AGENDA BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, October 24, 2014 12:45 p.m., Peralta Oaks Board Room The following agenda items are listed for Committee consideration. In accordance with the Board Operating Guidelines, no official action of the Board will be taken at this meeting; rather, the Committee’s purpose shall be to review the listed items and to consider developing recommendations to the Board of Directors. AGENDA
STATUS TIME ITEM STAFF
12:45 p.m. 1. STATE LEGISLATION / ISSUES A. NEW LEGISLATION – N/A Doyle/Pfuehler
(R) B. ISSUES Doyle/Pfuehler 1. Proposition 1- State Water Bond 2. Proposition 48 –Referendum on Indian Gambling 3. Legislative Wrap up 4. Measure T- Dublin Open Space Initiative 5. Other issues
Doyle/Pfuehler II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / ISSUES
A. NEW LEGISLATION – N/A
(R) B. ISSUES Doyle/Pfuehler 1. Land and Water Conservation Fund – competitive grant application update 2. Other issues
III. ADVOCATE CONTRACT RENEWAL
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
V. ARTICLES
(R) Recommendation for Future Board Consideration (I) Information Future 2014 Meetings: November 21, 2014
(D) Discussion December 19, 2014
Legislative Committee Members: Doug Siden, Chair, Ted Radke, John Sutter, Whitney Dotson, Alternate Erich Pfuehler, Staff Coordinator
Distribution/Agenda Only Distribution/Agenda Only Distribution/Full Packet Distribution/Full Packet Distribution/Full Packet District: Public: District: Public: AGMs Judi Bank Director Whitney Dotson Carol Johnson Ann Grodin Yolande Barial Bruce Beyaert Director Beverly Lane Jon King Nancy Kaiser Afton Crooks Director Ted Radke Glenn Kirby Kristina Kelchner Robert Follrath, Sr. Director Doug Siden Mona Koa Connie Swisher Stana Hearne Director John Sutter Dr. George Manross Michael Kelley Director Carol Severin Jim O’Connor
Distribution/Agenda Only Distribution/Full Packet Distribution/Full Packet Public: District: Allen Pulido Norman LaForce Robert Doyle Carol Victor Dan Levy Tim Anderson Bob Nisbet Fred W. Lopez Pat O’Brien Carol Victor Peter Rauch Dave Collins Pete Wilson Tyrone Davis Doug Houston Cliff Rocha – Local 2428 Sharon Corkin – Local 2428
TO: Board Legislative Committee (Chair Doug Siden, Ted Radke, John Sutter and Alternate Whitney Dotson)
FROM: Robert E. Doyle, General Manager Erich Pfuehler, Government Relations and Legislative Affairs Manager
SUBJECT: Board Legislative Committee Meeting WHEN: Friday, October 24, 2014 - 12:45 p.m. Lunch will be served
WHERE: Board Room, Peralta Oaks ______
Items to be discussed: I. STATE LEGISLATION / ISSUES A. NEW LEGISLATION – N/A
B. ISSUES 1. Proposition 1 – State Water Bond The $7.5 billion water package will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot as Proposition 1. In August, both Democrats and Republicans voted nearly unanimously to put the water bond on the ballot. Prop. 1 has backing from Governor Jerry Brown and the legislature, as well as agricultural and conservation groups.
The allocation of the funding is as follows: $2.7 billion for water storage, potentially for new reservoirs $900 million for groundwater cleanup and monitoring $725 million for water recycling projects $1.5 billion for watershed restoration programs, such as increasing river flows for wildlife $200 million for storm water capture projects $395 million for statewide flood management, including delta flood protection projects * The state anticipates it would cost $360 million annually over 40 years to pay off the bond debt.
The $1.5 billion for watershed restoration programs could be a potential funding opportunity for the District.
Overall, the bond money is not tied to specific projects and deliberately left vague so the projects would go through a public competitive grant process. This was likely a reaction to the previous $11.1 billion measure which was seen as too “pork” laden. The vagueness also enables more entities to support the measure than will actually see any financial benefit from the final funding allocations. If the water bond passes, expect intense lobbying efforts over how the funds are spent.
Beside the Governor, and Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, supporters include: The Nature Conservancy, Audubon California, Natural Resources Defense Council, California League of Conservation Voters, Association of California Water Agencies, League of Cities and California State Association of Counties.
Opponents include: Center for Biological Diversity, Friends of the River, San Francisco Baykeeper and Restore the Delta.
Staff Recommendation: Watch
2. Proposition 48 – Referendum on Indian Gambling Prop. 48 asks voters to approve or reject a deal signed by the Governor and passed by the state legislature that would allow the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians to build a casino on a 305 acre plot of land about 30 miles northwest of Fresno.
In 2005, the North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians submitted a request to the federal government to acquire and put into trust about 305 acres of land in Madera County along Highway 99 for the purpose of establishing a casino with up to 2,000 slot machines. In 2011, the Federal government determined this would be in the best interest of the tribe and would not hurt the surrounding communities. The California Legislature passed AB 277, which approved the North Fork compact, as well as a compact with the Wiyot Tribe. The Wiyot compact does not allow the tribe to operate a casino, but allows the tribe to receive a portion of the revenue generated by North Fork's casino. Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill in July 2013. The Federal government issued final approval for the Wiyot compact in September 2013 and the North Fork compact in October 2013. A “yes” vote on Prop. 48 would allow the casino development to move forward. Governor Brown is a supporter.
Opponents of the measure argue Indian gaming should be only allowed on tribal reservation land. The 305 acre property is nearly 40 miles from the North Fork Rancheria’s reservation, leading to accusations of “reservation shopping.” The tribe claims this land historically served as part of their reservation in the 1850’s. The U.S. Department of Interior (DoI) agreed and determined the North Fork Rancheria tribe has a historical connection to the proposed gaming site.
Opponents include Senator Dianne Feinstein, other casino-owning tribes – including Table Mountain Rancheria whose casino is about 25 miles from the proposed North Fork site. A major funder of the opposition is New York-based Brigade Capital Management, an investment firm that backs the Chukchansi Gold Resort and Casino, another Indian Casino near the North Fork site.
Among the opponents are Citizens for a Sustainable Point Molate. The relevancy to the District is a successful “reservation shopping” effort precedent could be made here which could renew efforts for a casino at Point Molate.
Staff recommendation: Watch
3. Legislative Wrap up Advocate Doug Houston will provide a report about the end of the legislative session in Sacramento – including enactment of SB 1183 the District sponsored effort to authorize the collection of a vehicle registration surcharge for bicycle infrastructure purposes.
4. Measure T- Dublin Open Space Initiative Measure T on the Nov. 4 ballot puts the future of Doolan Canyon before Dublin voters, who will decide whether the city should annex the canyon. A yes vote opens the door to development; a no vote leaves Doolan outside city boundaries as the last bit of open space between Dublin and Livermore.
The Dublin City Council voted unanimously in June to exclude Doolan Canyon from the city’s urban growth limit, leaving it as unincorporated agricultural open space. Developers, however, moved forward with Measure T which is meant to confuse voters and to nullify the City Council adopted urban limit line.
Opponents include every Dublin city councilmember and planning commissioner, the Dublin Unified School District, the Dublin San Ramon Services District Board members, Tri-Valley Conservancy, Save Mount Diablo, the Sierra Club, Greenbelt Alliance, the Ohlone Audubon Society and the California Native Plant Society.
The District’s Doolan Canyon Preserve is adjacent to the proposed development site. Staff believe the existing urban growth limit is appropriate and consistent with District efforts to develop a positive park experience at Doolan Canyon.
Staff recommendation: Oppose
5. Other issues
II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / ISSUES A. NEW – N/A
B. ISSUES 1. Land and Water Conservation Fund – competitive grant application update The District has a $500,000 grant request before the National Park Service to help create the first staging area for Concord Hills Regional Park. The project would develop the 587 acres of the Alaimo property the District already owns off of Kirker Pass Road. Additional information about the application is included as attachments. Staff will provide an update about the grant application.
2. Other Issues
III. ADVOCATE CONTRACT RENEWAL Staff may bring forward proposed contract renewals for E2 Strategies and Agricultural Resources.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS
V. ARTICLES a. “Gov. Brown stars in ads for Propositions”, SF Gate, b. “Fixing the state’s flawed bay Delta Conservation Plan”, San Francisco Chronicle, September 25, 2014 c. “Proposition 48 pits Indian tribes against each other”, Contra Costa Times, October 10, 2014 d. “Railroads say California lacks authority to impose safety rules on oil shipments”, Capitol Alert, October 8, 2014 e. “Decision in Dublin: development or open space in canyon?”, SF Gate, October 3, 2014 f. “Chronicle recommends: Catharine Baker for Assembly”, SF Gate, September 24, 2014 g. “13th Congress could yield fewest laws in 60 years”, Roll Cal, September 22, 2014 h. “Proposition 1: Voters decide on $7.5 billion water bond”, SF Gate, September 21, 2014 i. “Poll: California water bond looking good to voters”, Contra Costa Times, September 10. 2014 j. “No, Barack Obama isn’t on the ballot this fall. Yes, he is hurting Democrats’ chances”, Washington Post, September 10. 2014 k. “Kashkari attacks Jerry brown on Tesla, teachers, ‘crazy train’ in spirited debate”, Contra Costa Times’ September 4, 2014 l. “Sen. Barbara Boxer knocks down resignation” SF Gate, September 5, 2014 m. “Hill aims to avoid shutdown drama”, Politico, September 7, 2014 n. “Congress returns: Here’s what’s on tap”, The Christian Science Monitor, September 8, 2014
The Water Quality, Supply and Infrastructure Improvement Act of 2014
Clean, Safe and Reliable Drinking Water ($520 Million) – Disadvantaged Communities $260 Million – Small Community Wastewater Treatment o priority for disadvantaged communities and public health hazards $260 Million – Safe & Affordable Drinking Water o priority for disadvantaged communities o $25 million for technical assistance program o $2.5 million for disadvantaged community matching funds Benefits for Disadvantaged Communities o cost sharing requirement (generally 50%) may be reduced or waived o minimum 10% for severely disadvantaged communities o 15% of funding allowed for technical assistance o technical assistance proportion may exceed 15% of grant
Protecting Rivers, Lakes, Coastal Waters and Watersheds ($1.495 Billion) $327.5 Million – Multibenefit Watershed Projects by State Conservancies $200 Million – Enhanced Stream Flows by Wildlife Conservation Board $100 Million – Urban Creek Restoration (Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers) $20 Million – Multibenefit Urban Watershed Projects by Competitive Grant $475 Million – Fulfilling State Obligations in Water Settlements $285 Million – Watershed Restoration Projects by Dept. of Fish & Wildlife $87.5 Million – Delta Water Quality & Ecosystem Restoration
Regional Water Security, Climate, and Drought Preparedness ($810 Million) $510 Million – Allocation to Each Hydrologic Region $100 Million – Urban and Agricultural Water Conservation $200 Million – Stormwater Management
Statewide Water Storage ($2.7 Billion) Continuous Appropriation to California Water Commission Public Benefits of Surface Water Reservoirs and Groundwater Aquifers Required 50% Non-State Cost-Share Required Ecosystem Improvement for Delta or Delta Tributaries
Water Recycling ($725 Million) Broad Range of Potential Projects – including desalination and water quality Required 50% Non-State Cost-Share (reduced/waived for disadvantaged communities)
Groundwater Sustainability & Cleanup ($900 Million) $100 Million – Groundwater Sustainability Planning & Projects $80 Million – Groundwater Cleanup for Drinking Water Source Required 50% Non-State Cost-Share (reduced/waived for disadvantaged communities)
Statewide Flood Management ($395 Million) $295 Million – Delta Levee Maintenance and Improvements $100 Million – Multibenefit Projects to Achieve Public Safety and Enhance Fish/Wildlife
ELEMENTS OF THE 2014 WATER BOND $7.545 Billion for Next-Generation Water Infrastructure
Invests in the Next Generation of Water Infrastructure Promotes New Technology – priority for “new or innovative technology” Funds Projects for the Future – water conservation, recycling, desalination Addresses Emerging Water Challenges – stormwater, groundwater cleanup Increases Regional Self-Reliance for Water Supply Encourages Cross-Agency Collaboration to Set Top Investment Priorities
Improves Drinking Water Quality Statewide Commits More than $1 BILLION to Improving Water Quality Restores Source Water Quality in Upstream Watersheds Allows for Water Quality Projects in Several Funding Categories o Safe Drinking Water o Protecting Rivers/Coast o Recycled Water o Groundwater Sustainability o Regional Water Security
Protects California’s Water Environment Restores Watersheds That Provide California’s Water Supply Allocates $1.495 Billion to Protect Rivers, Coast and Watersheds Funds Ecosystem Restoration Projects – The Delta, Watersheds, The Coast
Eliminates Earmarks for Specific Projects – Reduces Bond $3.5+ Billion Deleted Project-Specific Allocations from Previous Water Bond Limits Allocations to Specific Agencies with Defined Water Purposes Prohibits Legislature from Appropriating Money to Specific Projects Reduced Water Bond By 1/3 – $11.14 billion to $7.545 billion
Protects Disadvantaged Communities Most at Risk Allows Smaller Local Contributions for Water Quality Projects Creates Technical Assistance Program for Disadvantaged Communities Prioritizes State Funding on Needs of Disadvantaged Communities
Ensures Accountability of State Expenditures Requires Audits and Public Reporting of Water Bond Expenditures Establishes Competitive Grant/Loan Programs – with public guidelines Requires Formal and Public Process for Water Transfers
2014 LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTIONS Attachment 1.B.3
2013 Date Bill Resolution wording Author Board Resolution No. Current Status Position
5.6.14 Resolution to support the The new Essential Health Care Service Tax Ordinance for Alameda Support 2014‐05‐109 Current Status: 9/26/14 Alameda County Essential County (Measure AA)( provides much‐needed resources for medical Chaptered by Secretary of Health Care Service Tax services to communities of need and Measure AA is an extension of State ‐ Chapter 604, Ordinance Measure A approved by 71% of county voter in 2004 and Measure Statutes of 2014. AA has demonstrated a track record of providing services to those most in need and deep cuts have been made at the state level in health care services and will not be fully restored in the new term and the District's support for healthy communities is embedded in the Healthy Parks Healthy People initiative and the District is partnering with some of the beneficiaries of this ordinance.
5.6.2014 Resolution to Support the The Rodeo‐Hercules Fire District is responsible for fire protection, Support 2014‐05‐110 Rodeo‐Hercules Fire emergency response and emergency medical services in the District communities of Rodeo and Hercules and the District owns seven parcels within the Fire District's service Area and as a property owner, has a vote on a proposed assessment and the District would incur costs of between $25 and $50 a year over the next 20 years if the assessment is approved.
6.17.14 AB 2193 ‐ Habitat AB 2193 provides the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife (DFW) a mechanism Gordon Support 2014‐06‐149 Current Status: 9/26/14 Restoration and to more efficiently support voluntary, small‐scale creek and Chaptered by Secretary of Enhancement Act watershed restoration efforts, and the legislation also sets up a State ‐ Chapter 604, mechanism for DFW to accept public, private and/or individual Statutes of 2014. Current funding for these purposes and the funding mechanism‐The Habitat Location: 9/26/14 A‐ Restoration and Enhancement Account could be beneficial to the CHAPTERED District's work on urban creek, Bay shoreline and Delta restoration projects.
