BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, January 18, 2019 12:30 p.m. EBRPD – Administrative Headquarters 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California 94605
The following agenda items are listed for Committee consideration. In accordance with the Board Operating Guidelines, no official action of the Board will be taken at this meeting; rather, the Committee’s purpose shall be to review the listed items and to consider developing recommendations to the Board of Directors.
A copy of the background materials concerning these agenda items, including any material that may have been submitted less than 72 hours before the meeting, is available for inspection on the District’s website (www. ebparks.org), the Headquarters reception desk, and at the meeting.
Public Comment on Agenda Items If you wish to testify on an item on the agenda, please complete a speaker’s form and submit it to the recording secretary. Your name will be called when the item is announced for discussion.
Accommodations and Access District facilities and meetings comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If special accommodations are needed for you to participate, please contact the Clerk of the Board at 510-544-2020 as soon as possible, but preferably at least three working days prior to the meeting.
AGENDA
TIME ITEM STATUS STAFF
12:30 I. STATE LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION R Doyle/Pfuehler 1. ACA 1- Lower Voter Threshold (55%) for Local Revenue (Aguiar-Curry D-Winters) 2. Other Matters
B. OTHER STATE MATTERS I Doyle/Pfuehler 1. Newsom Appointments and State Budget 2. Wildfire Legislation 3. 2020 Resources Bond 4. Cap-and-Trade Investment Plan 5. Other Matters
II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS R Pfuehler/Baldinger A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. H.R. 179 – No Increase in National Parks (Griffith R-VA) 2. Other Matters
B. OTHER FEDERAL MATTERS I Pfuehler/Baldinger 1. Land and Water Conservation Fund – Lands Bill Update 2. Delegation Committee Assignments 3. Other Matters
III. SACRAMENTO DAY MEMBER ASKS I Pfuehler/Baldinger
IV. WASHINGTON D.C. ISSUES / HIKE THE HILL R Doyle/Pfuehler/ Baldinger V. ARTICLES
VI. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT Individuals wishing to address the Committee on a topic not on the agenda may do so by completing a speaker’s form and submitting it to the recording secretary.
VII. BOARD COMMENTS
(R) Recommendation for Future Board Consideration (I) Information (D) Discussion Legislative Committee Members Future Meetings: Dennis Waespi (Chair); Ellen Corbett, Colin Coffey January 18 July 19 Director Dee Rosario, Alternate February – NO MTG August 16 Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager March 15 September – NO MTG April 19 October 18 May 17 November – NO MTG June – NO MTG *December 13 TO: Board Legislative Committee (Chair Dennis Waespi, Colin Coffey, Ellen Corbett, alt. Dee Rosario)
FROM: Robert E. Doyle, General Manager Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager
SUBJECT: Board Legislative Committee Meeting WHEN: Friday, January 18, 2019 12:30 PM Lunch will be served
WHERE: Board Room, Peralta Oaks ______
Items to be discussed:
I. STATE LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. ACA 1 – Lower Voter Threshold (55%) for Local Revenue (Aguiar-Curry D- Winters) This Assembly Constitutional Amendment would lower the voter threshold to 55% for “the construction, rehabilitation or replacement of public infrastructure or affordable housing.” Under the legislation, “parks, open space and recreation facilities” are considered “public infrastructure.” The proposed Amendment, however, seems to specify only “a city, county, or city and county” can incur bonded indebtedness by a vote of 55%. Thus, special districts would still be required to meet the 2/3rds voter threshold. The 55% voter threshold is a concept the District is on record of supporting. Staff and advocates will work to see if “special districts” can be included as eligible.
Staff recommendation: Support, but work to amend to include special districts.
2. Other Matters
B. OTHER STATE MATTERS 1. Newsom Appointments and State Budget On January 7th, Gavin Newsom was sworn in as California’s 40th Governor. Governor Newsom has made a number of key appointments, including: • Wade Crowfoot as Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency • Jared Blumenfeld as Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) • Karen Ross as Secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture • Ann O’Leary as Chief of Staff who was a top aide to Hillary Clinton • Ana Matosantos as Cabinet Secretary who was one-time director of the State Department of Finance • Angie Wei as Chief Cabinet Secretary for Policy Development who comes over from the California Labor Federation • Lindsey Cobia as Deputy Chief of Staff who was his Deputy Campaign Manager • Kate Gordon as Director of the Office of Planning and Research who has as strong
1
background in climate related matters.
On January 10, Newsom unveiled his first California budget proposal. It includes a $144 billion general fund, a 4% increase over the last spending plan former Gov. Brown signed in June 2018. The total proposal, including special purpose funds, is $209 billion, which is about $8 billion more than Brown’s final budget. Newsom’s team estimates there is a state surplus of $21 billion. Child care, education, health, housing/homelessness and fiscal resiliency seem to be the main focus. The budget allocates $6.2 billion to the Natural Resources Agency and $4.225 billion to the Environmental Protection Agency. The budget allocates $1 billion in cap-and-trade funding including: • $165 million to CAL FIRE for Healthy and Resilient Forests, and an additional $35 million for Prescribed Fire and Fuel Reduction • $18 million to the Department of Food and Agriculture for Healthy Soils • $3 million to the Coastal Commission and Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) for Coastal Resilience
Newsom’s budget also proposes a tax on drinking water to help disadvantaged communities clean up contaminated water systems. The “safe and affordable drinking water fund” would address the needs of at least 360,000 Californians whose water does not meet state standards for toxins. A similar proposal was considered last year, which would have taxed residential customers 95 cents a month and raised about $110 million a year.
2. Wildfire Legislation and Funding On his first day as Governor, Gavin Newsom called for $105 million in increased wildfire safety funding. This funding would be on top of the $200 million approved last fall. Of the $305 million now in his proposed budget he allocates: • $214 million for reducing forest fuels • $64 million for more firefighting personnel and equipment • $25 million to help local governments handle emergencies District staff and advocate Houston will also discuss ideas for wildfire legislation.
3. 2020 Resources Bond As discussed at the December Legislative Committee meeting, Senator Allen’s $4 billion bond legislation (SB 45) takes a fairly comprehensive look at the inter-relation between restoring fire damaged areas, reducing wildfire risk, creating healthy forest and watersheds, reducing climate impacts on urban areas and vulnerable populations, protecting water supply and water quality, reducing flood risk and protecting coastal lands. SB 45 does not assign dollar allocations to the various categories included in the outline. There is not currently an allocation category for parks or outdoor access. During the session, there will be significant discussions about the possible nature and categories for a resource related bond measure. The District should closely track this effort and work with the East Bay delegation to include the relationship between wildfire, drought, flooding, human health and natural resource management in whatever bond measure is considered. There may also be a companion resources bond introduced by Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committee Chair Eduardo Garcia. District staff and advocate Houston will discuss proposals for funding allocations and programs for which the District intends to advocate.
4. Cap-and-Trade Investment Plan
2
After a discussion by staff and legislative advocate Houston, there will be a presentation by Government Affairs Intern Nika Hoffman.
5. Other Matters
II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. H.R. 179 – No Increase in Parks (Griffith R-VA) Representative Morgan Griffith (R-VA) has introduced legislation for no net increase in the total acreage of Federal land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service or the Forest Service. This notion is fundamentally opposed to the District’s Mission.
