commercial development approved every month.
It is time for a change.
One idea that needs to be explored is the consolidation of the ECCFPD and the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD). That’s right. Our dangerously underfunded East County fire district can legally be combined with the much larger and much better funded parks district.
This has occurred elsewhere in California. The Ramona Fire Department was once an independent fire district in San Diego County. In 1981, it was combined with the Ramona Irrigation District to better serve the community’s needs. The community now consists of 75 square miles and 40,000 residents.
EBRPD now maintains a fire and emergency medical response department that includes 10 fire stations, 14 fire engines and trucks and a staff of 46 trained firefighters. The district has an urban search-and-rescue engine, which is used in the location, extrication and initial medical stabilization of victims trapped in confined spaces due to natural disasters, structural collapse, transportation accidents or collapsed mines and trenches. Also, the EBRPD helicopter is used for search and rescue and to rapidly transport critical patients from remote locations or to avoid delays in transport. It is also used to transport water and contain fires.
EBRPD also operates a fire academy for in-house training. The training includes extinguishing wildfires, structure fires and vehicle fires. Academy attendees learn hazardous material (hazmat) response and how to work in confined spaces like sewers and caves. They benefit from an Emergency Medical Service (EMS) program.
Compare these resources to the three fire stations, half a dozen fire engines and trucks and a staff of 35 firefighters operated by the ECCFPD.
For the last many years, EBRPD has expanded its facilities in eastern Contra Costa and Alameda counties. There are many facilities in the process of being developed but not yet open to the public. This expansion will require additional fire and emergency medical response services capability in an area served by and adjacent to the service area of ECCFPD, causing duplication of government services and inefficient expenditure of scarce government funds.
A merger of these two special districts would provide taxpaying residents more public safety protection for their tax dollar. By combining the resources of these two departments, assets can be deployed where they are needed more rapidly and a greater array of assets will be immediately available should the situation require them.
All taxpayers, all users of EBRPD facilities and all residents of the ECCFPD service area will benefit from the merger’s increased efficiencies.
The specific cost savings will come from reduction of management and administrative costs, improved training programs at reduced administrative cost for both districts, improved master planning at reduced costs and improved coverage through the better coordination of emergency medical response and fire suppression deployment.
Lives will be saved and less property will be lost to fire when the two government agencies are combined. The sooner this happens, the better for all California taxpayers. Brentwood resident Bryan Scott is co-chair of East County Voters for Equal Protection, a nonpartisan citizens action committee striving to improve funding for the ECCFPD. He can be reached at [email protected] or 925-418-4428. The group’s Facebook page is www.facebook.com/EastCountyVoters/.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment VI December 6, 2017
California GOP has a plan for beating Democrats, if it can unite
By Joe Garofoli / October 21, 2017 Updated: October 21, 2017 9:29pm
ANAHEIM — California Republicans may not have well-known candidates running for governor — or any candidate of note running for Senate next year. But they’re settling on a two-point game plan for trying to return to relevance in a state where they’re a super-minority in the Legislature, have no statewide officeholders and can count only 1 in 4 registered voters as being a fellow Republican.
Step 1: Lure voters to the polls with a statewide ballot measure next year with a populist call to rescind the gasoline tax intended to pay for the $50 billion in transportation improvements the Legislature passed in June.
Step 2: Convince voters that Democrats have overplayed their progressive ruling hand with moves like declaring California a sanctuary state —and then blame the majority party for how roughly 1 in 5 Californians lives in poverty.
Jim Brulte, the state GOP chairman, said it’s not going to be enough for Democrats to just be against President Trump, noting a July Washington Post/ABC News poll that found that 52 percent of adults believe the party’s main characteristic is opposition to Trump.
Echoing then-Vice President Joe Biden’s mockery of GOP candidate Rudy Giuliani’s one-note 2008 presidential campaign as being “a noun, a verb and 9/11,” Brulte said, “that’s where Democrats are now: a noun, a verb and Donald Trump.”
“In California, the reason they want to talk about Donald Trump is because they don’t want to talk about their record,” Brulte said at this weekend’s three-day California Republican Party convention in Anaheim that ends Sunday. But this plan may be easier to list than execute. The party remains at war with itself, both nationally and internally.
Former White House adviser — and self-described Trump “wingman on the outside” — Steve Bannon ripped Arizona Sen. John McCain, former President George W. Bush and top GOP consultant Karl Rove during his keynote speech Friday. Many in the audience booed Bannon’s mention of Bush and McCain.
Without mentioning his name, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy criticized Assemblyman Chad Mayes, R-Yucca Valley (San Bernardino County), on Saturday. Mayes was the top Republican in the Assembly until he was ousted in August for voting with Democrats to extend California’s landmark climate change law.