6.17.14 ACR 96 ‐ The 150th This measure would recognize the 150the Anniversary of the Olsen Support 2014‐06‐150 Current Status: 9/9/14 anniversary of the California State Park System and would urge all Californians to join in Chaptered by Secretary California State Park celebrating this important anniversary of State - Chapter No. System. 153. Current Location: 9/9/14 A-CHAPTERED 2014 LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTIONS Attachment 1.B.3
2013 Date Bill Resolution wording Author Board Resolution No. Current Status Position
6.14.14 ACR 130 ‐ “Parks Make Life ACR 130 would designate the month of July 2014 at Parks make Life Rendon Support 2014‐05‐151 Current Status: 7/7/14 Better!” Month. Better month and the resolution recognizes the important role parks Chaptered by Secretary of play in reducing obesity, increasing physical activity and reducing State ‐ Chapter No. 83. health care costs and is supported by the CA Parks and Recreation Current Location: 7/7/14 Society and is consistent with the District's Healthy Parks Healthy A‐CHAPTERED People initiative.
6.17.14 HR 188 ‐ 21st Century The 21st Century Civilian Conservation Corps Act (CCCA) is a job Kaptur Support 2014‐06‐152 Current Status: Civilian Conservation Corps creation program for unemployed and underemployed civilians to 04/23/2013 Referred to Act advance useful public works projects aimed at safeguarding natural the Subcommittee on resources, and developing new transportation and infrastructure and Higher Education and this concept had been embraced by Interior Secretary Sally Jewell as Workforce Training. the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps (21CSC) to addresses job training needs.
6.17.14 HR 750 ‐ To award Congressional Gold Medal for Stewart Lee Udall. This legislation Thompson Support 2014‐06‐153 Current Status: posthumously a posthumously awards a Congressional Gold Medal to Stewart Lee 02/15/2013 Referred to Congressional Gold Medal Udall in recognition of his contributions to the Nation as a hero for House Financial Services to Stewart Lee Udall the environment, a champion for conservation, a civil rights activist, a Native American crusader and an advocate for the arts.
6.17.14 HR 956 ‐ Personal Health Personal Health Investment Today (PHIT) Act of 2013 ‐ PHIT Act Kind Support 2014‐06‐154 Current Status: 5/2013 Investment Today Act of amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow a medical care tax Referred to House 2013 deduction for up to $1,000 ($2,000 for married couples filing jointly) committee. Status: for expenditure accounts know as Flexible Spending Accounts and Referred to the House Health Savings Accounts on preventative physical activity fees, such Committee on Ways and as park sponsored recreation programs, youth camps, memberships Means. at a recreation or fitness facilities, youth and adult sports league fees, exercise classes, etc. 2014 LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTIONS Attachment 1.B.3
2013 Date Bill Resolution wording Author Board Resolution No. Current Status Position
AB 1193 ‐New Class IV Assembly Member Phil Ting has introduced legislation to add a new Ting Support Bikeway Designation class of bikeways – Class IV (also known as ‘cycletracks’ or ‘protected Current Status: 9/20/14 bike lanes’) – which will require the California Department of Chaptered by Secretary of Transportation (Caltrans) to develop minimum safety design criteria State ‐ Chapter 495, for bike lanes on or directly adjacent to existing roadways. Statutes of 2014. Cuurent location:9/20/14 A‐ CHAPTERED 9.02.14 Transportation Ala. C. Transportation Commission (ACTC) Transportation Ala. Co. Support 2014‐09‐219 Expenditure Plan (TEP) Expenditure Plan consists of programs and projects which provide Transportat critical multi‐modal transportation solutions to expand travel choices ion and relieve congestion throughout the county, as well as reducing Commission greenhouse gas emissions. 's
9.02.14 HR 5220 ‐No More Land Act Over the 50 years of the Land and Water Conservation Act's history, Graves Oppose 2014‐09‐220 Current Status: the District has received over $8 million in funding for land 08/11/2014 Referred to acquisition and maintenance and the District is working with national the Subcommittee on partners to ensure the Act is reauthorized and fully funded. HR 5220 Conservation, Energy, and restricts the use of LWCF dollars to maintenance and prohibits the Forestry. use of LWCF dollars for land acquisition and the legislation requires a 20% reduction in the dollar value of backlogged maintenance within five years and requires penalties if those reduction targets are not met.
9.02.14 SB 633 ‐ State Parks California's state park system is a major asset for the state deserving Pavley Support 2014‐09‐221 Current Status: 9/27/14 of investment and a long‐term strategy to ensure their stewardship Vetoed by the Governor. well into the future and SB 633 will require the Department of Parks Current Location: 9/27/14 an recreation to report to the Legislature on various activities S‐VETOED relating to revenue generation, cost savings, transparency and the promotion of state parks. Attachment 1.B.4
SAVE DOOLAN CANYON – NO ON MEASURE T
Paid for by Save Dublin Open Space, No on Measure T
This past spring a coalition of community and environmental groups collected signatures to qualify the Dublin Open Space Initiative of 2014. In June the city council adopted our urban limit line measure, which protects Doolan and Collier Canyons east of town and Dublin’s western hills.
But developers also qualified a competing measure which they cynically called Let Dublin Decide (even though it would take development plans out of the hands of voters) which would allow their 2,000‐unit development in Doolan Canyon. If we lose Doolan, we’ll lose other areas too.
We have to defeat their plan, now called Measure T, on November 4th in order to protect our new urban limit line and our hard‐won victory for recreation, nature, and limits to development and traffic.
So we’re running a campaign to stop Measure T. No on Measure T – It’s the Developer’s Plan. We need your help and your financial support. Come see how you can help.
Help us keep the last green space between the cities of Dublin and Livermore. We need your help to defend our open space. Attachment II.B.1 New Concord Hills Regional Park – The Project In partnership with NPS, the East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy (HCP) and the City of Concord Community Re- use Project, EBRPD will develop the first public access to a new 3,500 acre Concord Hills Regional Park. This is a unique opportunity to establish a new regional park that connects
local communities to established State and National Parks, as well as other protected lands. It links the historic Native American history of Mount Diablo State Park with the African American history of the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial. The new regional park will also be linked to the entire Bay Area through Bay Area Rapid Transit Converting Navy Property to Parkland (BART). The inland area of the Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) was created by the Navy in the 1940s during The Land and Water Conservation Fund grant project World War II to provide munitions storage capacity in the request of $500,000 will help create the park’s first staging wake of the Port Chicago explosion of July 17, 1944. The area entrance, install interpretive panels, and establish access 5,028 acres was deactivated in 1997 and declared surplus for approximately two miles of trail on 587 acres of property property by the Navy in 2007. In 2016, the National Park currently owned by EBRPD in advance of the 2,540 acres to Service (NPS) will convey 2,540 acres to the East Bay be conveyed by NPS from the CNWS to EBRPD, and Regional Park District (EBRPD) for the creation of a new approximately 400 additional acres of property to be given to park. EBRPD from the adjacent landfill.
Sacramento – Port Chicago Naval Browns Island Bay Point Regional San Joaquin Delta Magazine National Memorial Regional Preserve Shoreline (EBRPD) (Within Active Army Base) (EBRPD) Bay Point (pop: 25,000)
Pittsburg (pop: 65,000) Antioch (pop: 110,000) East Contra Costa County Habitat Port Chicago Conservation Plan Area Visitor Center (proposed) Concord Hills Regional Park PPPRRROOOJJJEEECCCTTT Concord SSSIIITTTEEE Concord Black Diamond Mines (pop: 120,000) Regional Preserve (EBRPD)
Connections to established Regional Parks, State Parks, and Habitat Conservation Area Transit Connections to Bay Area Rapid Transit Access to proposed Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial Visitor Center Mount Diablo Significant Park Connections to Currently State Park Underserved Communities of Concord, (Ca. State Park) Pittsburg, Bay Point, and Antioch
Serving an Unmet Need Economic Benefits of the Grant Project Concord is the largest city in Contra Costa County with a The Project provides trails linking parks and other outdoor population of over 120,000 people. Development of the recreation areas from the North Concord BART station Concord Reuse Project is expected to add an additional where a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) project is 30,000 people. It is the only city in the county without a planned. The Project leverages over $2 billion in major TOD, regional park within or adjacent to its city limits. More than mixed use housing and jobs development as part of the 45% of Concord’s population is considered minority and of Concord Naval Weapons Station Re-use Plan. this total, 29% are Latino. The other adjacent City of Environmental Benefits of the Grant Project Pittsburg has a population of 67,000. Pittsburg has a very The property provides habitat for the endangered California diverse population with 63% minority, and of this total over Tiger Salamander and California Red Legged Frog. The 42% are Latino. The community of Bay Point, immediately Project is part of the East Contra Costa County Habitat east of the Project, has a poverty rate of over 30%, and 55% Conservation Plan / Natural Community Conservation Plan of the population is Latino. In addition, these cities and all of (HCP/NCCP). Under the HCP, up to 30,300 acres of land East Contra Costa County are becoming increasingly more will be managed for the benefit of 28 species as well as the diverse and experiencing significant growth in affordable natural communities. The HCP provides California housing units. Environmental Quality Act and endangered species permitting
for the Project.
Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial – National Park Service Partnership President Obama established the first National Park under his Presidency with the signing of the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial Enhancement Act on October 29, 2009. The authorizing legislation, introduced by Congressman George Miller and Senator Barbara Boxer, recognizes the largest home front disaster of World War II at the site of a waterfront explosion that killed more than 300 Grant Project meets core soldiers. The tragic event had the powerful outcome of State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Priorities ultimately leading to the integration of the military. Community revitalization and economic development o Concord community Re-use Project for the Concord Naval Weapons Station o Eastern Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP National-level comprehensive o National Park Service Public Benefit Conveyance of Concord Naval Weapons Station to EBRPD o EBRPD to provide staging area and facilitate access to the National Park Service Port Chicago Memorial Local Parks and Recreation o EBRPD’s 2013 Master Plan o Concord Naval Weapons Station Neighborhood Alliance open space goals Access to the site, however, remains limited to the general A Trusted Partner – 80 Years of public due to its location on an active military base—the Connecting Parks to People Military Ocean Terminal Concord operated by the U.S. Army. Established in 1934, 30 years prior to the Land and Water The 2009 legislation specifically authorized NPS to work in Conservation Act, EBRPD has successfully completed 30 partnership with EBRPD to increase education and public LWCF funded projects totaling $6.4 million. In addition, awareness about the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National EBRPD completed $9.5 million on 93 federally funded Memorial. A Memorandum of Understanding was signed projects in 2010. EBRPD earned a highly competitive between the two agencies in February 2012. Federal TIGER II $10.2 million transportation grant in 2010 Contact: Erich Pfuehler, Legislative Affairs with all projects to be completed on time. EBRPD has a (510) 544-2006; [email protected] long record of supporting the LWCF program and its’ General Manager testified before Congress in support of the East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court competitive grant program in 2011. Oakland, CA 94605 www.ebparks.org 1-888-EBPARKS
([ongre£ul of tije llInitell §tateg llma.sl1iltgtolt , ilQt 20515 September 23,2014
Director Jonathan Jarvis National Park Service 1849 C Street NW Washington, DC 20240
Dear Director Jarvis:
We appreciate all the work the National Park Service (NPS) has done to COlmect parks to people. We support your continued leadership in the creation of the new Concord Hills Regional Park. We strongly urge NPS to consider East Bay Regional Parks' (EBRPD) recent application for a Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) national competitive grant to develop the first public access to this new 3,500 acre park.
For 80 years, EBRPD has been a steward of the natural and cultural resources that make the East San Francisco Bay Region a wonderful place to live. EBRPD manages over 114,000 acres of open space and 1,200 miles of trails which provide a key outlet for the public to engage in healthy living practices. The new Concord Hills Regional Park would meet an essential, yet cunently unmet, need by providing the County's largest city its first regional park. The impending reuse of the five square mile inland area ofthe former Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) represents a significant opportunity for Concord and for the region. The local community strongly supports reusing the area as a park, which would serve over 200,000 people - including underserved communities in nearby Pittsburg and Bay Point.
EBRPD has taken a leadership role in collaboration with 18 community organizations, the National Park Service, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Conservancy and the City of Concord Community Re-Use Authority, to provide an innovative solution to ensure that Concord residents and visitors have ready access to a regional park. This project will create jobs and, once completed, will provide an invaluable outdoor access point and recreation service to the economically-disadvantaged communities in the NOlih Concord, Bay Point and Pittsburg areas. We strongly urge NPS to fully consider EBPRD's application for this grant and look forward to its acceptance by both State Parks and the National Park Service.
Sincerely,
Member of Congress
~H~ JA Member of Congress cc: Lisa Mangat, Acting Director California Department of Parks and Recreation The Honorable Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior The Honorable Mike Connor, Deputy Secretary of the Interior PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER illollgrc£l£l of tl1c lItllitcll §tutC£l liNasl1illgtnn, 1!I
Director Jonathan Jarvis National Park Service 1849 C Street NW Washington, DC 20240
Dear Director Jarvis:
We appreciate all the work the National Park Service (NPS) has done to connect parks to people. We support your continued leadership in the creation of the new Concord Hills Regional Park. We strongly urge NPS to consider East Bay Regional Parks' (EBRPD) recent application for a Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) national competitive grant to develop the first public access to this new 3,500 acre park.
For 80 years, EBRPD has been a steward of the natural and cultural resources that make the East San Francisco Bay Region a wonderful place to live. EBRPD manages over 114,000 acres of open space and 1,200 miles of trails which provide a key outlet for the public to engage in healthy living practices. The new Concord Hills Regional Park would meet an essential, yet currently unmet, need by providing the County's largest city its first regional park. The impending reuse of the five square mile inland area of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station (CNWS) represents a significant opportunity for Concord and for the region. The local community strongly supports reusing the area as a park, which would serve over 200,000 people - including underserved communities in nearby Pittsburg and Bay Point.
EBRPD has taken a leadership role in collaboration with 18 community organizations, the National Park Service, the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Conservancy and the City of Concord Community Re-Use Authority, to provide an irulOvative solution to ensure that Concord residents and visitors have ready access to a regional park. This project will create jobs and, once completed, will provide an invaluable outdoor access point and recreation service to the economically-disadvantaged communities in the North Concord, Bay Point and Pittsburg areas. We strongly urge NPS to fully consider EBPRD's application for this grant and look forward to its acceptance by both State Parks and the National Park Service.
Sincerely,
Member of Congress
DVQ ~~ Attachment II.B.1.a MIKET H S ~ 11' Member of Congress Melttber of Congress
cc: Lisa Mangat, Acting Director California Department of Parks and Recreation The Honorable Sally Jewell, Secretary of the Interior The Honorable Mike Connor, Deputy Secretary of the Interior PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Attachment II.B.1c
Port Chicago Disaster Commemoration and National Park Service Centennial Celebration
July 17, 2016
“Honoring the Past, Celebrating Present Success, and Planning for the Future”
On July 17th, 2016, the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial will commemorate the 72nd anniversary of the Port Chicago disaster. The year, 2016, will also mark the 100th anniversary of the National Park System.
The Port Chicago disaster was the largest home front disaster of World War II and the events that followed served as a catalyst for the desegregation of the United States military. On July 17th, 1944, a munitions explosion at the Port Chicago Naval Magazine in Port Chicago, California, resulted in the deaths of 320 sailors and civilians, and many more injuries. Most of the Navy Stevedore loading munitions at Port dead and injured were enlisted African-American sailors. Chicago Naval Magazine.