Staff recommendation: Oppose
2. Other Matters
B. OTHER MATTERS 1. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) – Lands Bill Update Due to the federal government shutdown, the Senate has been slow to vote on any legislation. The Lands Bill Package (LWCF permanent reauthorization, Contra Costa Canal Conveyance, Every Kids Outdoors, 21st Century Service Corps and 110 other lands-conservation bills) is on the calendar and may be considered in the next week or two. Even if the Senate passes the bill, the House of Representatives are expected to make some changes and send the bill back to the Senate. On LWCF, there is a tentative agreement which would permanently reauthorize the program. The funding formula would be 40% for stateside assistance, 40% for federal lands and the Appropriations Committee would determine the remaining 20%. For years, stakeholders – including the East Bay Regional Park District – have advocated for LWCF permanent reauthorization and mandatory full funding.
The LWCF agreement is tied to a larger package of 110 land bills. The Contra Costa Canal Transfer and the Golden Spike Transcontinental Railroad bills could be included in the package. Members continue to negotiate the details of each bill.
2. Other Items
III. SACRAMENTO DAY MEMBER ASKS Staff will provide a verbal discussion and PowerPoint about the January 29 meetings in Sacramento.
IV. WASHINGTON D.C. ISSUES / HIKE THE HILL Staff will provide a verbal discussion and PowerPoint about the issues for legislative meetings in Washington D.C. during the Hike the Hill conference February 9-14.
V. ARTICLES
VI. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT
VII. BOARD COMMENTS
3
Congressman DeSaulnier Urges Trump Administration to Include the East Bay in Wildfire Prevention Efforts January 15, 2019 Press Release Washington, DC – Today, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (CA-11) sent a letter to the Trump Administration urging the Department of Agriculture and U.S. Forest Service to include the East Bay of San Francisco, and communities like it, when undertaking wildfire planning and prevention in California.
“At a time when the President is hostile to the State of California and threatened to pull federal emergency funding meant for wildfire victims, we need a concrete understanding of what specific steps the Trump Administration is taking to ensure the Bay Area is included in wildfire planning efforts,” said Congressman DeSaulnier.
Last year, Congress gave new authority to federal agencies to address wildfire risks and better manage forests (Division O, Title II of P.L. 115-141). While many of these pertain to federal forest lands, agencies are also directed to undertake wildfire hazard severity mapping for communities for areas that are “adjacent to National Forest System lands” or “affected by wildland fire, as determined by the Secretary.” Depending on how agencies interpret these guidelines, it could leave areas like parts of Contra Costa County – which are classified as having medium to high risk of wildfires – un-helped.
“Part of what is so special about the Bay Area is that it is home to both 7 million people and large areas of natural open spaces. With wildfires now a threat statewide and year-round, and with climate change adding to their impacts, we cannot lose sight of the need to do prevention and risk mitigation on lands close to our population centers, including in many areas of Contra Costa County,” DeSaulnier concluded.
“The East Bay Regional Park District’s professional firefighters and operational staff are on- guard as dramatic weather-related events have extended the threat of wildfire. Rep. DeSaulnier should be applauded for his tireless efforts to address the wildfire risk in our suburban and urban communities,” said East Bay Regional Park District General Manager Robert Doyle.
“We are grateful for the important work of the U.S. Forest Service wildfire teams working with state and local firefighters to halt the wildfires in California this past year. As proactive, preventative work is critical to these ongoing efforts focused on wildfires, it will be important that the U.S. Forest Service, state and local wildfire teams also work together to look at the communities of Contra Costa County and the East Bay of the San Francisco Bay Area, even though this area does not contain lands under the National Forest System, because this area is densely populated and next to large open space areas rich in conservation values,” said Ted Clement, Executive Director of Save Mount Diablo.
A copy of DeSaulnier’s letter is attached.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 18, 2019
LOCAL // BAY AREA & STATE California’s water needs: A balancing act sought by Feinstein, Brown Kurtis Alexander Dec. 11, 2018 Updated: Dec. 11, 2018 7:14 p.m.
6
1 Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., walks past members of the media on Capitol Hill, Oct. 4, 2018. Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais / Associated Press
Sen. Dianne Feinstein is joining forces with House Republicans to try to extend a controversial law that provides more water for Central Valley farms, but with a sweetener for the environment: Help with protecting California’s rivers and fish.
The proposed extension of the WIIN Act, or Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, would keep millions of federal dollars flowing for new dams and reservoirs across the West. It would also continue to allow more water to be moved from Northern California to the drier south.
In addition, the proposal builds on the original 2016 law, which conservation groups have criticized as a water grab for agriculture, by offering federal help with funding for the restoration of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The delta is the linchpin of California’s water supply and a vital conduit for salmon. The effort to renew the WIIN Act comes as California water regulators are pushing an ambitious plan to improve the health of the delta and bolster its wildlife. The WIIN Act’s promised restoration funds, according to reports from Congress, are intended to broaden support for the state effort, which has been hung up on questions of who should make the concessions needed to fix the estuary.
On Wednesday, the State Water Resources Control Board is scheduled to take up its Bay Delta Plan. The proposal calls for enhancing conditions in the delta by boosting inflows by forcing cities and farms to draw less water from four rivers that feed the estuary. The city of San Francisco, which gets water from the Tuolumne River, is among those facing cutbacks.
Gov. Jerry Brown recently threw his support behind the extension of the WIIN Act, hoping the new restoration funds would facilitate upgrades to the delta and reduce the need for water cuts. The governor has been urging water users and water regulators to negotiate a Bay Delta Plan that has favorable terms for all.
Many environmentalists, fishermen and California Democrats, however, contend that the WIIN Act remains wrongheaded and has no place in the delta’s restoration, insisting it does more harm than good. The law’s goal of freeing up more water for human consumption leaves less water for fish and other wildlife that have been in decline in the state’s river system.
“This would crank up the pumping, and the more those pumps move water, the more salmon die,” said John McManus, executive director of the Golden Gate Salmon Association, who believes the WIIN Act is an underhanded way to prioritize farms over fish.
Feinstein, D-Calif., and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, are seeking to extend the five- year law for an additional seven years through a rider in the federal budget deal. The federal spending package is currently tied up with such competing proposals as President Trump’s border wall, but it’s expected to be finalized by Dec. 21, when funding for the government is set to expire.
California’s water needs: seeking balance
Two policies that have major impacts on California’s water supply are being debated this week, one at the federal level and one at the state level. Here are they are:
WIIN Act
The federal Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, passed in 2016, provides tens of millions of dollars for water projects across the West, including new dams and reservoirs. It also contains measures specific to California that maximize water deliveries from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. Agriculture is one of the big benefactors of the law.
An extension of the WIIN Act, which Sen. Dianne Feinstein is urging, would include a new provision that allows the federal government to raise money for river restoration in California. The addition, supported by Gov. Jerry Brown, is seen as a way to win support for a state plan to improve delta habitat, known as the Bay Delta Plan.
Bay Delta Plan
The proposal by the State Water Resources Control Board would help shore up the health of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the hub of California’s water supplies and a choke point for salmon. The plan is to increase flows into the delta by restricting how much water cities and farms pump from rivers feeding the estuary.