“My advice for Assembly members in Sacramento: You will not win the majority by thinking you can be Democrat lite,” said McCarthy, a Bakersfield Republican. “You will not win a majority by voting against your own principles on a Democratic policy. You will not win a majority if you’re concerned about standing behind a podium with a Democratic governor instead of giving freedom to Californians across this entire state.”
Mayes, meanwhile, told The Chronicle that he is so frustrated with the GOP candidates for statewide office that he is considering a run for the governor’s office if he does not seek re-election to the Assembly. He chose to go fishing this weekend with his brothers rather than attend the convention.
“I do believe that it is important for us as California Republicans to differentiate ourselves from national Republicans,” said Mayes, who anticipates making a final decision on a run for governor within a couple of weeks. “And the fact is that California Republicans are different from national Republicans” — citing in particular how many West Coast GOPers are concerned about climate change.
While Mayes acknowledged that many of the party’s activists — like the 1,500 who attended the convention — wouldn’t be sympathetic to him running for the state’s top job at first, “they don’t represent most California Republicans.”
But Republican National Committeewoman Harmeet Dhillon, a San Francisco attorney, said the party isn’t going to gain ground by mimicking Mayes, who she said was “practically sitting in the lap of the governor” on the climate change bill. “We can keep moving left to the point where we’re no different than the Democrats, and then what’s the point?” Dhillon asked.
Then there is the question about what Republican candidates should do about Trump, who is wildly unpopular in California and lost the state by 4.2 million votes to Democrat Hillary Clinton last year. Only 27 percent of the state’s voters approve of the president, according to a Public Policy Institute of California survey in September.
On Saturday, McCarthy tried to make the case for Trump, lauding his “character and vision and understanding.”
But some new candidates for statewide office aren’t ready to go there. Steven Bailey, a retired El Dorado County Superior Court judge who recently announced his candidacy for state attorney general, declined to say Saturday whether he had voted for Trump, saying that his vote was private, because he cast it as a sitting judge. He said there are some places where he agrees with Trump and some where he doesn’t.
Anti-tax advocate Grover Norquist, an influential national conservative thought leader as president of Americans for Tax Reform, said that’s the way Californians should handle questions about Trump. “You say, ‘I agree with him here, I don’t agree with him here, and here’s where I stand.’”
Assemblyman Travis Allen, R-Huntington Beach (Orange County), criticized his main GOP opponent for governor, Rancho Santa Fe businessman John Cox, for voting for former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, a Libertarian, last fall for president.
“Of course I voted for the Republican nominee for president,” Allen said Saturday on The Chronicle’s “It’s All Political” video podcast. “In my mind, if you didn’t vote for the Republican nominee for president, essentially that was a vote for Hillary Clinton. And that doesn’t really resonate very well with statewide Republicans.
“I think it’s incumbent for the next governor of California to have a good relationship with the White House for the benefit of all Californians. It doesn’t make sense to go poke this guy in the eye at every turn.”
Allen said he differs from Trump on “lots of things,” but he wouldn’t specify any policy differences he has with the president. Cox said he, like many during last year’s campaign, is concerned about whether Trump is truly a conservative. But, after seeing his actions in the White House, Cox said Saturday: “I’m convinced he is a conservative, and I probably should have voted for him.”
Even Charles Munger Jr., the wealthy Palo Alto physicist who has been one of the state party’s biggest donors over the past decade, demurred when asked if he thought Trump was doing a good job as president.
“I’m a California politics boy. I pay attention to California politics a whole lot,” Munger said. “My goal in assisting the administration there is to elect a lot more Republican congressmen. It’s something that we in California can reasonably do.”
What Allen and Cox and other California Republicans do agree on is that they hope their planned initiatives to repeal the gas tax will bring the party’s base out to vote next year. Even here, though, there is a split in the party. For months, Allen has been promoting a ballot measure that would roll back the tax. But last week, Cox announced he will be pouring “six figures” into a competing gas-tax-repeal measure directed at next year’s ballot.
Where California Republicans remain unified is that they are confident they can defend the congressional seats Democrats hope to flip in 2018. Bannon, who is funding challengers to Republicans around the country he deems insufficiently loyal to his brand of economic conservatism, didn’t say he would be doing that in California.
He said not to worry about being outspent by Democrats or outside groups.
“Everything you need to win you have,” Bannon said. “You can put together a grassroots army. You haven’t done it yet in California, but you can do it.”
Joe Garofoli is The San Francisco Chronicle’s senior political writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @joegarofoli