A month later, continuing unsafe conditions inspired hundreds of servicemen to refuse to load munitions, an act known as the Port Chicago Mutiny. Fifty men—called the "Port Chicago 50"—were convicted of mutiny and sentenced to long prison terms. Widespread publicity surrounding the case turned it into a major cause among African Americans and white Americans; it and other race-related Navy protests of 1944–1945 led the Navy to change its practices and initiate the desegregation of its forces beginning in February 1946. In 1994, the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial was dedicated to the lives lost in the disaster. The National Memorial became an official unit of the National Park Service in October, 2009, with legislation authored by Congressman George Miller.
The commemoration of the Port Chicago disaster and celebration of the National Park Service centennial provides an opportunity to host an event that will properly acknowledge the national significance of explosion at Port Chicago and the subsequent events while honoring the agency that preserves and interprets its history.
In 2016, the East Bay Regional Park District is also scheduled to Pier 1 aftermath of the explosion at Port receive a Public Benefit Conveyance of 2,540 acres of the inland Chicago Naval Magazine area of the former Concord Naval Weapons Station through the National Park Service’s Federal Lands to Parks Program. The inland area of the Concord Naval Weapons Station was acquired in the wake of the Port Chicago explosion to provide greater storage capacity in an effort to provide safer working conditions for enlisted men, merchant marines, and civilians working at the military facility. The East Bay Regional Park District is proceeding with planning for establishing the Concord Hills Regional Park on the site.
The East Bay Regional Park District is partnering with the National Park Service to establish a joint visitor center that can interpret the significance of the events of the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial within the future Concord Hills Regional Park. The current memorial site is located within an active Army base and remains restricted to public access. The proposed joint visitor center within the Concord Hills Regional Park will enable the history of Port Chicago and the significance of the events that followed, including the desegregation of the military, to be told to a broad audience. Congressman George Miller at the Ribbon Cutting of the Port Chicago Naval Magazine The East Bay Regional Park District is also currently working to National Memorial, July 17, 2010 win a Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) grant through the National Park Service. The grant would be used to establish the first public access to the Concord Hills Regional Park.
The National Park Service and East Bay Regional Park District are partnering to host an event on July 17, 2016, on the site of the proposed visitor center that will commemorate the Port Chicago Disaster, celebrate the centennial of the National Park Service, honor the Public Benefit Conveyance and establishment of a new Regional Park, and, if the LWCF grant is awarded, mark the construction of the first public access to the Concord Hills Regional Park. This event will also provide the first opportunity to engage the public onsite in a manner that will build support Views of Mount Diablo and Oak Woodlands for, and plan for the future of, the proposed Port Chicago Naval near proposed Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial Visitor Center site
A Partnership Between:
2950 PERALTA OAKS COURT · P.O. BOX 5381 · OAKLAND · CA · 94605-0381 T. I 888 EBPARKS F. 510 569 4319 TOO. 510 6)) 0460 WWW.EBPARKS.ORG
Magazine National Memorial Visitor Center and the Concord Hills Regional Park.
Bo Ayn Wieskamp Whitney DotsOn Ted Radke Doug Siden Beverly Lane Carol ~~nn John Sutter Robert E. Doyle President Vice-President Treasurer Secreo:ary Ward 6 Ward 3 Woo'" 2 General Manager Ward 5 Ward I Ward 7 Word " Attachment II.B.1.d Talking Points for National Park Service and 2016 events The East Bay Regional Park District has a Land and Water Conservation Fund competitive grant application of $500,000 pending before NPS. The project would develop the first public access to a new 3,500 acre Concord Hills Regional Park. The new Regional Park will connect local, diverse communities of Concord, Bay Point and Pittsburg with existing National and State Parks – Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial and Mount Diablo State Park. This project would be the initial phase in the partnership between NPS and the Park District gearing up for the 100th Anniversary of NPS in 2016. The LWCF project would be complete in 2016. In 2016, the Park District is scheduled to receive a Public Benefit Conveyance from NPS of 2,540 acres of the inland area of the Concord Naval Weapons Station. On July 17th, 2016 the Port Chicago Naval Magazine National Memorial will commemorate the 72nd anniversary of the Port Chicago disaster. At the event, NPS, the Park District and Friends of Port Chicago, could announce the launching of a capital campaign for a joint visitor center as recommended in the legislation to establish Port Chicago as a unit of the NPS. Attachment V . Board Legislative Committee October 24, 201 November 2014 election recommendations from the Contra Costa Times/Oakland Tribune editorial board Contra Costa Times/Oakland Tribune 07/21/2014 01:00:00TED: 10/14/2014 07:23:00 PM PDT Statewide Governor: Jerry Brown (D) Editorial /Brown video / Neel Kashkari video Lieutenant Governor: Gavin Newsom (D) Editorial / Newsom video / Ron Nehring video Controller: Ashley Swearengin (R) Editorial / Swearengin video / Betty Yee video Secretary of State: Pete Peterson (R) Editorial Treasurer: John Chiang Editorial / Chiang video / Greg Conlon video Attorney General: Kamala Harris (D) Editorial / Harris video / Ron Gold video Superintendent of Public Instruction: Marshall Tuck (D) Editorial / Tuck video / Tom Torlakson video Board of Equalization: No endorsement Editorial / Fiona Ma video Insurance Commissioner: Dave Jones (D) Editorial / Jones video / Ted Gaines video U.S. House Dist. 9: Jerry McNerney (D) Editorial / Video Dist. 11: Mark DeSaulnier (D): Editorial / Video Dist. 15: Eric Swalwell (D) Editorial Dist. 17: Ro Khanna (D) Editorial State Legislature State Senate Dist. 10: Bob Wieckowski (D) Editorial State Assembly Dist. 15: Tony Thurmond (D) Editorial / Video Dist. 16: Catharine Baker (R) Editorial and our video / LWV video Regional races AC Transit, at-large: No endorsement Editorial AC Transit, Ward 4: Murphy McCalley Editorial AC Transit, Ward 5: Jeff Davis: Editorial EBMUD, Ward 3: Katy Foulkes: Editorial BART, District 4: Robert Raburn: Editorial / Video East Bay Regional Park District, Ward 5: Ayn Wieskamp Editorial / Video East Bay Regional Park District, Ward 7: Diane Burgis Editorial / Video Local races Alameda County Cities Berkeley City Council, District 1: Linda Maio Editorial Berkeley City Council, District 7: Kriss Worthington Editorial Berkeley City Council, District 8: Jacquelyn McCormick Editorial Dublin Mayor: Kasie Hildenbrand Editorial Dublin City Council: Abe Gupta, Don Biddle Editorial Fremont City Council: Dirk Lorenz, Lily Mei Editorial / Video Livermore City Council: Bob Woerner, Steven Spedowfski Editorial Newark Mayor: Alan Nagy Editorial Newark City Council: Michael Hannon, Mark Gonzales Editorial Oakland Mayor (In rank order): 1. Joe Tuman, 2. Libby Schaaf, 3. Rebecca Kaplan Editorial Tuman video / Schaaf video / Kaplan video / Courtney Ruby video / Bryan Paker video / Dan Seigel video / Jean Quan video Oakland City Council, District 2 (In rank order) 1. Dana King, 2. Kevin Blackburn, 3. Abel Guillen: Editorial / Video Oakland City Council, District 4 (In rank order): 1. Jill Broadhurst, 2. Anne Campbell Washington Editorial Oakland City Council, District 6 (In rank order) 1. Michael Johnson, 2. Shereda Nosakhare Editorial Oakland City Auditor: Brenda Roberts: Editorial San Leandro Mayor: Diana Souza Editorial San Leandro City Council, District 1: Mike Katz-Lacabe Editorial San Leandro City Council, District 3: Lee Thomas Editorial San Leandro City Council, District 5: Mia Ousley Editorial Schools County Superintendent of Schools: Helen Foster Editorial / Video Oakland Unified School District board, Dist. 2: William Ghirardelli: Editorial Oakland Unified School District board, Dist. 4: Nina Senn: Editorial Oakland Unified School District board, Dist. 6: Renato Almanzor: Editorial Contra Costa County Cities Antioch City Council: Diane Gibson-Gray, Lori Ogorchock Editorial / Our video / LWV video Concord City Council: Tim Grayson, Laura Hoffmeister, Brent Trublood Editorial / Hercules City Council: Myrna de Vera, Christine Kelley Editorial / Video Oakley City Council: Randy Pope, Vanessa Perry Editorial Orinda City Council: Dean Orr, Amy Worth, Bob Thompson Editorial / LWV video Pleasant Hill City Council: Michael Harris, Jack Weir Editorial / Video Richmond Mayor: Tom Butt: Editorial / Video Richmond City Council, full-term seat: Jim Rogers, Jovanka Beckles, (no recommendation for third seat) Editorial Video / LWV video Richmond City Council, short-term seat: Jael Myrick Editorial / Our video / LWV video Schools Mt. Diablo Unified School District board: Cheryl Hansen, Debra Mason, Herbert Lee Editorial / Video West Contra Costa Unified School District board: Valerie Cuevas, Raquel Donoso, Elizabeth Block Editorial / Video Special Districts San Ramon Valley Fire District: Dale Price, Glenn Umont Editorial Ballot measures Statewide Prop. 1 - $7.5 billion water bond: Yes Editorial Prop. 2 - State reserve policy: Yes Editorial Prop. 45 - Health care insurance initiative: Yes Editorial Prop. 46 - Drug and Alcohol Testing of Doctors. Medical Negligence Lawsuits initiative: No Editorial Prop. 47 - Criminal sentences: Yes Editorial Prop. 48 - Overturn Indian Gaming Compacts: No Editorial Alameda County LL - Albany schools parcel tax: No Editorial K - Emeryville schools parcel tax: No Editorial I - Alameda city schools bond: Yes Editorial L - Hayward schools bond measure: Yes Editorial M - New Haven schools bond measure: Yes: Editorial N - Oakland schools parcel tax: Yes: Editorial BB - Alameda County transportation sales tax: No Editorial T - Dublin Doolan Canyon annexation: No Editorial HH - Would increase sales tax in San Leandro by 0.25 percent for 30 years No: Editorial JJ - Extends to 2025 existing half-cent sales tax in Union City: Yes Editorial Y - Newark utility user tax: Yes Editorial Z - Oakland public safety tax: Yes: Editorial Contra Costa County M - John Swett school board: Yes Editorial N - Pittsburg school bond: Yes Editorial Q - Extends existing 0.5 percent tax in Concord until 2025: Yes Editorial R - Extends an existing El Cerrito sales tax and doubles it to 1 percent: No Editorial S - Adds an addition permanent 0.5 percent tax in Pinole: No Editorial U - Adds an additional permanent 0.5 percent tax in Richmond: No Editorial November 2014 election recommendations from the Contra Costa Times/Oakland Tribune editorial board Daniel Borenstein: Long‐overdue 3‐foot passing law requires cyclists, motorists hold their fire By Daniel Borenstein, staff columnist © 2014 Bay Area News Group Posted: 09/12/2014 04:00:00 PM PDT5 Comments It was on narrow Redwood Gulch Road near Cupertino in 2010 that I came to fully appreciate how vulnerable I was on two wheels. I was cycling along the far right of the tree‐lined road when a car passed about a foot away from me, and then the side of the vehicle grazed my front wheel as the driver pulled back into the lane. I'm not sure how I stayed up. Others have not been so lucky. A long‐overdue state law requiring that motorists leave 3 feet of space when they pass cyclists takes effect Tuesday. It will mark a new era in the legal relationship between California riders and motorists. At least 22 other states have similar protections. I'm hopeful it will improve safety. But I'm fearful it will also heighten hostilities. Making this law work requires both sides hold their fire. The 3‐foot rule is foremost an attempt to increase driver sensitivity to the dangers cyclists face. Before we dive in, let's stipulate: Some cyclists are jerks who think they own the road, will dangerously weave in and out of traffic, ride four abreast and flip off drivers who get upset at their bad behavior. But they're the exception, not the rule. And their bad behavior is not justification for motorists endangering lives. Bikes traveling slower than traffic are already required to be "as close as practicable" to the right‐hand edge of the roadway. But, to ride safely, riders must leave some room for emergency escapes and to dodge dangerous pavement and obstacles. Until now, the law has required that motor vehicles pass bikes at a safe distance but hasn't defined what that is. That ambiguity has led to widely differing interpretations. Too frequently, a car or truck passes just inches away, leaving no margin for error by either party. Drivers often assume they have perfect senses of their cars' widths, and they don't allow for last‐minute adjustments for unexpected obstacles in their paths. They don't leave cyclists room to avoid potholes, pavement cracks that can snag wheels and send riders flying, or bone‐jarring roadway bumps that can throw cyclists off balance. Passing truckers too often fail to consider that their vehicles can literally suck riders toward them, especially on a blustery day. Three feet is a reasonable minimum safety zone. (It should probably be more for trucks.) Yet, amazingly, the proposed law sparked a partisan fight before the Legislature passed it last year. Senate Republican Leader Bob Huff of Diamond Bar said the rule would be hard to enforce because drivers can't judge 3 feet. Let's be reasonable. No one expects them to hang yardsticks out their windows as they pass. But most people have a good idea of what 3 feet looks like. Expecting motorists to judge distances is not new: They must stop within 5 feet of a crosswalk; reduce speed at a blind intersection without a stop sign if they cannot see for 100 feet in either direction during the last 100 feet before crossing; stop at least 15 feet, but not more than 50 feet, from the nearest railroad track when crossing devices are active; turn on lights during the day if they cannot see at least 1,000 feet ahead; signal 100 feet before a turn; and not pass within 100 feet of an interchange. That said, some cyclists are concerned about unintended consequences of the new law. They worry that drivers who are trying to obey the rule will violate another by swinging into the oncoming lane before blind curves, endangering drivers and cyclists coming the other way. It's already a serious problem, something I witness regularly when I ride up Mount Diablo. Impatient motorists on the winding mountain road get frustrated by slow‐climbing cyclists. To pass, some pull out even when they can't see around the turn ahead. It's dangerous, and already illegal. The only hope of stopping it is more education and patience. Similarly, the 3‐ foot law won't work unless it too comes with more public awareness. Let's start that dialogue. Daniel Borenstein is a staff columnist and editorial writer. Reach him at 925‐943‐8248 or [email protected]. Follow him at Twitter.com/borensteindan. Chevron unleashes campaign spending to influence Richmond election By Harriet Rowan Richmond Confidential Posted: 10/10/2014 01:44:13 PM PDT3 Comments | Updated: 5 days ago RICHMOND ‐‐ Chevron has funneled nearly $3 million into a trio of campaign committees to influence the Nov. 4 Richmond city election, including a nearly $1.3 million contribution on Aug. 8, according to newly filed campaign documents. The committees, each a variation of Chevron's Moving Forward campaign, spent about $1.3 million on the Richmond mayoral and City Council races as of the end of September, much of it on attack ads targeting local officials who are critical of Chevron's local refinery. Chevron's independent campaign contributions, which are unlimited under federal law, have come in two installments. In March, a Moving Forward committee received $1.6 million from Chevron, and $1.3 million came Aug. 8. Chevron created the original Moving Forward committee in 2012 as part of a new strategy to advance its political interests in Richmond. Its full name is "Moving Forward, a coalition of labor unions, small businesses, public safety and firefighters associations. Major funding by Chevron." Moving Forward representatives listed on the campaign finance documents did not respond to calls seeking comment. This year, Chevron created two new committees. One is "Moving Forward with Nat Bates for Mayor, and Donna Powers, Charles Ramsey and Al Martinez for City Council 2014, with major funding by Moving Forward, a coalition of labor unions, small businesses, public safety and firefighters associations. Major funding by Chevron." It has received $1.4 million. The other new committee is "Moving Forward, opposing Gayle McLaughlin, Eduardo Martinez and Jovanka Beckles for City Council 2014..." It has received $500,000. The two newer committees spent about $1.3 million between Aug. 15 and Sept. 29 supporting mayoral candidate Bates and three City Council candidates, and opposing three City Council candidates. That figure is sure to grow quickly now that Moving Forward is running TV ads, expenditures for which have not yet been reported to the Richmond city clerk. Since Jan. 1, "Moving Forward, a coalition ..." has received $2,933,363.90 in contributions from Chevron. Moving Forward has also received $5,000 each from the Richmond Police Officers Association PAC and the Independent PAC Local 188 International Association of Firefighters. Some observers think Chevron's involvement in the Richmond election overwhelms the voices of regular Richmond residents by bombarding them with shiny mailers, billboards and television attack ads. "You have a pretty big red flag when you have a multimillion‐dollar corporation getting involved in a local election," said Sarah Swanbeck, a campaign finance transparency advocate with California Common Cause. "The average Richmond citizen is not equipped or able to fight back with their own resources." Richmond Confidential is an online news service produced by the Graduate School of Journalism at UC Berkeley. Alameda County: I‐580 political signs spark free speech fight By Matt O'Brien [email protected] Posted: 10/15/2014 02:47:37 PM PDT0 Comments Updated: 10/15/2014 02:47:38 PM PDT CASTRO VALLEY ‐‐ Tea party activist Mike Shaw says the freeway billboards he erected this summer are a warning against a global government plot to abolish private property and crowd Americans into dense housing. Alameda County says the unauthorized signs are "an assault on (the) visual senses" of Interstate 580 commuters. It wants them removed. The two sides are now locked in a legal battle. So far, Shaw is winning. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer has ordered the county to leave the billboards alone, at least until Shaw has a chance to argue his free speech rights in a civil trial. "I'm just sort of an old‐fashioned American who thinks rights are inherent to the nature of human beings and not subject to (the county's) approval," Shaw said recently as he demonstrated the three two‐sided billboards he put up on his property several months ago. The signs rise above the 8‐acre property of Lockaway Storage, a boat and RV storage lot nudged in the canyon that connects Dublin with Castro Valley. Fronting the cost to erect the signs was a Nevada billboard company, Desert Outdoor Advertising Inc., notorious for sparking First Amendment fights with liberal West Coast cities and counties. But it was the landowner, Shaw, who wrote and designed the messages. The businessman and former lawyer acknowledges they befuddle many commuters. "The subject of the signs is the restructuring of American government, something I think most people don't know much about," he said. One all‐capitalized message declares in yellow letters on a purple background: "STACK AND PACK PROJECTS & GRIDLOCK; RELOCATION OF PEOPLE: URBAN TO RURAL; CITIES AND COUNTIES DISSOLVE INTO 'REGIONS.'" The words are a critique of Plan Bay Area, a long‐range plan to concentrate more of the region's new housing in urban hubs near transit. "It took a lot of time to get the most complicated issue I've ever heard of onto a billboard," Shaw said. "I'm sure most people who drive by, say, 'What the hell is that?'" He hopes they pay attention. Another message warns that "ABAG and ICLEI are using the 'environment' to impose bogus agendas." ABAG stands for the Association of Bay Area Governments, a regional planning agency that passed Plan Bay Area last year. ICLEI is an international association of more than 1,000 local governments promoting environmental sustainability. They are both unelected bodies that Shaw believes have an outsize influence on local land‐use decisions and whose agendas he says are directed by a 1991 United Nations environment conference. 'Soviet' style "It's a new style of government, it's Soviet in nature, and it's intended to get rid of the historic system of government in California, the city and county governments," Shaw said. Which is not to say that Shaw is a fan of county governments. Especially not Santa Cruz County, where he lives, and Alameda County, where he spent more than a decade fighting to build and defend his self‐storage business on Dublin Canyon Road. Shaw sees his billboards as a principled stand for freedom and the right to broadcast any political or commercial message he chooses. They are also a form of revenge. "When government steps on you, you don't ever walk away whole," he said. Alameda County voters in 2000 passed an urban growth boundary that sought to preserve open space and limit development in certain unincorporated areas of the county, including the spot on an I‐580 frontage road where Shaw had a permit to build a self‐storage facility. After he made a big investment in the vacant canyon land ‐‐ a former illegal dumping and unauthorized motocross site ‐‐ county planners told him he could not develop. He fought back, beginning 12 years of litigation that ended late last year when Alameda County was forced to pay a $2 million settlement over Shaw's lost wages and attorney fees. The signs are meant to target two officials in particular: Alameda County Supervisors Nate Miley and Scott Haggerty. The signs and Shaw's property sit in Miley's district. Miley declined to comment this week because of the ongoing litigation. Haggerty, a Dublin resident who represents the Tri‐Valley, must see them whenever he commutes to his office in Oakland, the seat of Alameda County government. Haggerty is also chairman of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, a regional body that Shaw and other activists consider complicit in the transit‐oriented push. Alameda County argues in court papers that restricting billboards is a "reasonable exercise of its zoning powers" and has nothing to do with the content of the messages. It is simple, the county says: a 2008 ordinance bans new billboards in unincorporated areas, and all new structures ‐‐ billboards included ‐‐ must go through the normal planning process that Shaw ignored. If Shaw wants to express his message, he can "readily rent space" elsewhere, the county said. Shaw scoffed at that suggestion, noting that most permitted billboards are owned by a handful of big companies. "They wouldn't let me, firstly," Shaw said. "The New World Order protects the New World Order." Union City: Pro‐Measure KK group raises $560,000 in race over protected land By Chris De Benedetti The Argus Posted: 10/15/2014 03:44:20 PM PDT0 Comments Updated: 10/15/2014 03:44:21 PM PDT UNION CITY ‐‐ Supporters of Measure KK, which would allow development on protected land near the Masonic Home, have amassed about $560,000 in campaign contributions. The sum is far more than funds raised by measure opponents, who complain that the large war chest has compromised the race. If Measure KK is approved, new housing, retail, health care facilities and other buildings will be allowed on a 63‐ acre parcel that hugs Mission Boulevard between Whipple Road and O'Connell Lane. Save Our Hills, a Union City group of preservationists, has raised $14,000 in hopes of defeating the measure. In contrast, the Masonic Homes of California, the property's owner and the measure's biggest backer, has made $100,000 donations to its "Yes on KK" committee in each of the past three months. The committee has spent money on mailers, newspaper ads and a promotional video. It also has paid several political consultants, including one asked to resign from a city commission last week after being accused of violating Union City law while campaigning. The consultant controversy illustrates how the campaign money has given measure supporters an outsize influence on the issue, said Bob Garfinkle, a Save Our Hills member. "We've had development issues on the ballot before," Garfinkle said. "But (supporters) have never before spent this sum of money and then used it to distort the message." Masonic Homes leaders say the campaign funds are necessary to inform the public. "Any campaign requires a certain amount of expertise and we're not experts in campaigning," said Gary Charland, a Masonic Homes executive. "We're fighting a lot of misperceptions, which requires us to get our message out, so people know what we're trying to achieve." Save Our Hills members say the Mission Boulevard property should be spared from development because it is part of 6,100 acres protected by Union City's Hillside Area Plan and Measure II, both approved about 20 years ago. However, supporters say the hillsides will remain protected if Measure KK is approved because the roadside property is flatland, not hills. The property is below the Masonic Homes' 116‐year‐old care center, where hundreds of senior citizens live. There, Masonic Homes leaders envision the construction of affordable senior housing and health care facilities, at least 100 market‐rate single family residences, retail space, a small vineyard, parks, open space, trails and a commnity garden. Opponents worry that the measure does not require the property owners to stick to their stated plans. "All they want to do is get the land out of protection and then sell it to developers," Garfinkle said. Masonic Homes executives say that, although they could sell the land for development, any construction would be limited by the measure's provisions. "That limits us to low‐density housing and no big box retail," Charland said. "Selling to a developer is possible, but we wouldn't do that. We've owned the property since 1893 and we're not about to give it up now to a developer." The Masonic Homes' bulging war chest has not spared a measure supporter from controversy. Glenn Nate, a paid consultant for "Yes on KK" and a Parks and Recreation commissioner, has been accused of breaking Union City law by handing out his business card while campaigning for the measure. Nate said he stopped doing so on Oct. 8, when Deputy City Manager Tony Acosta sent him an email, saying that "it was a breach of ethics for any appointed commissioner to use his city business card for any overt political purpose." But the next day, a "Yes on KK" worker gave Nate's city business card to a resident while campaigning for the measure, Mayor Carol Dutra‐Vernaci said in an Oct. 10 email to Nate. As a result, Dutra‐Vernaci asked Nate to resign immediately from his city post. Nate has refused, saying he didn't break the law. Union City's municipal code prohibits any campaign use of the city's logo unless authorized by the city, said City Attorney Benjamin Reyes. "Nate has the right to campaign for any measure or candidate, but he cannot use his business card to do so," Reyes said, "Because it conveys a message that the city has endorsed Glenn's position on Measure KK, which it has not." Nate said he believes the mayor's request was politically motivated because she opposes the measure. Dutra‐Vernaci said that is untrue. The mayor also said her appearance on "No on KK" mailers follow the law because they state that the city has not taken a position on the measure and no city logo has been used. If Nate does not resign, Dutra‐Vernaci said she will ask the City Council to remove him from the commission by vote at an Oct. 28 meeting. "The timing (of the resignation request) is unfortunate because it looks political, but it's not," she said. "We have to let folks know that if something's not being done properly, we can't just let it go." Contact Chris De Benedetti at 510‐293‐2480. Follow him at Twitter.com/cdebenedetti. As Senate head, Kevin de León hopes to wed agenda with leadership Sen. Kevin de León will be sworn in as California Senate president pro tem Wednesday. The former activist is shown in Boyle Heights. (Luis Sinco, Los Angeles Times) By PATRICK MCGREEVY contact the reporter PoliticsMexico Kevin de León will be the first Latino to lead the California Senate since 1883. Former activist Kevin de León will be sworn in as California Senate president pro tem Wednesday As a young activist, Kevin de León helped lead a 1994 rally that flooded downtown Los Angeles streets with protesters opposing a ballot measure to cut off government services to immigrants in the country illegally. Voters approved Proposition 187 anyway, only to see most of it tossed out by the courts. Twenty years later, as a state senator, De León finished the job by pushing through legislation that wiped the last vestiges of the measure from California law. Now, as the Los Angeles Democrat prepares to take over Wednesday as leader of the state Senate, De León must prove he can balance his political agenda with the demands of the new post: shepherding colleagues with disparate political views onto common ground. The job of Senate president pro tem requires the former activist to mesh with the patriarchal tendencies of Gov. Jerry Brown, the understated, iron-ore resolve of Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins (D-San Diego) and a Republican caucus that, although a minority, still has some bite. De León also has the burden of taking over a legislative body that in the last two years has seen felony charges against three senators, one of whom has been convicted. De León will be sworn in at Walt Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, becoming the first Latino to lead the Senate since 1883, when Reginaldo del Valle held the post. "I've been thinking a lot as I enter a new phase of my life and a new leadership that provides opportunities to help improve the human condition," De León, 47, said in his fifth-floor Sacramento office overlooking Capitol Park. "So I want to come in and attempt to give every kid a fair shot at the California dream." Raised in poverty by a single mother from Mexico, De León — single with a daughter in college — has carried his activist agenda through eight years in the Legislature. He has championed affirmative action programs, and salvaged a bill providing driver's licenses to immigrants in the country illegally. At an event last week sponsored by the Public Policy Institute of California, De León voiced support for expanding state healthcare benefits to such immigrants. But he added a major caveat: finding an acceptable way to pay for it — pragmatism more indicative of a seasoned politician than a young ideologue. "The question now is how do we fiscally put this together … so it's sustainable, so it's not taxing on the general fund," De León said. "I support it fully, we just have to figure out how to do it responsibly.'' Still, De León vowed to not back down from a political agenda that, for years, has drawn pointed criticism from his detractors and letters telling the Los Angeles-born politician to "Go back to Mexico." His drive for economic reform is also a reflection of his ethnically diverse, largely working-class district. It includes Koreatown, Chinatown, Thai Town, Filipinotown, Little Tokyo and Little Armenia. He also represents Boyle Heights, Westlake, Pico-Union and MacArthur Park, which are home to many residents with roots in Mexico or Central America. In a recent speech to 150 senior citizens at the Hollenbeck Palms senior housing complex, De León cited the experience of an aunt who worked as a housekeeper and now in her 70s finds herself without a pension. De León said she inspired a bill signed by Brown in 2012 that calls for a state-run retirement plan for low-income workers without a pension. "I'm her Roth IRA," De León said, adding that he helps his aunt each month pay for food, medicine and rent. "A large number of seniors live in poverty. I think it's unjust and it's unfair." De León's childhood included two-hour bus rides with his mother each day to wealthy San Diego neighborhoods where she cleaned houses. He was carted to the free clinic or across the border to Tijuana if he needed medical care. Sen. Jim Beall (D-San Jose) said his colleague once drove him to where he lived as a child in a small basement accessed from an alley in Logan Heights. "He didn't live in the house. He lived under the house. It was pretty stark poverty," Beall said. De León escaped the streets in part by joining a boxing program at the Barrio Station youth center with his childhood friend Fabian Nuñez, who would go on to become state Assembly speaker. "They were decent kids," recalled Rachael Ortiz, who has worked at the center for 44 years and is now its executive director. "They were two real serious young men. Headstrong. They grew up in the middle of escalating gang violence, but they didn't identify with the gangs." De León graduated from San Diego High School and attended UC Santa Barbara for two years before poor grades cost him his financial aid, forcing him to leave school. Too embarrassed to go home, De León started teaching civics and English for the One-Stop Immigration and Education Center in Santa Barbara. "I immediately noticed his leadership skills," said Juan Jose Gutierrez, who headed the center at the time and is now president of Vamos Unidos USA. "He was a hands-on guy who did what needed to get done." It was his work with the immigration center that led De León to join Nuñez and Gutierrez in organizing the massive 1994 Los Angeles rally against Proposition 187. A video shows a 27-year-old De León onstage as a sea of 80,000 people, many waving Mexican flags, cheer speakers. As a mariachi band plays "The Star-Spangled Banner," De León can be seen moving around and talking casually with Nuñez and others. The band then plays the Mexican national anthem and De León stops, faces forward and places a hand over his heart. Some supporters of Proposition 187, including activist Glenn Spencer, said the video raises questions about where De León's loyalties lie. "The mistake in retrospect is when you are in your early 20s you don't know" better, De León said. "You're a young activist and you sense this [Prop. 187] rhetoric that wasn't just perceived as anti-immigrant, it was felt in the heart and soul as anti- Latino." Between his stint at the immigration center and his election to the Assembly, De León earned a degree from Pitzer College and worked for the California Teachers Assn. and the National Education Assn. De León served as campaign manager for Nunez when he was elected to the Assembly. In 2006, with Nuñez's help, De León unexpectedly defeated Christine Chavez, a granddaughter of iconic labor leader Cesar E. Chavez, for an Assembly seat. Senate colleagues say De León has matured over the years into a thoughtful leader. De León has "the talent and the desire to do what it will take to keep all 39 of us prima donnas somehow on the same page so we can move things forward for the state of California," said Sen. Mark Leno (D-San Francisco), referring to the 40- member Senate. Even as Republicans vehemently disagree with De León on many issues, they say they admire his rise from poverty and trust he will be a fair leader. "When I think of the American dream, I can't think of anybody who embodies it as much as Sen. De León," said Senate GOP leader Bob Huff of Diamond Bar. De Leon thought his political career might be over in 2009 when he lost a bitter battle with Assemblyman John A. Pérez, also an L.A. Democrat, for the speaker post. He was stripped of his committee chairmanship and shunted off to one of the worst offices in the Capitol. De León credits Sen. Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), whom he is succeeding as pro tem, with helping him to get elected to the Senate. He had to overcome a threat to his reputation when his name appeared 56 times in an FBI affidavit that alleged public corruption by state Sen. Ronald S. Calderon (D-Montebello). In the affidavit, Calderon described De León as a legislative ally. De León was never charged with any wrongdoing. But Democratic businessman Peter Choi, who is challenging De León in the Nov. 4 election, has made a campaign issue of De León's ties to Calderon. Colleagues say De León never shies away from a good fight. As a freshman senator in 2011, De León took on Pérez and a popular priest, John Moretta, who were pushing a bill to disband the city of Vernon. The priest thought the action would help clean up polluting industry in the city, but De León sided with labor and Vernon businesses and led the charge that killed the bill, arguing that it could have cost jobs in his district. Last month, De León appeared for the first time with Moretta at a rally at the priest's Resurrection Catholic Church. De León bristled at any suggestion that he was seeking political penance. "He stood his ground. I stood my ground. I did what I think was right," De León said. "I made a leadership call." [email protected] Twitter: @mcgreevy99 Copyright © 2014, Los Angeles Times Gov. Brown stars in ads for Propositions 1 and 2 By Carla Marinucci Published 2:28 pm, Wednesday, October 8, 2014 Photo: Brant Ward / The Chronicle With voters already casting ballots by mail for the Nov. 4 election, Gov. Jerry Brown is starring in new statewide ads — not for his own re-election campaign, but on behalf of two ballot measures he argues will “save money and save water” for California In two 30-second spots that debuted Wednesday, Brown urges voters to back Proposition 1, the $7.5 billion water- infrastructure bond measure, and Proposition 2, beefing up the state's rainy-day reserve. Money to buy airtime for the ads is coming from Brown's gubernatorial campaign fund, which is stuffed with $23.6 million. A third new spot, starring Cal Fire Chief Ken Pimlott, emphasizes safety hazards stemming from the state's three-year drought. That spot, which also began airing Wednesday, is being paid for by the committee to support Props. 