The State Water Board is scheduled to vote on the first part of the Bay Delta Plan on Wednesday. The initial proposal is to cut draws from the San Joaquin River and its three major tributaries. Farms and cities that tap these waterways have widely opposed the initiative.
“California can’t wait until the next major drought to fix our aging water infrastructure, and improving and extending the WIIN Act is an important step,” Feinstein said in an email.
As proposed, the WIIN Act would provide $670 million for new water-storage projects, including the possible expansion of Shasta Dam and other reservoir work that has faced long odds not only because of the high cost but the environmental footprint. Another $100 million would go to water-recycling programs. Another $60 million would go to desalination plants.
The updated law would also grant state and federal water regulators the continued flexibility to pump additional water through the delta to farms in the San Joaquin Valley and cities in Southern California.
Furthermore, the proposal would give the Interior Department new authority to impose fees on communities and irrigation districts that use federal water and direct the proceeds to improving habitat along California’s rivers.
The Brown administration has been skeptical of new dams and additional pumping, but maintains that funding for river restoration makes the WIIN Act worthwhile.
Critics have seized on language in the WIIN Act that allows delta pumping to go beyond what’s permitted under the biological opinions of the Endangered Species Act. The legislation also directs maximum pumping unless water regulators can prove their actions are harming fish.
Additionally, critics note that the WIIN Act was meant to be an emergency measure to boost water supplies during the California drought, not long-term policy. They’ve also denounced the brokering of the renewal during closed-door budget negotiations.
Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., has come out against the extension because of concern that the law doesn’t balance water supplies fairly.
“We must invest in sustainable water projects that protect critical ecosystems while also supporting our important agricultural economies across the state,” she wrote on Twitter. “Extending the controversial and detrimental policies of the WIIN Act is not the way to do this.”
Kurtis Alexander is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @kurtisalexander
Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 18, 2019
US & WORLD // NATION Trump administration announces plan to roll back rules on stream, wetland protection
Peter Fimrite Dec. 11, 2018 Updated: Dec. 11, 2018 5:37 p.m.
6
1 Wetlands on the edge of San Pablo Bay in Novato, California. Photo: Michael Macor, The Chronicle
The Trump administration laid out plans Tuesday to roll back Obama-era rules protecting isolated streams and wetlands from industrial pollution, a move that conservation groups said could harm creeks and impact drinking water in the Bay Area and throughout California.
The move by the Environmental Protection Agency to roll back the 2015 Waters of the U.S. rule, known as WOTUS, was hailed by farmers and industry, which have long sought to rewrite the rules. Environmental groups, however, denounced the proposal as an attempt by the Trump administration to dodge the Clean Water Act and open up thousands of miles of streams and wetlands throughout the U.S. to development, including pipeline construction.
“This rolls back, significantly, regulations protecting wetlands, intermittent streams and headwaters, where streams start,” said Erica Maharg, the managing attorney for San Francisco Baykeeper, a nonprofit dedicated to preserving the bay ecosystem. “I don’t want to say the sky is falling — the Clean Water Act still exists — but I think what it does is ignore the science of how the smaller bodies and wetlands really impact the larger rivers, lakes, bays and the ocean. Generally, it means more pollution is going to be in the system.”
The proposed regulations, the fulfillment of a promise by President Trump to rescind President Barack Obama’s controversial attempt to clarify EPA water regulations, would exempt from the Clean Water Act many seasonal creek beds and marshlands that aren’t directly connected to navigable waterways.
The Trump administration has repeatedly claimed that the Obama rule was a thinly veiled attempt to regulate private property and force farmers to obtain EPA and Army Corps of Engineers permits for their stock ponds, watering holes and irrigation canals, a claim that supporters of the 2015 rules reject.
“The Obama-era safeguards covered fewer waters than had been protected during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations,” said Jon Devine, director of federal water policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “(The rule) preserved and expanded exemptions for agricultural discharges and for features such as stock ponds and irrigation ditches, but industry keeps regurgitating this tired complaint.”
Andrew Wheeler, the acting administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Trump, nevertheless repeated the claims of government overreach when he announced the revisions, accusing the Obama administration of being less interested in clean water than putting “power in the hands of the federal government over land owners.”
He said the current rules put landowners at the mercy of “distant unelected bureaucrats.”
To share your opinions
A 60-day comment period will begin once the new Waters of the U.S. rule is printed in the Federal Register, which EPA officials said would happen “soon.” There will be a docket in the federal register showing how people can submit comments.
“Property owners should be able to stand on their property and tell whether the water on their property is federal or not without having to hire outside professionals,” Wheeler said.
The new WOTUS rule, according to some estimates, would remove protections for as many as 60 percent of the streams in California and other states, a notion that Wheeler dismissed.
“California already has water protections in place that are stricter than the federal government’s, so nothing will change,” he said, adding that there are no maps or counts of all the waterways affected.
The proposed rule, which will now go through a 60-day public comment period, maintains federal jurisdiction over navigable waters and their tributaries, Wheeler said. Tidal water, lakes, ponds and wetlands adjacent to or connected to larger bodies of water would also continue to be under EPA jurisdiction. Exempted from the Clean Water Act under the Trump plan would be ephemeral streams, essentially dry creek beds that occasionally flow during rainy seasons. Isolated wetlands disconnected from major bodies of water — a 1,000-year flood plain, for instance — would also be exempt. Flooded rice or cranberry fields, groundwater, farming ditches, quarries, gravel pits, previously converted cropland, storm control and waste treatment systems would also be free of federal environmental regulations, Wheeler said.
The Clean Water Act was established in 1972, giving the federal government authority to regulate pollution discharges into waterways, but disputes have arisen, especially over how much regulation could be placed on ponds, irrigation ditches and small seasonal creeks on private property.
The U.S. Supreme Court was split in rulings in 2001 and 2006 over whether the law applied to intermittent streams and isolated wetlands. Obama’s Clean Water Rule was an attempt to clarify which waterways could be regulated, but the ruling was somewhat vague about small tributaries, and that flaw has since become a political football.
Trump’s former EPA administrator, Scott Pruitt, tried to suspend the WOTUS rule earlier this year, but the effort was blocked by a federal judge who ruled that the administration failed to seek public comment.
Dave Ross, the assistant EPA administrator for water, said the newest manifestation of the rule was designed for “simplicity, clarity, regulatory certainty and a recognition that the federal government is of limited authority.”
“Our goal is to provide very clear categories of what’s in and what’s out,” he said. “Our job is ... to implement what power we’ve been given by Congress and stay within those regulations.”
Industry and agribusiness expressed support Tuesday for the revisions.
“The existing WOTUS rule has produced little beyond confusion and litigation, and has undermined farmers’ efforts to work cooperatively with government agencies to protect water and land,” said Jamie Johansson, the president of the California Farm Bureau Federation. “Farmers want to do the right thing for the land, water and other natural resources under their care. ... We hope the new clean water rule will provide the clarity farmers and ranchers need.”
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said clarity is not what Trump's “dirty water rule” is going to deliver.
“Yet again, this administration has sold out our children to further enrich its big corporate polluter friends,” Pelosi said in a statement. “The health of American families in every corner of the country is threatened by a corrupt White House and complicit Congress that have pushed reckless executive orders to undermine clean air and clean water, given dirty power plants the green light to pollute our communities and installed a coal lobbyist at the head of the EPA.”
Environmentalists charge that the proposed rule is a cynical effort by Trump and his supporters to rescind Clean Water Act protections that have prevented filling in wetlands and dumping in creek beds for 46 years, long before Obama.
“These are the capillaries of the landscape. They help move nutrients downstream. They can be important food sources for fish, and they have a profound effect on drinking water,” said Chris Wood, the president of Trout Unlimited. “If you take away the protections of the Clean Water Act, suddenly those dry creek beds might become a place to put animal waste or store gas tanks. Then, when you get a rain event, the pollution is transported downstream.”
Robert Weissman, the president of Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer rights advocacy group in Washington, D.C., said the rollback will mostly benefit Trump and other owners of golf courses.
“Trump is aiding his industry — and his own businesses — by undercutting vital protections for Americans’ drinking water and waterways,” Weissman said in a statement. “Golf course owners — including Trump — shouldn’t be able to pollute the nation’s water with pesticides and fertilizers, as a rollback would in many cases allow them to do.”
Peter Fimrite is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @pfimrite
Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 18, 2019
OPINION // JOHN DIAZ 2018 was a year the world turned surreal in many ways
John Diaz Dec. 28, 2018 Updated: Dec. 28, 2018 11:57 p.m.
President Trump was obsequious in summit with Vladimir Putin. Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais / Associated Press
The scale and intensity of the wildfires that ripped through Shasta County in the summer and leveled the Butte County town of Paradise in the fall were beyond imagination. Suddenly, the rare phenomenon known as a fire tornado, or “firenado,” was added to the risk list of California disasters as flames swirled at 143 mph in the Carr Fire near Redding. Three months later came the apocalyptic Camp Fire, which claimed 86 lives and destroyed nearly 18,000 structures in Butte County.
These devastating wildfires served as one of 2018’s myriad warnings that a changing climate was upon us. This year is on track to being the fourth hottest on record; the other three came in 2015, 2016 and 2017.
Hurricanes such as Florence (Carolinas, September) and Michael (Florida, October) were intensified by the warming ocean. Floods in southern India, drought in India and a typhoon in the Philippines and China were among the significant climate-linked disasters of 2018. Yet President Trump continued to insist on withdrawing from the Paris accord and rolling back Obama-era environmental regulations, while scoffing at the conclusions of 13 agencies in his own government that time is running out to avoid even more severe consequences that will undermine the habitability of wide swaths of the planet.
Trump was upside down with the world in other ways, especially in his treatment of erstwhile allies and adversaries, and his failure to distinguish between democrats and autocrats. This was the year he genuflected in the presence of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, expressed his affection for North Korea’s Kim Jong Un and deferred to Turkey’s Tayyip Erdogan against the judgment of America’s military and diplomatic leaders on the Syria withdrawal. He insulted the leaders of some of our most enduring allies, including Canada, Britain, Germany, France, Japan and South Korea.
It was also the year he gave an unwarranted benefit of the doubt to the crown prince of a dubious ally, Saudi Arabia, after the dismemberment of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi, in that nation’s consulate in Turkey. Again, the president disregarded the findings of his own intelligence agencies that the execution was performed with the knowledge, if not the direction, of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
If it wasn’t disturbing enough that the president of the United States was tolerating tyrants, in many ways he was emulating and even encouraging their suppression of free expression. His refrains about “fake news” and journalists being “enemies of the people” — right out of the authoritarian playbook — were accompanied by his move to shut off White House access to CNN’s Jim Acosta, threaten to revoke others’ press passes, and challenge libel laws and business interests of media companies.
Bay Area people figured prominently in some of the boldest challenges to Trump’s policies and posturing in 2018 — none more than San Francisco’s Nancy Pelosi, now poised to return as speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives after the Democrats’ blue wave in the November elections. California proved pivotal in the Democratic takeover of House control, with the party sweeping all seven targeted races, prevailing even in the once conservative bastion of Orange County.
Once again, Democrats won all state offices, with former San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom handily defeating Republican John Cox, an Illinois transplant and perennial candidate who didn’t seem to grasp that an embrace of Trump was a kiss of death in the Golden State.
Meanwhile, the key witness in the most important Capitol Hill hearing of the year — Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct in his youth — was from Palo Alto. Her testimony was riveting and credible, but ultimately inconsequential to Trump and Republicans who were hell-bent to put the conservative jurist on the high court.
In San Francisco, London Breed was unceremoniously bumped as interim mayor in January by a progressive bloc concerned that it would give her an undue advantage in the June election to fill the rest of the late Mayor Ed Lee’s term. Oddly, the left reached to the center to install Mark Farrell as a stopgap. But the voters reinstalled Breed with a decisive victory over the favorites of the left, Mark Leno and Jane Kim. The progressives then came back in November to secure a majority on the Board of Supervisors — and achieve the passage of Proposition C, a tax on the city’s largest businesses that will generate about $300 million a year for homeless programs if it can clear a legal challenge.
In the sporting world, the Golden State Warriors won their third NBA championship in four years. The year was not so kind to other Bay Area professional teams. The Giants finished fourth in their division, and the A’s were quickly ousted by the Yankees in the AL wild-card playoff game The NFL season was downright depressing for fans of the 49ers, whose dreams of a big season ended early with the injury to quarterback Jimmy Garoppolo; and the Raiders, who piled up the losses in what may be their last year in Oakland.
Change was on the calendar in the Bay Area’s arts and entertainment world as well. The amazing Michael Tilson Thomas, who infused joy and excellence in the San Francisco Symphony for the past quarter century, began his final season as its music director. His presence will be missed, though his successor, Finnish conductor-composer Esa-Pekka Salonen, has world-class credentials of his own.
Oakland’s Ryan Coogler emerged as one of Hollywood’s stories of the year with “Black Panther.” On one level, it was a superhero film based on a Marvel Comics character. But it was much more than that. It embedded an ingenuous, sophisticated and searing commentary about race, culture and nationalism. It also was a huge box office success, earning more than $700 million in the U.S. alone.
At least there were some feel-good stories in 2018.
The year that began with a 69-hour government shutdown in its first month ended in partial-shutdown mode with a partisan standoff in Washington that appeared certain to extend into the new year. The year began and ended with a mesmerized and semi-debilitated political world speculating on and waiting for the next shoe to drop in the investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
It was the type of year that would compel many folks in this crazy world to fantasize about life in Wakanda.
John Diaz is The San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial page editor. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @JohnDiazChron
Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 18, 2019
CALIFORNIA WILDFIRES On day 2, Gov. Newsom calls for greater fire safety — and seeks Trump help
Kurtis Alexander Jan. 8, 2019 Updated: Jan. 8, 2019 8:06 p.m.3
Much of the Butte County town of Paradise was destroyed by the Camp Fire, as seen in this Nov. 15, 2018 aerial photograph. Photo: Noah Berger / Associated Press
Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a plan Tuesday to confront California’s growing wildfire threat, pledging more money to improve forest health and emergency response. And it starts with an unexpected plea to President Trump for collaboration.
The initiative comes on day two of Newsom’s tenure in the governor’s mansion. While the details are still being fleshed out, his move signals a commitment to addressing the deadly fires that have battered the state in recent years and are likely to only worsen with climate change.