1 and 2, said Dan Newman, a strategist and spokesman for Brown's campaign. Brown, who is in the home stretch of his own drive for a historic fourth term, makes no mention in the new spots of his campaign against his Republican opponent, Neel Kashkari. That's one reason Newman says the ad buy may be a first in California. “It’s unprecedented, that someone running for re-election is dedicating their time, effort and campaign funds to a (cause) that is not self promotional,” he said. “But the propositions embody (Brown’s) fundamental governing philosophy of planning ahead, and saving for the future. ... It's who he is and it’s what he’s about.” The two ads starring Brown are characteristically low-key and feature the governor directly addressing voters. “I’ve been around long enough to know that the pendulum always swings in California,” Brown says in one spot, in which the graphic of a pendulum plays across the screen. “Between wet years and drought, between booms and busts. ... And when it’s bad, people get hurt. Not enough water to grow crops. Deep cuts in vital services.” “Propositions 1 and 2 will even out the boom and bust,” Brown says. In the other spot, which depicts some of California's parched reservoirs, Brown talks about the state's economic and environmental challenges. “Prop. 1 saves water to protect us during times of drought, and Prop. 2 saves money in good times to protect schools and public safety when times are bad,” Brown says. “Save water, save money. Vote yes on 1 and 2.” Brown doesn't need to sweat much about his own campaign, it appears. Recent polls suggest he is leading by about 20 points, and the governor has a monetary advantage of more than 40-1 over Kashkari. Carla Marinucci is the San Francisco Chronicle’s senior political writer. E-mail: Fixing the state’s flawed Bay Delta Conservation Plan By Doug Obegi September 25, 2014 The bay‐delta estuary is a beautiful, hidden gem that few Californians have experienced firsthand. Formed where the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers meet before flowing into San Francisco Bay, it is also the hub of the massive engineering projects that move water from Northern California to the arid San Joaquin Valley, Southern California, and even parts of the Bay Area. While the State Water Project and Central Valley Project have helped “make the desert bloom,” these massive engineering marvels have done great damage to California’s salmon runs and other native fisheries in the bay‐delta, jeopardizing the thousands of fishing jobs that depend on a healthy environment. We recognize that California needs to reconfigure these water projects to revitalize this important estuary, improve reliability, and reduce reliance on the delta as a source of water supply, as required by the 2009 Delta Reform Act. But, despite its name, the state’s proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan would likely make things worse for the estuary, hastening the extinction of some salmon runs, reducing salmon survival through the delta, worsening water quality for cities and farms, increasing the risk of toxic algal blooms in the delta (like those that shut down the water supply for Toledo, Ohio, earlier this year), and disrupting life for the farming communities in the delta. That is why Natural Resources Defense Council ‐ and many, many others ‐ oppose the state’s proposal to build two tunnels under the delta. Indeed, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Delta Independent Science Board, and numerous independent scientific reviews have all founds substantial scientific flaws in the state’s proposed plan. One of the primary flaws is that the state’s proposed plan fails to ensure enough water flows into and through the delta, which is essential to protect salmon and the health of the delta. Instead, the state’s plan proposes to maintain ‐ or even substantially increase ‐ unsustainable water diversions from the delta, when the available science shows we need to do the opposite. The plan even promises water contractors that water diversions would not be reduced if salmon and other fisheries continue to decline (as the plan predicts). We can and must do better. In January 2013, NRDC and several conservation groups and urban water agencies in Northern and Southern California proposed an alternative plan for analysis that combines a smaller new tunnel in the delta (costing about $5.9 billion less), new water storage south of the delta, significantly reduced water diversions from the delta that provide improved environmental flows, and major investments in local and regional water supplies like efficiency, water recycling, storm‐water capture, and groundwater cleanup. Yet the state refuses to analyze this alternative in the Bay Delta Conservation Plan environmental impact review. California can create millions of acre feet of new water supplies by investing in efficiency, water recycling, storm‐ water capture and groundwater cleanup. By investing in these solutions that diversify our water supplies , we can reduce our reliance on the delta as a water supply source, restore the health of the estuary and improve the reliability of our water supplies, as required by state law. This is not only good for the environment, but it would help us better weather future droughts, particularly in the face of climate change. But in an era of limited budgets, the $25 billion price tag for the state’s tunnel plan will crowd out needed investments in these real water solutions. California needs a scientifically and fiscally sound plan for the delta, not the state’s flawed proposal. Doug Obegi is a staff attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council’s water program. Proposition 48 pits Indian tribes against each other Associated Press 10/10/2014 POSTED: 10/10/2014 02:53:: 3 DAYS AGO A Native American tribe's plan for a Las Vegas-style casino in the Central Valley nearly 40 miles from its reservation has drawn opposition from other casino-owning tribes in the state. Now voters will weigh in on whether the North Fork Rancheria Band of Mono Indians are "reservation shopping," as their critics contend, or taking land that was part of their historical territory, as the tribe maintains. A referendum on the Nov. 4 ballot asks voters to approve or reject a deal signed by the governor and passed by the state Legislature that would allow the North Fork Rancheria to build the casino with up to 2,000 slot machines on a 305-acre plot of land along a major highway about 30 miles northwest of Fresno. With a yes vote, the project would clear its last major hurdle to entering the state's Indian gambling market, where 58 tribes are currently running 59 casinos, according to the state Legislative Analyst's Office. Critics of the proposal -- including other tribes that have anted up millions to defeat the plan -- say North Fork is trying to get closer to an urban market that can bring in more gamblers. "This move by North Fork, if it goes forward, will incentivize tribes in rural areas to move to more lucrative locations," said Cheryl Schmit, director of the group Stand Up For California! Representatives of the 2,000-member North Fork tribe counter that their existing land is for housing and does not allow gambling -- and that they went through a lengthy vetting process to get approval for the new land. "We're getting back to the historical land that served as a reservation for our tribe in the 1850s," said Charles Banks-Altekruse, a spokesman for the tribe, which is supported by Las Vegas-based Station Casinos. Additionally, tribal officials say the project would create more than 4,500 jobs and pump tens of millions of dollars into the local economy. Opposition to North Fork's proposal is coming from other casino-owning tribes, including Table Mountain Rancheria, whose casino is about 25 miles from the proposed site of the North Fork facility. Table Mountain Rancheria has donated more than $10 million to a campaign committee trying to defeat Prop. 48, including $5.4 million in donations disclosed Tuesday. The campaign against the project is also being funded by New York-based Brigade Capital Management, an investment firm that backs the Chukchansi Gold Resort & Casino, another Indian casino near the site of the proposed North Fork casino. The firm has donated $1.6 million since July to the No on Prop. 48 campaign. Yes on Prop. 48 had less than $25,000 in the bank with less than a month to go before election day. "It's unfortunate that it's turned into tribe-against-tribe," said Maryanne McGovran, vice chairwoman of the North Fork Rancheria. Under the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, tribes can build casinos on reservations that existed before Oct. 17, 1988, but not on lands taken into trust after that date. The law allows the U.S. secretary of the interior to make an exception in cases where the off-reservation acquisition is in the tribe's best interest and does not hurt the surrounding community. The U.S. Department of Interior made that determination in the case of the North Fork Rancheria, saying the tribe has a historical connection to the proposed gambling site and strong support from the community. In a 2012 letter to then-Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar, Gov. Jerry Brown said he was reluctant to allow gambling on land currently ineligible for it, but there were several exceptional circumstances in the North Fork deal, including the fact that it would prevent a casino from going up on environmentally sensitive areas in Humboldt County. That's because the Wiyot Tribe, which has land in Humboldt, has agreed not to pursue a casino on its land in exchange for some of the revenue from North Fork's casino. Staff writer Jessica Calefati contributed to this report. Virignia emergency responders learn about the different types of railroad tank cars in a safety class at a CSX yard in Richmond, Va., on Oct. 3, 2014. About 66 first responders, including firefighters, participated in the daylong event. CSX has brought its "Safety Train" this year to communities in states where it hauls large volumes of crude oil. (Curtis Tate/McClatchy) Railroads say California lacks authority to impose safety rules on oil shipments By Tony Bizjak and Curtis Tate [email protected] Published: Wednesday, Oct. 8, 2014 ‐ 12:06 pm The battle over crude oil trains in California intensified this week, reaching into the legal sphere with potential national repercussions. The state’s two major railroad companies, Union Pacific and the BNSF Railway, went to federal court Tuesday to argue that neither California nor any other state can legally impose safety requirements on them because the federal government already does that. The lawsuit came days after California Attorney General Kamala Harris joined other officials in challenging one crude-by-rail project, in the Bay Area city of Benicia. In a letter to Benicia officials, Harris said the city has failed to adequately analyze the potential environmental consequences of Valero Refining Company’s plan to ship two 50-car oil trains daily through Northern California to its Benicia refinery. Those shipments would run through downtown Sacramento and other Valley cities. The Valero project and similar plans by other oil companies prompted the state Legislature this summer to pass a law ordering railroad companies to submit an oil spill prevention and response plan to the state, and to provide proof to the state that they have enough money to cover oil-spill damages. Railroads fired back this week, filing a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Sacramento. Their argument: Federal law pre-empts the state from imposing safety restrictions on the railroads. The suit was filed by the two largest railroads in the Western United States, Union Pacific and BNSF Railway Co. The industry’s leading trade group, the Association of American Railroads, is listed as co- plaintiff. The fight involves a long-standing friction point between railroads and U.S. states and cities. Railroads contend that local governments cannot place requirements or restrictions on freight travel because federal laws cover that ground. The railroads have used the federal pre-emption argument to stop states from trying to impose speed limits on trains and ban certain types of shipments. In one notable case, railroads got the courts to overturn a Washington, D.C., law that attempted to ban trains carrying hazardous materials from using tracks within 2 miles of the U.S. Capitol. “Federal law exempts this entire regime,” the railroads declared in the California lawsuit. Citing “a sweeping set of intricate federal statutes and regulations,” the lawsuit argues that allowing states to impose a “patchwork” of requirements on railroads essentially interferes with interstate commerce. In a separate email statement Wednesday, BNSF spokeswoman Lena Kent said, “The state gives the industry no choice but to challenge the enforcement of the new law so as to not inhibit the efficiencies and effectiveness of the freight rail industry and the flow of commerce.” Officials at the state Office of Spill Prevention and Response, the state agency listed as the defendant in the case, declined comment Wednesday, saying the agency does not publicly discuss pending litigation. Harris’ office is listed as a co-defendant. The U.S. Department of Transportation in July proposed a rule that would require railroads to have oil spill response plans for trains carrying large volumes of crude oil. But that proposal could be months away from becoming law. National transportation law and safety experts say the onus may be on California to prove that it is not usurping federal law or impeding interstate commerce. “The state has to prove it is tackling what is a local or statewide issue, that it is not incompatible (with federal law) and doesn’t unreasonably burden interstate commerce,” said Brigham McCown, an attorney and former head of the federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration. “That is a high bar.” California might have an opening in a 2007 law Congress passed after the 9/11 Commission issued its recommendations. The 9/11 Act required rail companies to develop security plans and share them with state and local officials. The requirement was not limited to planning for a terrorist attack, but for any rail disaster, including derailments and spills involving hazardous materials. “Those plans are required to be done and required to be shared,” said Denise Rucker Krepp, the former senior counsel on the House Homeland Security Committee, who wrote the provisions. The Transportation Security Administration has not enforced the requirement, Krepp said, partly because of its focus on aviation security. But now that the railroads have taken California to court, Krepp said the state could use the 9/11 Act as leverage to get what it tried to get from the railroads through legislation. “It’s never been tested like this,” Krepp said of the federal law. It was unclear Wednesday whether the railroads also are challenging the section of the California law that imposes a 6.5-cent fee on oil companies for every barrel of crude that arrives in California on rail, or that is piped to refineries from inside the state. The resulting funds, estimated at $11 million in the first full year, will be allocated for oil spill prevention and preparation work, and for emergency cleanup costs. The efforts will be focused on spills that threaten waterways, and will allow officials to conduct response drills. Crude-oil rail shipments have risen dramatically in the last few years. Those transports, many carrying an unusually flammable crude from North Dakota, have been involved in several spectacular explosions, including one that killed 47 residents of a Canadian town last year. Federal officials and cities along rail lines have been pushing for safety improvements. California officials have joined those efforts, saying they are concerned by estimates that six or more 100-car oil trains will soon be rolling through the state daily on the way to coastal refineries. Harris, the state’s top law enforcement official, sent a letter to Benicia city planners challenging that city’s conclusion in an environmental impact report that the Valero rail shipment plan poses an insignificant threat of derailment. The report, she writes, “underestimates the probability of an accidental release from the project by considering only a fraction of the rail miles traveled when calculating the risk of a derailment.” “These issues must be addressed and corrected before the City Council of Benicia takes action” on the project, Harris wrote. Harris’ letter repeats earlier criticism leveled by the state Office of Spill Prevention and Response and state Public Utilities Commission. The letter is one of hundreds Benicia has received in the past few months in response to the city’s initial environmental study. Benicia interim Community Development Director Dan Marks said the city and its consultants would review the comments and prepare responses to all of them, then bring those responses to the city Planning Commission for discussion at an as-yet undetermined date. Under the Valero proposal, trains would carry about 1.4 million gallons of crude oil daily to the Benicia refinery from U.S. and possibly Canadian oil fields, where it would be turned into gasoline and diesel fuel. Valero officials have said they hope to win approval from the city of Benicia to build a crude-oil transfer station at the refinery by early next year, allowing them to replace more costly marine oil shipments with cheaper oil. A representative for the attorney general declined comment when asked if Harris would consider suing Benicia to force more study of the project. “We believe the letter speaks for itself,” spokesman Nicholas Pacilio said. “We expect it will be taken seriously. Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/10/08/6770306/california-attorney-general- kamala.html#storylink=cpy Decision in Dublin: development or open space in canyon? Carolyn Jone, San Francisco Chronicle By Carolyn Jones Updated 6:22 am, Friday, October 3, 2014 David Bewley, a founder of Save Dublin Open Space, which opposes the development walks along Doolan Road which cuts through Doolan Canyon near Dublin, Calif., as seen on Thursday Sept. 25, 2014. Dublin voters with decide whether to annex Doolan Canyon for a planned development of 2,000 more homes or leave it as open space. Photo: Michael Macor, The Chronicle New housing development has stretched to the eastern edge of Dublin, Calif., as seen on Thursday Sept. 25, 2014. Dublin voters with decide whether to annex Doolan Canyon for a planned development of 2,000 more homes or leave it as open space. Photo: Michael Macor, The Chronicle Doolan Canyon is so quiet you can almost hear the deer breathing. But just over the ridge in Dublin, the 1,650‐ acre valley is causing electoral pandemonium. Measure T on the Nov. 4 ballot puts the future of Doolan before Dublin voters, who will decide whether the city should annex the canyon. A yes vote opens the doors to development; a no vote leaves Doolan outside city boundaries as the last bit of open space between Dublin and Livermore. The measure has sharply divided the Alameda County suburb, which until recently was one of the Bay Area’s most developer‐friendly enclaves. Since the 1970s, Dublin has grown from 14,000 to 50,000, due largely to its good schools, central location at the crossroads of Interstates 580 and 680, and generally pro‐growth government. It was one of the last East Bay cities to adopt an urban growth limit, and one of the few still allowing sprawl‐type development. “We have approved a lot of developments, but I think we’ve reached our limits. We need boundaries,” said Dublin Vice Mayor Don Biddle. “We’ve had limited opposition to development plans in the past, but not like this. This is different.” Doolan Canyon is one of a handful of places in the Bay Area where building single‐family homes in open space — also known as suburban sprawl — is still under consideration, according to the Greenbelt Alliance. Other sprawl hot spots include eastern Contra Costa County around Brentwood, the open space between Dixon and Vacaville in Solano County, Tassajara Valley outside San Ramon, and the area between Morgan Hill and Gilroy in southern Santa Clara County. Most other cities have adopted strict urban growth limits and are focusing their development on infill. Biddle and his colleagues on the City Council voted unanimously in June to exclude Doolan Canyon from the city’s urban growth limit, leaving it as unincorporated agricultural open space. The move came amid proposals from a developer, Danville‐based Pacific Union Land Co., to build a 2,000‐unit senior housing complex in the canyon. Staff at Pacific Union did not return phone calls, nor did a Doolan Canyon property owner who’s supporting Measure T. Councilman Abe Gupta said it was an easy decision, even with the city’s long history of approving new developments. “We’re always expanding and expanding. But there is literally almost no open space left,” he said. “We thought, let’s pause. We’re in a drought, we have transportation issues, we have a lot of young families with kids. They need some breathing room, not just a few token parks.” But over the summer, a former mayor, the developer and others gathered signatures to overturn the council’s decision. Measure T directs the city to annex the canyon and pursue development plans, keeping 60 percent of the canyon as open space and protecting the creek and ridgetops. Janet Lockhart, who served as mayor until 2008 and supports Measure T, said the issue is not whether to build homes in Doolan Canyon, but whether to forever ban that possibility. Future residents should be able to choose whether to develop the canyon, she said. “Should a project come forward that people in the community want, they should be able to decide that,” she said. “We need to preserve Dublin’s right to decide its own future.” Another concern, she said, is Livermore. If Dublin decides to leave Doolan Canyon alone, that does not stop Livermore from annexing the canyon and permitting vineyards, homes, casinos, malls or other projects recently OKd by Dublin’s neighbor to the east. Livermore would then reap the tax benefits but Dublin would endure the consequences — increased traffic and less open space, she said. Livermore officials have said they have no intention of annexing Doolan Canyon. Donations to the Yes on Measure T campaign top $160,000, nearly all of it from a group called Dublin Community Partnership, which has the same address as Pacific Union Development Co. Dublin Community Partnership has spent most of that money on signature‐gatherers and a Sacramento law firm that specializes in campaigns. Doolan Canyon is at the end of a dead‐end road, tucked in the dry, rolling foothills north of I‐580. Over one ridge is a still‐under‐construction Dublin subdivision, and over the eastern ridge are Livermore vineyards. The East Bay Regional Park District owns the open space to the north. The canyon is secluded and quiet, with a dry creekbed along the bottom and a few ancient oak trees. Laura Mercier, director of the Tri‐Valley Conservancy, said the desire for open space has been slow to come to Dublin, but it’s gathering momentum. Pleasanton and Livermore years ago started enacting stricter open‐space laws, and she thinks Dublin will follow suit. Eventually, she hopes to see a continuous swath of open space from Mount Diablo to Mount Hamilton. “This is important land, and I think people are starting to realize that,” she said. “There’s been so much development here, but I don’t think it’s a losing battle. We’ve made a lot of progress.” Carolyn Jones is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E‐mail: [email protected]. Twitter: @carolynajones Chronicle recommends: Catharine Baker for Assembly Updated 4:28 pm, Wednesday, September 24, 2014 After a costly and caustic four-way primary that devolved into “proxy wars” among various well-heeled interests, the November runoff has settled into “a more traditional race” between two major party candidates, suggested Dublin Mayor Tim Sbranti, the Democratic candidate. He’s only half right. Sbranti, a veteran classroom teacher, is very much a traditional Democrat — especially when it comes to toeing the party line in resistance to education reforms that intrude on the unions’ comfort zone. His engaging style and extensive contacts from a decade in elected office should make him an easy choice for the deep-blue partisans in the district that reaches from east of the Berkeley hills to the Tri-Valley. But this district, with its affluent suburbs, array of high-performing schools and distinct independent streak, is ripe for a Republican seeking common ground with the 20-plus percent of registered voters who do not claim a party preference. Republican Catharine Baker, a Pleasanton attorney, fits that bill. “I have an ability to not be dogmatic and party-line,” she said. As examples, she cited her support of recently passed Democratic legislation on groundwater management, plastic-bag bans and legislation that strengthens the ability to prohibit certain people with mental illnesses from possessing guns. She accepts AB32, the state’s landmark climate-change law, as a settled issue — she would focus on reducing its cost to consumers. Both candidates express a commitment to improving California’s business climate. Their answers on proposals to curtail abuses of the California Environmental Quality Act — one of the major business complaints about state regulation — are virtually identical: The law is valuable, but needs to be more transparent. Even Sbranti acknowledged that “at the end of the day,” the differences between the two are not profound on most issues. However, the distinctions are worth noting. Baker would ban strikes by BART workers; Sbranti would not. Baker has refused to fill out any secret questionnaires by interest groups, which are often a condition of endorsements and contributions; Sbranti has played that game. Baker agrees with a Los Angeles judge’s recent ruling that found that California’s overly protective rules on teacher tenure and the primacy of seniority undermine the civil rights of low-income and minority students; Sbranti sees no need to disrupt the status quo on that point. Baker’s centrist sensibilities would provide a good influence on the Republican caucus and a potential partner for Democrats looking for bipartisan solutions. She is our choice in the 16th Assembly District. 113th Congress Could Yield Fewest Laws in 60 Years By David Eldridge Posted at 5 a.m. on Sept. 22 House members leave for recess on Aug. 18. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call File Photo) Say this about the 113th Congress: It’s managed to live down to low expectations. With only a lame-duck, post-Election Day mop-up session left before a new Congress takes office in January, the 113th is on track to be one of the least productive congresses — in terms of laws passed and signed by the president — in 60 years. he 113th Congress, which passed a continuing resolution to keep the government funded through Dec. 11 before heading out of town, has seen just 165 pieces of legislation enacted. The total from the House Clerk tracks only through August and lists 164 measures — more than 100 pieces of legislation below the 283 measures enacted in the 112th Congress and well below the 383 in the 111th Congress. Another handful of bills have been sent to the president, but unless the 113th has an unprecedented burst of productivity when members return for the lame duck, the die is cast. As Georgia Democrat Hank Johnson told CQ Roll Call last week, “This has been the most do-nothingest Congress.” It’s a distinction Democrats insist is a disgrace and an abdication of the responsibility of governing. After the Sept. 18 announcement from the GOP leadership that the final five days of House sessions scheduled before the November elections would be canceled, Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., ripped the Republicans for leaving work on the table. “It is a good afternoon,” Pelosi said at a hastily-arranged news conference near the House floor, “but not a good afternoon for Congress to adjourn for this session.” “We were supposed to be here tomorrow, then another week,” Pelosi fumed, flanked by Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., and Assistant Leader James E. Clyburn, D-S.C. “Now we’ve been informed by the Republican leadership that anything that we were ever going to do is over until we come back for the lame- duck session.” “The American people have to ask, ‘What do you do for a living? What do you do for my living?’” said Pelosi. “What are you doing for me?’” The news conference was also the three top House Democrats’ final chance to collectively make their case before cameras and microphones that voters in November should oust the GOP from the majority in the House — and keep the Democrats in control of the Senate. But a newly confident and disciplined GOP — Speaker John A. Boehner’s team pushed this week’s spending bill through the House easily, despite tea party concerns — is looking forward to Nov. 4. Boehner and Co. expect the GOP edge in the House to grow, and in the Senate, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R.-Ky., and other Republicans sense that retaking that chamber is within their grasp. As for the “do-nothing” charge, many Republicans contend that holding the legislative line on what they and many of their constituents consider an overreaching, out-of-control White House is no vice. After all, suing the president is also part of the 113th’s legacy. Others in the GOP say any blame over a lack of legislative productivity should be assigned to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and the Democrat-controlled Senate – not the GOP-controlled House. Boehner spokesman Michael Steel told CQ Roll Call that House Republicans had passed hundreds of bills, “including jobs bill after jobs bill.” “But Washington Democrats — including President Obama and Senate Democratic leaders — have utterly failed to act,” Steel said. Moira Bagley Smith, spokeswoman for Majority Whip Steve Scalise, said, “Considering the Senate is sitting on over 350 pieces of House-passed legislation from this Congress, I believe Sen. Reid’s chamber single- handedly has earned the title of ‘least productive.’ “The contrast in productivity between these two chambers couldn’t be more obvious,” she added. That’s a refrain they’ll use on the campaign trail, as the GOP attempts to reclaim control of the Senate. The party needs to win at least six seats to take over. Reid, in his last news conference before adjourning the Senate until Nov. 12, ticked off a list of Democratic priorities rejected by GOP leaders: pay equity, raising the minimum wage, a proposal to allow student loans to be refinanced to lower interest rates and a measure to discourage outsourcing jobs overseas. “Their charade is so cynical that they even block bills they claim to want,” Reid said. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., however, said Reid’s unwillingness to hold open debates and allow the Senate to vote for fear of a political backlash in November has brought the Senate to a halt. “It’s just [a result of] increased partisanship, increased dictatorial practice, very frankly,” McCain added. Whether the credit goes to Republicans or Democrats, the lack of legislative accomplishments earns this group a unique position in congressional history. But there were other unforgettable moments from the past 20 months that are also cemented in the 113th’s legacy. There were surprises — such as Sen. Rand Paul’s out-of-the-blue 13-hour filibuster on drones — a throwback move which reminded the country that Congress, despite its troubles, retains the power to inspire. And there were breakdowns in civility, none more stunning or explosive than Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa’s decision to cut the mic of ranking Democrat Elijah E. Cummings. There were also successes. For the first time since 2009, both chambers agreed to a budget. And there were gut-wrenching stalemates, like last year’s partial government shutdown, that dragged on into days that turned into weeks. Earlier this year, conventional wisdom held that the October shutdown would be an albatross around Republican necks this election. The GOP, meanwhile, was just as sure that the Affordable Care Act would cripple Democrats. Instead, both issues have taken a backseat as concerns about terrorism, immigration and the economy have surged to the fore. But whatever the issue — spending, unemployment, entitlements, tax reform, the Affordable Care Act, immigration — they’ll all be waiting there under the dome for the new Congress in January. That, too, is part of the 113th’s legacy. Steven T. Dennis, Emma Dumain, Matt Fuller and Humberto Sanchez contributed to this report. Proposition 1: Voters to decide on $7.5 billion water bond By Melody Gutierrez September 21, 2014 | Updated: September 21, 2014 7:28pm Central Valley legislators hope to use funds from Proposition 1 to help build the Sites Reservoir at this site near the town of Maxwell in Colusa County. Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, STF / Associated Press Central Valley legislators hope to use funds from Proposition 1 to help build the Sites Reservoir at this site near the town of Maxwell in Colusa County. SACRAMENTO — California voters will be faced with a $7.5 billion question this fall about whether to publicly finance a water bond meant to help the state better manage its most precious and increasingly limited resource. Proponents say Proposition 1 will pay for necessary water infrastructure improvements, such as creating additional water storage, cleaning up groundwater, expanding water recycling, improving watersheds and various other projects. However, the money is not yet tied to specific projects. The bond was deliberately left vague so that projects would go through a public competitive grant process. The bond’s prospects have been propped up by the state’s drought, but scientists warn the measure will not address water shortages facing the state at the moment. “In terms of this drought, nothing in the bond will make a difference,” said Peter Gleick, a noted water expert and president of the nonpartisan think tank Pacific Institute in Oakland. “It’s all long‐term funding and projects.” Among the items Prop. 1 would fund: • $2.7 billion for water storage, potentially for new reservoirs • $900 million for groundwater cleanup and monitoring •$725 million for water recycling projects •$1.5 billion for watershed restoration programs, such as increasing river flows for wildlife •$200 million for storm water capture projects •$395 million for statewide flood management, including delta flood protection projects. The state anticipates it would cost $360 million annually over 40 years to pay off the bond debt. Prop. 1 is supported by a wide array of groups — agriculture, business, labor, environmental and wildlife organizations — with long histories of fighting each other over the state’s water supply. The reason for the support is simple, several experts said. 