“It’s clear to me a lot more has to be done,” Newsom said during a visit to the Sierra foothills town of Colfax (Placer County), where he toured an area prone to fire before staging a news conference in front of a fire truck. “We are stepping up our game. I hear you, I get it. We need to do more. These last two years have been devastating.” Most of the plans announced Tuesday expand existing state programs, with $305 million of new funding proposed in the upcoming state budget. The measures range from thinning trees and igniting prescribed burns in forests to adding new fire helicopters and upgrading emergency alert systems, which have fallen short in some blazes over the past few years.
New Gov. Gavin Newsom discusses emergency preparedness during a visit to a Cal Fire station in Placer County. Photo: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press
But several of the proposals have the hallmarks of Newsom’s brand of progressive politics. They include mapping fire hazards for the poor, increasing mental health services for first responders, and embracing the latest high-tech tools on the fire lines, such as wildland cameras that keep a lookout for flames.
The new governor also appears to be petitioning the president for a truce in California’s rocky relationship with the White House, at least on fire policy. While state leaders and the Trump administration agree on the need to act on the fire threat, the president has downplayed the role of global warming and urged an increase in logging. On the other hand, the state has championed greater climate action and the more surgical removal of wildland fuels.
Newsom sent a letter Tuesday to Trump, co-signed by Oregon Gov. Kate Brown and Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, both Democrats, asking for “increased cooperation” with the federal government and more dollars for forest management.
At the news conference, the governor chided Trump for cutting the budget of the U.S. Forest Service but was quick to praise him for sending aid after recent wildfires. Newsom even defended Trump for his widely mocked comments about the need to rake forests to reduce the fire threat.
“I think what he was talking about was defensible spaces,” Newsom said, referring to the strategy of creating fuel breaks in overgrown areas.”
Newsom also said Tuesday he would back efforts to modernize California’s 911 system with a new statewide fee. A similar push last year, which called for surcharges on cell phone and land-line bills, failed to muster the two-thirds support it would need to pass in the Legislature. The governor said he hopes to win approval for the fees by 2020. In the meantime, he plans to steer some money from the state budget to update older equipment that now makes up much of the system.
Newsom’s $305 million of proposed fire spending in the upcoming budget calls for $214 million for reducing forest fuels, $64 million for more firefighting personnel and equipment, and $25 million to help local governments handle emergencies.
The governor also signed two executive orders Tuesday. The first directs agencies to consider the fire risks of low-income, elderly and “socially isolated” state residents. The second changes the way state agencies contract with private companies, with the goal of boosting collaboration on mapping risks and incorporating technology.
In addition, the governor announced this week that he’s appointing acting Cal Fire director Thom Porter to become permanent director of the agency, and that Jared Blumenfeld, a former regional administrator at the federal Environmental Protection Agency, will be secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency.
Last year was one of California’s fiercest and most costly wildfire years. More than 1.6 million acres burned as the state recorded both its largest blaze in modern history, the Mendocino Complex Fire, and its most destructive, the Camp Fire in Butte County, which claimed 86 lives and nearly 14,000 homes. Fire experts blame the rising toll on a number of factors, including poor forest management, mass development of the state’s wildlands and a hotter, drier climate.
Kurtis Alexander is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @kurtisalexander
More CommentsPrint
Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 18, 2019
OPINION // OPEN FORUM San Francisco’s gifts to the nation — Dianne Feinstein and Nancy Pelosi
By Jamie Stiehm Jan. 8, 2019 Updated: Jan. 8, 2019 6:17 p.m.
2
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi greets the crowd after Gavin Newsom’s inauguration ceremony in Sacramento on Monday. Photo: Gabrielle Lurie / The Chronicle
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Dianne Feinstein are, in Capitol floor parlance, gentle ladies from San Francisco. More to the point, Pelosi and Feinstein are the most powerful Democratic women in Congress: Pelosi in the colorful House, Feinstein in the sedate Senate. Each made her name for the ages.
Few men knew the blue wind blew in from San Francisco. Don’t tell Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican leader. House Republicans were a sea of sulks the first day of the new Congress.
Celebrations in the people’s House sparkled despite the government shutdown and gruff President Trump up the avenue. “Fuchsia roars,” the Washington Post’s fashion critic wrote about Pelosi’s dress. It took each lawmaker decades to reach her pinnacle; Pelosi is the only woman to hold her post. Feinstein is the dean of Senate women. Pelosi is 78, and Feinstein is 85. They’ve seen presidents come and go. Contrary to what critics claim, their age is an asset.
It’s nice to know how much they’ve seen and done, with cool hands on the tiller in a political crisis. Feinstein emerged as mayor of San Francisco in the tragedy of two City Hall slayings: Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk.
Ten years ago, a young president’s quest for health care reform was on the rocks. He could not navigate Congress’s shoals. During her first tenure as Speaker, Pelosi passed and delivered “Obamacare” to President Barack Obama.
The leading champion of health care, Sen. Edward Kennedy, died in 2009. Its historic passage in 2010 as the Affordable Care Act was a result of Pelosi’s legislative strategy. Nobody counts votes better.
This time, the Speaker holds even more power over the president’s fortunes. President Trump can only hope that “Nancy” will resist rising pressure from her energized base to impeach him. With Trump’s threat to prolong the shutdown of the federal government for months, even a year, the darkened capital feels under siege.
Even so, Pelosi reclaimed the Speaker’s gavel in style, after eight years in the wilderness for House Democrats. I witnessed the roll-call vote from the press gallery. She showed great grace in victory, amid kisses, photos and handshakes on all sides of her extraordinary, diverse caucus.
Pelosi then had the House vote to open the government, passing the same bill the Senate approved weeks ago — putting McConnell on the spot.
Daughter of a Baltimore mayor, Pelosi’s old-school political skills are in her blood. She worked hard for that day, overcoming Republican campaign smears and a Democratic rebellion that surrendered.
In talks at the White House on a border wall (“an immorality,” she says of the wall) and closed government agencies, Pelosi’s swift tongue and wit may be the Democrats’ best weapon in divided government.
Recently, before a bank of cameras in the Oval Office, she prevailed.
Nobody has publicly put down Trump as deftly as Pelosi did, calling the looming impasse “the Trump shutdown.” Checkmate.
Feinstein won her Senate race in 1992, the “Year of the Woman” after Clarence Thomas’ confirmation to the Supreme Court split the nation. That year, there were two female senators; now there are 25.
Though she stormed the barricades, she still doesn’t seem like a revolutionary. Not for nothing, the late Sen. John McCain called her “the Queen.”
As a freshman, Feinstein soon became a player. She crafted a ban on assault weapons. President Bill Clinton signed the bill. (The law expired and the senator’s efforts to restore it have been thwarted.) The senator from California is the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee and often questions nominees closely. Oddly, she did not emerge as the leading voice in the volatile Brett Kavanaugh hearings, which centered on possible sexual misconduct.
Feinstein’s most courageous moment was denouncing the CIA for brutal torture practices during the Iraq War. She supported the war.
In the clubby Senate, her dignity commands respect.
Pelosi waxes lyrical about sisterhood and woman suffrage; Feinstein has quietly hosted dinners for all Senate women.
The Speaker and the senator are San Francisco’s gifts to Washington. Thank you so much.