'A degree of vagueness’ “There is a degree of vagueness in the bill that allows for a broad coalition of parties that hope that the project they favor will be the beneficiary,” said Michael Hanemann, a UC Berkeley professor of environmental and resource economics. “Not all of those aspirations will reach fruition when this passes and the money is actually allocated.” California uses a complex water delivery system to move water around the state to address a mismatch in where water and people are located. While most of the rain and snow in the state falls north of Sacramento between October and April, most of the state’s population anddemand is south of the capital. The drought, now in its third year, has been exacerbated by an already overcommitted water supply. University of California researchers estimate that, on average, California allocates more than five times the amount of water available. Those who have followed California’s long history of water wars say the bipartisan support of Prop. 1 in no way signals a truce moving forward. In fact, many are predicting that if the water bond passes, there will be fierce lobbying over how the funds are spent, particularly when it comes to $2.7 billion for storage. Funding for reservoirs The storage money was a requirement to earn votes from Republicans and Central Valley Democrats who support two long‐sought reservoirs they say are needed to capture runoff during wet years to use during the dry years. The bond could pay for a portion of the two reservoirs: Temperance Flat on the Upper San Joaquin River in Fresno County and Sites Reservoir near the town of Maxwell in Colusa County. With climate change reducing snowpack, which is the state’s natural storage, Hanemann said California will need to find replacement storage. “Conservation will play a role, water reuse will play a role, but it’s likely we will need additional storage,” Hanemann said. Opponents argue that the amount of water either reservoir would produce is not worth the money it would take to build them and questioned whether taxpayers should subsidize dams that mostly benefit private agriculture businesses. “We must demand water solutions in this state that make sense,” said Barbara Barrigan‐Parrilla, field director for No on Prop. 1 and executive director of Restore the Delta. The water bond “does not make new water for California. It does not bring us near‐term drought relief. It is filled with pork, including $2.7 billion for dams.” The No on Prop. 1 campaign has $40,000 in the bank compared with $2.85 million in a campaign to support the water bond and Prop. 2, the state’s rainy‐day fund. Opponents of Prop. 1 include Food & Water Watch, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations, the Center for Biological Diversity, Restore the Delta and Friends of the River. Prop. 1 asks voters to approve $7.12 billion in new bond debt and reallocates $425 million in existing unspent bond funds to bring the total spending plan to $7.5 billion. Lawmakers initially sought to put a larger water bond on the 2010 ballot but pulled it amid concerns it would not pass. That bond — an $11 billion measure — was roundly criticized for being “pork‐filled” and was also removed from the 2012 ballot amid low voter approval ratings. Last month, lawmakers crafted the smaller $7.5 billion water bond, which earned widespread bipartisan support from legislators across the state. They also moved the water bond to the top of all ballot measures by voting to rename it Prop. 1, a move that improves its visibility and thus its viability. Strong support in poll A recent Field Poll showed that likely voters support the water bond by nearly 2 to 1. That’s a somewhat surprising result given that the majority of people polled reported — at first — that they were not familiar with the water bond. They indicated they supported the bond after listening to the ballot language. “The water bond is important because it’s the first time in 30‐plus years that California will see the opportunity to build big water infrastructure much like what was built in the ’50s and ’60s,” said Mario Santoyo, executive director of the California Latino Water Coalition and assistant general manager at Friant Water Authority, which serves farmers in the San Joaquin Valley. “It’s also important because it will provide significant funding for disadvantaged communities to finally deal with Third World conditions that have existed in not being able to provide an adequate water supply or safe water supply.” Melody Gutierrez is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E‐mail: [email protected]. Twitter: @MelodyGutierrez Poll: California water bond looking good to voters By Jessica Calefati San Jose Mercury News POSTED: 09/10/2014 06:00:00 AM PDT | UPDATED: ABOUT 21 HOURS AGO SACRAMENTO -- The $7.5 billion water bond Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature put on the November ballot during a deepening drought has a strong chance of passing muster with voters, according to a new Field Poll. The measure has the support of 52 percent of people surveyed even though almost two-thirds of respondents were unfamiliar with it and the water projects it would fund. Another 21 percent of likely voters are undecided on the Proposition 1 water bond, the poll found. "These numbers signal this proposition has a pretty good chance of passing," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the Field Poll. "Propositions that start out ahead can be defeated by big, organized moneyed interests, but I don't see that happening with Prop. 1." Although the Sierra Club and some other environmental advocates have voiced concerns about whether the bond might help Brown's plan to build twin tunnels to divert Sierra water from the Delta, the groups have not yet said whether they'll try to defeat the measure. Brown has pledged to campaign heavily for passage of the water bond and Proposition 2, which would create a new "rainy day fund" requiring more consistent deposits into the state's savings account. He led efforts to renumber the ballot measures, listing those two first to alert voters of their significance. The more voters know about the water bond, the more they like it, the poll found. Support for the water spending plan was almost 10 points higher among respondents who had seen or heard of the bond. That's encouraging news for Brown and the bipartisan coalition of legislators who worked tirelessly last month to negotiate a deal. "This is a pretty good starting point," said Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego. "We worked hard to get this proposal through the Legislature with almost unanimous support, so I think we all feel compelled to do some work to see that it passes." Democrats support the water bond more strongly than any other voter subgroup, while Republicans were the greatest reservoir of opposition. Almost 50 percent of Republicans surveyed said they would vote against it, and only 35 percent said they would vote for it. Regionally, support for the water bond is strongest among Bay Area and Los Angeles County residents. Almost a third of voters in the Central Valley and other parts of Southern California said they would vote no on the measure. But even in those areas, supporters outnumber the opponents -- another finding that signals the likelihood the proposition will pass in November, experts say. "There's strong support for the water bond in the Bay Area and Los Angeles County because these are Democratic strongholds, and Democrats heavily favor the proposal," DiCamillo said. "There's no regional segment that's hugely against it, and that's significant." No ballot measure committees have been formed to support or oppose Proposition 1, according to the Secretary of State's Office, though observers expect a formal "Yes on 1" effort to pick up speed over the next several weeks. The state Republican Party will consider its position on the water bond at a convention scheduled for next month, but legislative Republicans helped get it onto the ballot. "This water bond is critical for California's storage needs, and as voters learn more about this proposal we're confident that support will increase," said Peter DeMarco, a spokesman for Senate Republican leader Bob Huff. The water bond now on the November ballot replaces a bloated $11 billion plan negotiated by lawmakers in 2009 that all sides agreed was too costly. The support of Central Valley lawmakers for the current package was critical to getting the proposal through the Legislature, where a two-thirds vote was required. They had threatened to block the measure unless it offered sufficient funding for water storage projects. More than a third of the bond -- $2.7 billion -- is dedicated to construction of the first new state- funded dams, reservoirs and other water storage solutions in three decades. Projects to protect rivers, lakes and watersheds will get $1.5 billion or close to 20 percent of the package. The poll surveyed 467 likely voters from Aug. 14 to 28. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.8 percentage points. Contact Jessica Calefati at 916-441-2101. Follow her at Twitter.com/calefati. Read the Political Blotter at IBAbuzz.com/politics. No, Barack Obama isn’t on the ballot this fall. Yes, he is hurting Democrats’ chances. By Chris Cillizza September 10 at 12:44 PM Follow @thefix S President Barack Obama is photographed through an Oval Office window as he speaks on the phone with King Abdallah Abd al Aziz of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia at the White House in Washington, DC, USA, 10 September 2014. EPA/RON SACHS / POOL Here's a sample of Scott Brown's victory speech following his primary win in New Hampshire on Tuesday night: "Nobody in the Senate is more invested in the policies and the failures of Barack Obama than Jeanne Shaheen. They campaigned together in our state six years ago. They were elected on the same day. And from that day to this, she has voted for the failed Obama agenda more than 99 percent of the time." Brown isn't the only one rolling out the "voted with Obama [a whole heck of a lot]" line. Cory Gardner is attacking Colorado Sen. Mark Udall for voting with Obama 99 percent of the time. Bill Cassidy is hitting Louisiana Sen. Mary Landrieu for voting with Obama 97 percent of the time. Ditto Thom Tillis against North Carolina Sen. Kay Hagan. The strategy is simple: President Obama is not popular. The closer you can link a Democrat to Obama, the better. So, I was somewhat surprised when I was looking through the new Washington Post-ABC News poll and found this question (and response): "Will one reason for your vote for Congress be to express support for Obama, opposition to Obama or is Obama not a factor in your choice?" A majority -- 54 percent -- said Obama played no role in their choice while 27 percent said their vote would be to show opposition to Obama and 19 percent said it would be to show support for him. But, dig a little deeper into those numbers and you begin to understand better how -- and why -- Obama is a factor, and a negative one, for Democrats trying to hold the line in the Senate and House. Take a look at how partisans react to that question. Sixty two percent of self-identified Republicans said their vote would be in opposition to Obama while 36 percent said he wasn't a factor and 2 percent said it would be a vote in support of him. Contrast that to Democrats -- 52 percent said Obama wasn't a factor, 42 percent said that their vote would be in support of him and five percent said their vote would be in opposition to the president. The key gap to look at is the 20-point difference between Republicans who say that their vote is to express opposition to Obama and Democrats who it is to show support for him. Put simply: Republicans are significantly more motivated to turn out and send Obama a negative message than Democrats are to send him a positive one. Obama is a major motivating factor for a majority of Republicans and isn't for the majority of Democrats. "He is THE factor for Democrats," said one Democratic pollster who has conducted a series of polls in swing House races and Senate seats of late. "Not necessarily his current rating, but the inability to move upward as the election gets closer." History suggests a very close correlation between a president's job approval and how his party does -- even when he is not on the ballot. Two charts tell that story. The first is from Real Clear Politics' Sean Trende showing that the lower a president's approval the more losses his side incurs. The second is from the PBS NewsHour, detailing how presidential approval correlates to midterm losses for his party in the Senate. On average, there is a 5.5 seat loss when presidential approval is under 50 percent and a 2.3 seat loss when it is above 50 percent. As WaPo pollster Scott Clement explains: "[Obama's poll numbers] can provide a convenient starting point for making decisions at the ballot box (like Obama and Democrats? Vote Democratic). The long- running decrease in ticket-splitting raises the stakes for views of the president and national party – he has greater potential to lift and sink his fellow partisans than before." So, no, President Obama isn't on the ballot. But he -- and his approval ratings -- matter a whole heck of a lot to the Democrats who are. Chris Cillizza writes “The Fix,” a politics blog for the Washington Post. He also covers the White House Kashkari attacks Jerry Brown on Tesla, teachers, 'crazy train' in spirited debate By Jessica Calefati and Tracy Seipel Staff writers POSTED: 09/04/2014 08:41:25 PM PDT1 COMMENT | UPDATED: 5 DAYS AGO SACRAMENTO -- Neel Kashkari, the underdog in California's race for governor, launched a fusillade of attacks on Gov. Jerry Brown on Thursday night in their first and probably only debate. The two candidates, who had never met before the event at Sacramento's Senator Hotel, sparred over a wide range of issues, including high-speed rail, the economy, immigration and California's public schools. At times, they shouted over one another to get the last word. Brown, 76, portrayed himself as an experienced veteran who came to the Capitol four years ago ready to roll up his sleeves to reduce the state's $27 billion deficit -- which he noted is now a surplus. But Kashkari, a 41-year-old asset manager from Laguna Beach and former U.S. Treasury Department official, painted the Democratic governor as an out-of-touch career politician while describing himself as a "middle-class kid" who is seeking the state's highest office to help restore California's middle class. The part of the debate that centered on the state of California's public schools was the most contentious. When asked why he's appealing the recent Vergara v. California court ruling that found the quality of California's public schools so poor that it violates some students' constitutional rights, Brown blamed the schools' woes on insufficient funding and problems communicating with students just learning to speak English. Kashkari, however, accused Brown of putting the interests of the California Teachers Association ahead of struggling students. "You had a choice between fighting for the civil rights of poor kids and fighting for the union bosses who funded your campaigns," Kashkari said. "You sided with the union bosses. You should be ashamed of yourself, governor." Brown and his supporters point out that during his first term he led efforts to overhaul California's school funding formula, eliminating many restrictions on the way districts use their state aid and promising greater spending on poorer students. Midway through the debate, Brown zeroed in on a criticism of Kashkari that he repeated several times -- Kashkari's experience working for Goldman Sachs and as a government official who helped run the unpopular Troubled Asset Relief Program, known as TARP. Kashkari defended TARP's work, saying the program had made money for the government. But Brown railed against him for the generous bonuses given to the CEOs of bailed-out banks. After Kashkari called California's bullet train the "crazy train," Brown said: "I think he's more familiar with the gravy train back in Washington." During the debate, Brown revealed his plans to sign a contentious bill that will make California the first state to ban single-use plastic grocery bags. That led Kashkari to accuse Brown and Democrats in the Legislature of focusing too narrowly on minor issues like the bag ban, instead of finding ways to put people back to work. "The time for incrementalism has long since passed, governor," Kashkari said. "We actually need bold reforms to rebuild the middle class. Plastic bags isn't going to do it." But Brown pointed out that more than 1 million new jobs were created during the first three years of his third term. "You talk about poor people," Brown said to Kashkari. "I'm the one who is raising the minimum wage to ten bucks. I'm the one who gave Latinos driver's licenses so they can legally drive to work. Kashkari specifically called Brown out on Tesla Motors' decision, announced Thursday, to build a battery factory in Nevada. "I don't think Governor Brown did nearly enough on Tesla or any number of businesses," Kashkari said. Brown, however, said the concessions requested by Tesla would have been unfair to California taxpayers. Water issues and California's bullet train also took center stage. Brown is the train's main champion, but Kashkari pledged: "I'm going to cancel the high-speed rail train and invest in water in a big way." He added that Gov. Pat Brown, the governor's father, "understood how important water is. Water and schools must come first." Kashkari, who was 16 points behind Brown in a Field Poll released Thursday, is running his campaign on a shoestring budget. He had proposed 10 head-to-head events. But Brown, who had $22 million in the bank for the campaign at the end of June, said at the end of the debate that he thought one was enough. "I think we've exposed the differences," Brown said. "This is a format they'll play over and over again." Two veteran political analysts said they thought Kashkari won the debate. "His answers were crisper and more direct," said Jack Pitney, a political science and government professor at Claremont McKenna College. "And he stayed on focus. He kept bringing the debate around to the topics he wanted to talk about, which were jobs and education." Bill Whalen, a research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, said "the governor was not knocked down," but agreed that Kashkari did better in terms of style and points. "He was more coherent than the governor," Whalen said. "More times than not, the governor went off into Jerry Brown mode where he was not answering the questions." But Martinez resident Kamla Fitzell, 76, a registered Democat, said she thought Brown won because he was able to defend his record. She said she was surprised that Kashkari was so aggressive: "He was attacking Jerry Brown personally, making sure we know Jerry Brown comes from a rich background -- which is true. But he did that so many times that it kind of made me think, 'Don't be so petty.'" But Gary Stewart, 51, a registered Republican from Livermore, said he thought Kashkari's debate strategy was effective. "Gov. Brown has always been a rich liberal," Stewart said. "He grew up in a family and always had things handed to him -- whereas Kashkari is a middle-class kid who grew up understanding how the world works." Contact Jessica Calefati at 916-441-2101. Follow her at Twitter.com/calefati. Read the Political Blotter at IBAbuzz.com/politics. Sen. Barbara Boxer knocks down resignation rumors Senator denies rumor - won't commit to '16 John Wildermuth Updated 5:05 pm, Friday, September 5, 2014 Sen. Barbara Boxer outlines her priorities during a discussion with reporters at San Francisco's Ferry Building, where she also quashed resignation rumors. Photo: Lea Suzuki, The Chronicle Sen. Barbara Boxer isn't going anywhere, at least for now. Meeting with reporters at the Ferry Building in San Francisco on Friday, the 73-year-old California Democrat quickly dismissed recent rumors that she planned to resign from the Senate seat she first won in 1992. "I'm not resigning, of course not," she said in response to a question. "Those rumors are bizarre - I love California and I love my job." But the senator, a former Marin County supervisor and House member, made no guarantee she will run for a fifth term in 2016, saying she will make that decision next year. "I haven't decided," she said. One fact behind the resignation rumor is the slow pace of Boxer's political fundraising. In June 2008, a bit more than two years before her last re-election bid, the senator had about $3.5 million in her campaign account. As of the end of June this year, federal campaign finance reports show, she had just under $200,000. The finance numbers don't mean much, Boxer said, since she's shown she can raise money in a hurry if she has to. But she had to spend $13 million to defeat Republican Carly Fiorina in 2010 and would probably face another strong GOP challenge in two years. 