Jamie Stiehm was a reporter for the Hill, the newspaper of Capitol Hill, and the Baltimore Sun. She is a Creators Syndicate columnist. She left her heart in San Francisco.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 18, 2019
LOCAL // POLITICS Gov. Gavin Newsom’s budget: More money for education, Navigation Centers
Joe Garofoli and John Wildermuth Jan. 10, 2019 Updated: Jan. 10, 2019 7:12 p.m.
6 Gov. Gavin Newsom on election night in November. He proposed his first state budget Thursday, featuring increases in funding for education and homelessness programs.Photo: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press
SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed a $209 billion state budget Thursday, a 4 percent increase over the previous year that includes more spending for education and Navigation Center homeless shelters and an increase in California’s rainy-day reserve.
Newsom proposed a record $80.7 billion for K-12 education and money for a second year of free community college for full-time students. His fiscal 2019-20 budget also includes money for an expansion of preschool education and $750 million to fund more all-day kindergarten programs.
Newsom would pay for some of his new initiatives with an anticipated $21.6 billion surplus, $6.5 billion more than what the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office projected in November. The governor said the more optimistic numbers were based on updated statistics.
On housing, Newsom proposed $500 million in state aid to cities to open Navigation Centers like those pioneered by San Francisco, where homeless people have access to programs such as drug and mental health counseling and job searches. He proposed waiving environmental requirements for building such shelters, much He also said he would withhold transportation funding from communities that do not achieve their local housing-creation goals.
“Everyone has to step up,” Newsom said. “If they don’t, don’t ask us for more money.”
Newsom also called on the business community to help solve the state’s housing crunch. He said he has been having a “quiet conversation” with Silicon Valley leaders to “step up and match our contribution.”
Even as he proposed a 4 percent overall budget increase, Newsom invoked former Gov. Jerry Brown’s warning to sock away money for an expected economic downturn. Newsom’s budget calls for putting $1.8 billion into the state’s rainy-day fund, which would increase it to a total of $15.3 billion. Newsom said he plans to increase the fund to $19.4 billion by fiscal 2022-23.
Newsom’s budget also includes $4.8 billion to pay down some of the state’s unfunded retirement liabilities and $4 billion to pay off all the state’s budget debts and deferrals. California still has $256 billion in unfunded retirement benefits for state employees.
“We are preparing for uncertain times,” Newsom said. His budget assumes a 3.2 percent growth in the state’s economy, compared with 5 percent projections in past years.
State Sen. John Moorlach, R-Costa Mesa (Orange County), called Newsom’s growth projections “a little bit optimistic, based on current trends.” He’d prefer to bank on zero growth.
“When the market turns, it doesn’t give you a couple years’ notice, it turns on a dime,” Moorlach said. “You could lose your rainy-day fund within a matter of months.”
Newsom’s budget specifics
Details of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s budget plan:
Education
Newsom can thank California’s booming economy for much of his boost in education funding. His proposed $80.7 billion is close to double what the state spent in the depths of the recession eight years ago.
Newsom proposed a $3 billion one-time payment to trim school districts’ pension costs, which he said would save the districts an estimated $6.9 billion over 30 years.
The governor also took the first move toward his campaign call to provide preschool for all 4-year- olds from low-income families. His plan calls for $125 million to increase access to full-day preschool, with the goal of enrolling all 4-year-olds by 2021-22.
Newsom would also provide $750 million for schools to build or retrofit classrooms to provide full-day kindergarten programs.
Higher education Newsom’s budget includes $1.4 billion for the California State University, the University of California and community college systems to increase enrollment, cut the average amount of time it takes to complete a degree and freeze tuition.
UC would receive a one-time $138 million grant for deferred maintenance, while CSU would get $247 million to expand child care and deal with deferred maintenance, plus $15 million for housing and student hunger aid.
The $402 million community colleges would receive includes a second year of free tuition for full-time students, along with legal services for undocumented immigrant students.
Newsom also wants to spend $15 million to allow UC extension facilities to reach out to people who have college credits but who have not completed their degrees.
The budget also calls for $121 million to increase state grants to the 29,000 students with dependent children who are attending all levels of state colleges.
Housing
Newsom proposed $750 million to work with local governments to jump-start housing production, including work on rezoning for greater density, speeding up environmental approvals and revamping local rules.
Newsom also called for construction of more Navigation Centers for the homeless, like those that have opened in San Francisco.
Health and human services
Newsom proposed $347 million to raise the cash grants for CalWORKS, the state welfare program, from $785 a month for a family of three to $888, effective Oct. 1. The full-year cost of the boost will be $445 million.
That will provide grants that are more than $100 a month more than the next-most-generous state, something that’s needed for families deepest in poverty, Newsom said.
“I’m tired of the scapegoating of this damn project,” he said.
Newsom also proposed a new “working families tax credit” to take the place of the earned income tax credit, and jumping the state’s cost from $400 million to $1 billion.
It would give low-income families with a child younger than age 6 a $500 tax credit and expand eligibility to full-time workers making as much as $15 an hour.
Debt
The budget would provide $4 billion to pay off all the state’s budget debts and deferrals, $1.8 billion for the rainy-day fund and another $3 billion to build other reserves, and an additional $4.8 billion to pay down unfunded retirement benefit costs.
Budget hawks like Moorlach and GOP Assemblyman Jay Obernolte of Big Bear Lake (San Bernardino County), vice chair of the Budget Committee, applauded Newsom’s suggestion to use the state’s surplus to pay down debts. But Obernolte cautioned that “we must remember that creating new programs that would only have to be cut in a recession would be foolish.”
Newsom said “90 percent” of his proposals are policy ideas that the Legislature already supports. Assembly Budget Committee Chair Phil Ting, D-San Francisco, said that “I don’t know if that’s completely true, but on the big issues we absolutely agree. ... We all want universal health care, we want universal preschool, we want full-day kindergarten.”
One big-ticket item was conspicuously absent. Although Newsom said this week that he wanted to expand state-paid family leave to six months for parents of newborn children, his budget did not include funding for it. He said he would create a task force to study the idea.
The budget Newsom unveiled Thursday is just the first step in a months-long process, a starting point for negotiations with the Legislature. The governor will provide a revised budget proposal in May, which will include spending and revenue from the next few months. The Legislature then must approve the budget in June.
In what may be his most popular proposal, Newsom said the Department of Motor Vehicles should start accepting credit card payments. Newsom joked that he couldn’t believe that a governor would be making news with that statement in 2019.
“That,” Newsom said, “is in the you-can’t-make-this-up department.”
Newsom earned a reputation for wonkishness long before he was sworn in as governor — as San Francisco mayor, he famously delivered a seven-hour State of the City presentation on YouTube — and that enthusiasm for eye-glazing detail was fully evident Thursday.
Ten minutes into his 105-minute presentation and question-and-answer session, Newsom enthusiastically touted the money he was proposing for a “longitudinal data system” to track student progress.
“Wait till next year,” he said. “You’ll have to listen for four hours. I love this stuff.”
Joe Garofoli and John Wildermuth are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers. Email: [email protected], [email protected] Twitter: @joegarofoli @jfwildermuth
Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 18, 2019
LOCAL // POLITICS White House considers diverting San Francisco Bay money to pay for Trump’s wall
Tal Kopan and Peter Fimrite Jan. 11, 2019 Updated: Jan. 11, 2019 8:40 p.m.15
Bayfront Park in Menlo Park is part of the South Bay salt pond restoration project. The Trump administration is considering diverting millions of dollars from San Francisco Bay shoreline restoration and flood control to help build the president’s wall on the southern border — part of a bigger plan under consideration to move disaster Photo: Michael Macor / The Chronicle
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is considering diverting millions of dollars from San Francisco Bay shoreline restoration and flood control to help build the president’s wall on the southern border — part of a bigger plan under consideration to move disaster relief money to the project.
The White House is looking at nearly $2.5 billion allocated for California projects being worked on by the Army Corps of Engineers as possible sources to fund President Trump’s wall, according to a list of targeted projects obtained by The Chronicle from a source familiar with discussions. The White House could try to tap the money if Trump declares a national emergency along the U.S.-Mexico border to get around Congress’ refusal to approve his request for $5.7 billion for wall construction.
Other California projects on the list include nearly $1.6 billion for an American River flood control project in the Sacramento area, $200 million to raise Folsom Dam, nearly $260 million for dam work at Lake Isabella in Kern County and $13 million for a Yuba River flood control levee in Marysville. All told, the administration is looking at nearly $14 billion in Army Corps of Engineers funds that were part of a disaster relief appropriation made by Congress last year and have yet to be spent or obligated. That includes nearly $2.5 billion in hurricane relief for Puerto Rico and billions for hurricane-related aid in Texas. NBC News was first to report that the administration was considering the idea.
The White House didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Trump has said he will “most likely” declare an emergency if he and congressional Democrats can’t agree on wall funding, although he said Friday he was “not going to do it so fast.” Trump walked away from a bipartisan deal in December that would have provided $1.6 billion for his wall efforts, demanding $5.7 billion and sending the government into a shutdown.
The impasse has forced about 800,000 federal workers and thousands of contractors either to go on furlough or work without pay.
The San Francisco Bay project is a long-in-the-works effort to build up levees and convert 3,000 acres of former salt ponds in the South Bay back into marshlands.
The federal government allocated $177 million for the project, but California’s Coastal Conservancy and the Santa Clara Valley Water District are expected to reimburse the Army Corps for half that amount.
The restoration is considered a crucial part of a region-wide effort to restore 100,000 acres of former wetlands around the bay within 50 years. The South San Francisco Bay Shoreline project would also protect bay communities against expected sea level rise.
“What they’re really talking about is killing a flood protection project in Silicon Valley to build a stupid wall,” said Coastal Conservancy Executive Director Sam Schuchat, who has been working since 2002 on research and planning for the project. “We have real flood risk for the northern part of the city of San Jose for which we have a real solution, and now they want to snatch it away from us.”
David Lewis, executive director of the environmental group Save the Bay, said he believes it would be illegal for Trump to divert money from a project that Congress mandated. “It’s vital to the restoration of San Francisco Bay and it’s already been delayed for many years, so keeping it moving is a high priority,” Lewis said. “It’s crucial for fish and wildlife and endangered species. Wetlands really are the front line protection from sea level rise for shoreline communities.”
A concerted effort has been made over the past two decades to repair the wetlands. Much of the 30,000 acres of shoreline flats once owned by salt manufacturers Leslie and Cargill have been restored. Three thousand acres near Alviso are scheduled to be the next phase of the job.
“This is a critical missing link for flood protection,” Schuchat said. “This is 3,000 acres of wetlands restoration that we can’t restore until the levee gets built.”
Rep. John Garamendi, D-Walnut Grove (Sacramento County), whose district includes the American and Yuba river projects, said it was unclear how seriously the administration was looking at diverting the money. He noted that Trump has chilly relations with the state’s Democratic leaders, and speculated that might influence what the White House does.
He pointed out that the dam project at Lake Isabella, for example, is in the district represented by House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield.
“If they persist and decide this is where they’re going to go to get the money, they will go project by project and they’ll look at Lake Isabella and go, ‘Kevin McCarthy? Not a good idea,’” Garamendi predicted. “They’ll go to Sacramento: ‘Gavin Newsom? Screw him.’ There will be that kind of thing going on, picking and choosing based on the politics of that particular project.”
Newsom, California’s new governor, called the idea of diverting disaster money “unconscionable” in a tweet.
Earlier this week, Trump renewed his threat to cut off wildfire disaster aid to California “unless they get their act together” on unspecified forest management practices.
Any move to declare an emergency for the southern border would face pushback from Democrats, either in the form of a legal challenge, congressional action or both.
But it’s not just Democrats who are concerned about diverting disaster-related funding. Trump could face bipartisan obstacles if he were to pursue the idea.
The top Republican on the House’s tax-writing committee, Texas Rep. Kevin Brady, represents a Houston district that was devastated by Hurricane Harvey in 2017. He told reporters Friday that he does not believe the White House will follow through.
“I feel confident that disaster relief dollars will not be tapped,” Brady said, citing his conversations with the White House. “They’re assessing throughout the breadth of government what are the unobligated funds and what can be tapped in the short term. But beyond that, I think it’s an assessment.”
The consideration alone, though, set off California lawmakers.
“Just the fact this would be under consideration is seriously concerning,” said Rep. Jared Huffman, D-San Rafael, who chairs a key water subcommittee in the House.
“Whatever he chooses to do, we’re going to take him to court,” Huffman said. “This is political theater. He knows he’s not going to get his stupid wall ... so we’re going to have to play out this Kabuki for a few more rounds.”
Rep. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale (Butte County), said he is concerned as well about the Army Corps money suggestion.
“Let’s be very, very careful before we do something that pronounced on funding for Puerto Rico — let’s do a better assessment of that,” LaMalfa said. “And when we’re talking about some of the other infrastructure that would affect California’s flood control systems there, again, I’ve got a lot of concern about that, because (while) all of the areas I’m hearing about aren’t actually my own district, it’s all kind of a part of a matrix of systems.”
He added that although House GOP leader McCarthy is “straddling a thin line” in what he can say about Trump publicly, the GOP leader’s relationship with the president will “be very, very helpful.”
San Francisco Chronicle staff writer Tal Kopan reported from Washington. Chronicle staff writer Peter Fimrite reported from San Francisco. Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Twitter: @talkopan; @pfimrite
Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 18, 2019
LOCAL // POLITICS Kamala Harris, not yet a candidate for president, toys with warm SF crowd
Joe Garofoli Jan. 12, 2019 Updated: Jan. 12, 2019 10:12 p.m.5
San Francisco Mayor London Breed holds up Kamala Harris’ new memoir, “The Truths We Hold,” while interviewing the senator onstage at the Curran theater in San Francisco. Photo: Photos by Yalonda M. James / The Chronicle
While Obama administration official Julian Castro launched his presidential campaign Saturday, California Sen. Kamala Harris merely lurched closer toward her rollout as she continued her presidential non-announcement announcement tour Saturday in San Francisco.
On Tuesday, Harris told the gang on ABC’s “The View” that “I’m not ready to make my announcement” to run for president. On Thursday, she told Stephen Colbert on CBS “Late Night” that “I might” run. When asked Friday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” how close she was to making her decision, Harris said “I’ll make it soon.”