'Frustrating' years Boxer admitted that her past couple of years in Washington have been "extremely frustrating," with the GOP-led House looking to block a variety of measures pushed by the Senate's Democratic leadership. "It's no secret that the House has only one objective: to try and hurt the president," she said. "I've served with five presidents, some I did not agree with ... but you have to work hard and try and find common ground." On issues like transportation funding, immigration and water, Republicans have been more interested in blocking anything President Obama supports than in solving the problems of the middle class, Boxer said. Republicans need to "have a heart, step back from your hatred for the president for two seconds and do the right thing," she said. But any frustration Boxer feels hasn't kept her from weighing in on issues in the headlines. Although known through the years for her antiwar views, the senator has turned hawkish when it comes to Islamic State, the terrorist group looking to establish a caliphate in Iraq and Syria. "No one is safe in a world where Isis is allowed to grow unchecked," she said. "It's perhaps the most dangerous terror group the world has ever known." Other priorities Boxer said she backs Obama's decision to launch air strikes against the group and supply weapons and other support to the Kurdish ground forces fighting Islamic State. "We are making a difference - we are taking the fight to Isis," Boxer said. "We have to do more. ... These depraved terrorists are a threat to us all." But Boxer rejected any suggestion that the U.S. put "boots on the ground" to fight the terrorists, blaming the group's rise on "the deeply flawed U.S. invasion of Iraq." The senator also talked of her efforts to keep youths from handling automatic weapons on shooting ranges, ban e- cigarette ads aimed at young people, require colleges to designate on-campus advocates for sexual assault victims, push through a long-term transportation funding bill and deal with immigration issues, particularly the flood of unaccompanied minors from Central America. Boxer also took time to endorse California's Proposition 1, the $7 billion water bond that Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature put on the Nov. 4 ballot. She also backed Brown's decision to sign a bill regulating the use of groundwater in the state, which came over the loud objections of Central Valley farmers and legislators. "Good for them to do it," she said of the governor and the lawmakers who voted for the bill. "Water is a precious, precious resource and has to be treated that way." John Wildermuth is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. E-mail: [email protected] Twitter: @jfwildermuth Hill aims to avoid shutdown drama By JAKE SHERMAN and MANU RAJU | 9/7/14 10:04 PM EDT It’s a rare moment of unity in a historically divided and unproductive Congress. “I think we’re going to be out of there on Sept. 23 for sure because they need to be out,” McConnell said in a recent interview. “I think the speaker would like to leave early as well. I think it’s finally something we can agree on on a bipartisan basis.” “Difficult to imagine,” one senior Senate Democratic aide said when asked about the likelihood of Congress staying past Sept. 23. The House would like to be out even earlier: Representatives see Sept. 19 as their last day in session until Election Day. That doesn’t mean there won’t be potential pitfalls. The crisis in Iraq is forcing President Barack Obama to detail his strategy there, as he’ll do in a private meeting with Hill leaders on Tuesday and in an address to the nation Wednesday. Some Republicans want to take aggressive action to clamp down on the White House’s plan to act on immigration after the midterms. And the political climate will be as bitter as ever. Senate Democrats are preparing to load up the calendar with politically charged bills, kicking off election season with a constitutional amendment proposed by Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) to allow Congress and the states to more tightly regulate how campaigns are financed. Once that bill meets a certain death in the Senate, Democrats are looking at reviving other proposals — such as one to raise the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, another to let people more easily refinance their student loans and another to close the wage gap between men and women. Once they fail, Democrats will accuse the GOP of blocking bills to help women and the middle class — key constituencies that could help determine which party controls the Senate. But the GOP will say Senate Democrats are playing politics by teeing up bills that would do little to fix the country’s problems, even as House Republicans roll out their own messaging bills. House Republicans will spend the month focusing almost exclusively on branding Senate Democrats as obstructionists. The House is attempting to pass two large bills, one containing a number of so- called jobs measures, the other one filled with energy proposals. Neither of them will even get a vote in the Senate — but that’s the point. As the political theater takes shape, leaders in both parties are quietly laying the groundwork to get their must-pass business done. The House’s government funding bill, which would extend funding until Dec. 11, sources say, will be ready for public viewing by Tuesday. There’s serious talk about loading up the government-funding bills with multiple items, including an extension of an Internet tax moratorium and a renewal of the Export-Import Bank, an entity reviled by conservatives but strongly backed by the business community. Inclusion of the Ex-Im Bank could produce a revolt among conservatives, forcing Boehner to rely on House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to deliver Democratic votes to pass the spending bill. The bank, which provides loans and insurance to foreign companies purchasing U.S. products, is considered “corporate welfare” in the eyes of some conservatives. “We’ve got a split conference on that issue,” said McConnell, who said he’d vote against extending the Ex-Im Bank charter. There are other land mines as well. With the White House engaged in an escalating military conflict with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, Republicans — and some Democrats — are pushing the administration to fully lay out a strategy. If the White House tells Congress it needs either an authorization for a larger military presence or more cash, lawmakers will be forced to reengage on a hugely contentious issue in the heat of an election year. Still, there’s no indication the White House will ask Congress to formally bless any proposal, given the likelihood that such a move could very well backfire. How aggressively Republicans move to block any future action by the White House to stem deportations also remains an open question. Any effort to add restrictions to spending bills to block the president’s immigration move could produce a government shutdown fight, top officials in both parties say. But this year, a shutdown over immigration is not a clear-cut political winner for Democrats, top officials privately concede. “It’s a question of surviving one day to the next at this point — and having nothing upset the balance,” the Democratic aide said. USA DC DECODER DECODER VOICES Congress returns: Here's what's on tap USA DC DECODER DECODER VOICES With an eye to midterm elections, look for Congress to wrap up spending bills in a stopgap measure, clash over reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank, punt on immigration reform, and stage votes to distress the other side. By Joshua Huder, Decoder contributor September 8, 2014 Congress returns from recess next week after an unexpectedly successful final week in July. Congress passed a significant veterans health bill and temporarily extended the Highway Trust Fund. While there were breakthroughs, Congress failed to find common ground on several issues. With only 12 legislative days left before the election, here is what’s on tap. Continuing resolution. Congress will pass a short-term continuing resolution (CR) in the next two weeks, delaying action on an omnibus appropriations package until the lame duck session. This should be among the first issues addressed by the Congress if incumbents want to avoid the disaster that occurred last year when many parts of the federal government shut down for 16 days. A shutdown five weeks before an election could well lead to a number of congressmen and senators being unemployed in 2015. Despite the incentives to pass the CR quickly and quietly, other issues are creeping into the fold. With significant Republican disagreement on the border crisis and the Export-Import Bank’s temporary extension, extra provisions may be attached to the must-pass CR. If President Obama decides to implement changes that amount to immigration reform via executive order, the CR may become a more contentious debate. Export-Import Bank reauthorization. Addressing the Export-Import Bank charter is unavoidable this month. The bank’s charter expires on Sept. 30 and Congress’s action or inaction on this front will make headlines. The bank’s existence highlights the now frequent divide between immoderate and mainstream Republicans. More conservative members, who now include high-ranking Republicans such as House majority leader Kevin McCarthy of California, Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, and Financial Services Chair Jeb Hensarling of Texas oppose the bank’s reauthorization. Meanwhile, business groups such as the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, among several hundred others, have sent several heavy-hitters to advocate for the bank. Reports indicate that a short-term extension is being negotiated between House Speaker John Boehner and Hensarling.The Senate has already begun the process of bringing its reauthorization to the floor. However, it is unclear how and when the reauthorization will make its way through the process before the 30th. Any provision including Ex-Im’s extension will face opposition. Therefore, it will need to be done quickly as it will almost certainly face a filibuster in the Senate, which could delay action for two weeks. Immigration supplemental and DACA. The House and Senate had widely different ideas on how to address the border crisis. After a failed first attempt, the House passed $694 million in supplemental appropriations along with a bill restricting executive leeway on deferred action on deporting child arrivals (DACA). The Senate overcame a filibuster on a $2.7 billion dollar bill only to fail on a procedural vote the following day. Since then, the child migrant crisis has virtually disappeared from the news cycle. Without any natural momentum from the media, lawmakers would have to take it upon themselves to generate energy for compromise. With elections looming and a packed legislative schedule, a compromise supplemental funds package would be a big lift. Action on this front is more likely to happen in the lame-duck session if it happens at all this Congress. Islamic State. The House and Senate will likely debate a resolution authorizing the president to deal with the Islamic State (IS). The fly in the ointment is that President Obama will need to ask Congress for more authority before lawmakers will actually pass such a bill. The president has annoyed Democrats in the Senate as well as Republicans with his unartful comments regarding the escalating situation in the Middle East. But both chambers would be loath to deny him the latitude to bring to justice the barbaric killers of journalists. Legislative campaigning. Bills that could get votes but won’t pass the other chamber: In the House: shaming the Senate. Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader McCarthy have outlined a schedule intended to put pressure on Senate Democrats leading up to the election. They plan to package several job and energy bills previously passed individually earlier this Congress into a House- omnibus, of sorts. This “closing argument” will increase pressure on the Senate’s Democratic leadership as well as vulnerable Democrats from energy states such as Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Mark Udall of Colorado. Like the previous bills, this package will not see the Senate floor. However, minority leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky may make it a point to mention the bill as often as possible. In the Senate: minimum wage, pay equity, and student loans. Much like the House, the Senate will likely schedule its own votes on how to improve the lives of voters. Instead of the House’s job growth and energy bills, the Senate may focus on minimum wage, pay equity, and lower interest rates on student loans. In addition, there is also an effort to vote on legislation to stop the practice of US companies relocating in foreign countries solely to avoid taxation. The recent talks between Burger King and Tim Hortons have brought this issue to the forefront for many politicians, particularly Senate tax writers. Again, just like the House agenda, these bills have no chance of passing the other chamber even if they did overcome a filibuster, which they won’t. This Senate agenda is about votes in November, not passing bills in September. One thing is certain: Congress will not address all of these problems before the election. In fact, it may only address one or two of these issues. In these final weeks before November, leaders will orient the legislative process toward campaigns rather than policy. Don’t expect much before Nov. 4. Joshua Huder publishes his Rule 22 blog at http://rule22.wordpress.com. Mark Harkins co-wrote this post. Correspondence for 2014 Date Name Title Topic 6‐Feb Barbara Boxer U.S. Senator, Chair Environment and Public Works Water Resources development act (WRDA); Lower Walnut Committee creek Selective Deauthorization 12‐Feb Jim Beall Chair, Senate Budget Subcommittee 2, Resources, cap & Trade Investment Plan: Allocations Environmental Protection, Energy and Transportation 21‐Feb David Cottingham Senior Advisor to the Director U.S. Fish and Wildlife Mitigation criteria ‐ Eagle Take Permits and Wind Turbines Service 3‐Mar George Miller U.S. Congressman Invitation Bruener Marsh restoration , Richmond 5‐Mar Barbara Boxer U.S. Senator, Chair Environment and Public Works Continued federal support for bicycling and walking Committee programs ‐ Green Transportation network. 6‐Mar Thomas E. Perez Secretary, U.S. Department of Labor High Grow6th Job Training sector in natural resources and outdoor activity 2‐Apr Lois Wolk Senator, Chair Senate Governance and Finance Support of SB 1183 ‐ L:ocal Bike Infrastructure Enhancement Committee Act of 2014 3‐Apr Robert Doyle EBRPD General Manager Thank you for letter to Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez regarding the inclusion of natural resources and outdoor activities as an industry sector under the High Growth Job Training Initiative grant program. 3‐Apr Sally Jewell secretary of the Interior U.S. Department of the Invitation to join Representative George Miller, for urban Interior shoreline restoration and environmental education announcement 17‐Apr Arthur L. Dao ED, Alameda County Transportation Commission Support for Alameda CTC East Bay Greenway TIGER VI Planning Grant Application 24‐Apr Jim Beall Chair, Senate Budget Subcommittee 2, Resources, Request to expand the scope of the subject investment plan Environmental Protection, Energy and Transportation for a separate allocation for park and urban greening improvements consistent with the Governor's goal of reducing greenhouse gasses. 25‐Apr Mark DeSaulnier CA Senator, Chair Senate Transportation and Housing Support of SB 1183‐Surcharge for Bicycle Infrastructure Committee 28‐Apr Anthony Foxx Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation TIGER VI 2014‐Hercules intermodal Transit Center Project 5‐May Kevin de Leon Chair , Senate Appropriations Committee Support of SB 1183 ‐ Surcharge for Bicycle Infrastructure Correspondence for 2014 Date Name Title Topic 19‐May Teresa mcWilliam CA Department of Transportation, Division of Local Support of Contra Costa Transportation Authority's active Assistance Transportation Program grant application for the Mokelumne trail Bicycle/Pedestrian Overcrossing at State Route 4 2‐Jun Julie Pierce President, Association of Bay Area Governments Priority Conservation Areas 2‐Jun Nancy Skinner Assemblymember, Chair , Assembly Budget Supporting Budget Item: natural Resources‐ Sea Level Rise Committee and Climate Adaptation: $10 million to Coastal Conservancy for climate adaptation grants 16‐Jun Katcho Achdjian Chair, Assembly Local Government Committee SB 1183 ‐ Vehicle Registration Fees: Surcharge for Bicycle infrastructure 24‐Jun Becky Miller U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 8 Support of the CA State Coastal Conservancy's proposal for Integrated restoration in SF Bay, maximizing Ecological function and shoreline protection through multi‐habitat living shoreline approaches 27‐Jun Mike Gatto Chair, Assembly Appropriations Committee SB 633 (Pavely) Support: State Parks 31‐Jul Barbara Lee U.S. Congresswoman Thank you for July meeting with EBPRD 31‐Jul Mike Thompson U.S. Congressman Thank you for July meeting with EBPRD 5‐Aug Anthony Foxx Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation Letter from Senator Dianne Feinstein in of support for Hercules application for FY 14 TIGER VI Funds 19‐Aug Floor Alert California State Senate Request for Support for SB 1183 ‐ Vehicle Registration Fees: Surcharge for Bicycle infrastructure 21‐Aug Floor Alert California State Senate Request for Support for SB 1183 ‐ Vehicle Registration Fees: Surcharge for Bicycle infrastructure 2‐Sep Edmund G. Brown, JrGovernor Request for Support for SB 1183 ‐ Vehicle Registration Fees: Surcharge for Bicycle Infrastructure 2‐Sep Edmund G. Brown, JrGovernor Request for Signature for SB 1183 ‐ Vehicle Registration Fees: Surcharge for Bicycle Infrastructure