But not this soon. Yet her candidacy is such foregone conclusion that on Saturday, San Francisco Mayor London Breed — who interviewed Harris for an hour onstage at the Curran theater — didn’t even bother to ask her if she’s running. Instead, Breed continued the shtick. “We are all dying to know this important question that everybody is always asking you everywhere,” Breed said to start her conversation with Harris. “Do you really walk around in those stilettos all the time?”
“It’s either these or my Chucks (Taylor shoes),” Harris said with a laugh.
Then Breed praised Harris, one of her political mentors, saying she looked “amazing on the (book) cover ... presidential on the cover.” The audience, the friendliest of friendly crowds, roared.
Harris is trying to gin up buzz for her candidacy and introduce herself to America by touring TV chat shows and making appearances in liberal media hubs like New York and Los Angeles in support of her memoir, “The Truths We Hold,” and a children’s book she also just wrote, “Superheroes Are Everywhere.”
The memoir is a mix of tidbits intended to humanize Harris (she teases her husband, Doug, for wearing goggles to chop onions), flash extended riffs on policy (“We should also speak truth about the racial disparities in our health care system”) and showcase the aphorisms she lives by (“If it’s worth fighting for, it’s a fight worth having”).
There will be plenty of time on the campaign to flesh that out. Saturday was all about taking some spring training batting practice with a friendly questioner lobbing softballs and a rapt audience that swooned with Harris from the moment she walked onstage to Tupac Shakur’s “California Love.”Harris, in turn, was looser than her typical appearance on “Meet the Press,” mimicking TV chef Julia Child and defending her choice of rapper Cardi B on her soon-to-be-released playlist.
President Trump wasn’t mentioned by name, but was alluded to several times. Harris said the partial government shutdown is the result of the president holding the nation “hostage over his vanity project,” a wall on the country’s southern border.
Harris said the “bloodsport” of San Francisco politics prepared her for her time as state attorney general and U.S. senator. She recalled packing her ironing board, campaign posters, flyers and duct tape and standing in front of grocery stores during her first campaign.
“An ironing board makes an incredible standing desk,” Harris said. “That’s how you campaign in San Francisco.”
“People here are informed and pay attention,” she said. “When you walk down the street, they will come up and talk with you and challenge you and require you to ask yourself a question: Am I relevant to the lives of other people?”
Harris said she is grateful that the city’s ethos encouraged political experimentation to see what programs would work — like her program as district attorney to combat elementary school truancy, an issue not often associated with prosecutors.
Too often, she said, politicians are expected to have “the plan.”
“And the problem with that is you’re supposed to defend ‘the plan’ no matter how bad ‘the plan’ is,” Harris said. Harris compared the fight for same-sex marriage rights, which began in San Francisco shortly after she took office as district attorney in 2004, to the current political climate.
“We now are joyous for the wedding bells ringing,” Harris said. “Let’s remember we had to fight for that. It was a long, long time before it happened. But we didn’t give up.
“When we think about this moment in time, and all that is at stake, it causes us to be frustrated, if not dispirited,” Harris said. “We cannot give up. Let’s remember that.”
Joe Garofoli is The San Francisco Chronicle’s senior political writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @joegarofoli
Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 18, 2019
LOCAL // POLITICS Gov. Newsom angers no one with budget, puts off big fights for another day
John Wildermuth Jan. 12, 2019 Updated: Jan. 12, 2019 5:21 p.m.
Gov. Gavin Newsom presents his first budget, a $209 billion blueprint with many one-time expenditures. Photo: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press
Gov. Gavin Newsom threaded the political needle with his first proposed state budget, putting out a spending plan that’s both bold and cautious, ducking the type of pitched battles that many of his more grandiose campaign promises might have provoked.
The $209 billion fiscal blueprint has plenty to delight his progressive backers, but the new governor also worked to avoid enraging more fiscally conservative Californians. Newsom leavened his calls for social measures like boosting welfare checks and providing health care for more undocumented immigrants with plans to pay off the state’s debts, boost California’s budget reserves and make a down payment on closing the public pension shortfall.
“I thought it was an adept way of making it absolutely clear that it’s a new day in the governor’s office, but also that (Newsom) is going to build on (former Gov.) Jerry Brown’s foundation,” said Raphael Sonenshein, executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs at California State University Los Angeles. “He showed it will be his governorship, but did it respectfully.”
It wasn’t an accident that Newsom opened Thursday’s budget presentation by talking about what he’s saving, not what he’s spending.
“We are preparing for uncertain times,” he said, noting that more than 86 percent of the new spending in the budget would go for one-time expenses, such as building and renovating classrooms to allow school districts to start full-day kindergartens, providing cash for deferred maintenance on state college and university campuses, and training new child care workers.
One-time expenses are just that: money the state spends only this coming year. The economy could stall next year and state revenue dry up — one-time spending creates no new programs to be stranded by the outgoing tide.
Newsom would send more than $13 billion of California’s estimated $21.4 billion surplus for fiscal 2019-20 back to the state. That money would repay what’s left of the debt from the state’s cash crunch of a decade ago, pump up a rainy-day fund and a separate emergency reserve — think wildfires — and put money into California’s cash-starved public pension funds, a longtime concern of GOP legislators.
While the $4.8 billion pension payment is little more than a rounding error to the estimated $257 billion shortfall for public pensions, it can be seen as an olive branch from Newsom to Republicans, who responded with at least measured approval.
With uncertain economic futures for both the state and the nation, California shouldn’t overcommit to new programs, said Assembly Republican leader Marie Waldron of Escondido (San Diego County). “I applaud the governor’s decision to increase our reserves and pay down a portion of the state’s wall of debt,” she said.
Although he led his presentation with Brown-like frugality, Newsom saved much of his enthusiasm for the type of social program improvements that his predecessor was reluctant to fund.
People on the state welfare program known as CalWORKS would see their monthly checks rise dramatically, making California’s payments more than $100 higher than those in any other state. College students with young children could see their Cal Grant awards triple. The amount of state money available for tax credits for low- income working families would rise from $400 million to $1 billion, with families with young children getting an additional $500.
Then there’s the additional $260 million to provide Medi-Cal benefits to adults ages 19 to 25, regardless of immigration status.
Those measures brought cheers from progressive interest groups.
“The children of California have a champion in the governor’s office,” said James Steyer of Common Sense Kids Action, which wants to see greater access to early education and health care. “This is an exciting time for advocates of children’s equity.”
That support was echoed by groups focusing on education, poverty, homelessness and other social issues. The budget also suggests that Newsom is channeling the previous governor by avoiding political fights he can’t win — at least for now.
But in many of those cases, the new governor not only reaffirmed his support for some extremely innovative — and extremely expensive — programs he called for during the campaign, but also took the first steps toward making them happen.
Newsom said, for example, that the state would seek to provide six months of paid leave for new and adoptive parents.
“We’re committed to this, not just interested,” he said.
But the governor admitted that the funding is not there. He said he would convene a task force to consider ways to pay for a phased-in expansion of the state’s current family leave program, which provides up to six weeks of paid time off.
Similarly, free preschool for all 4-year-olds was a top campaign issue for Newsom and has long had the enthusiastic backing of many Democratic leaders, although not from Brown. But that program will cost more than $2 billion a year, with the price rising if 3-year-olds are included, as Newsom has suggested.
So in this budget, the governor calls only for expanding access to existing programs for 4-year-olds from low- income families, and developing a plan to provide and pay for universal preschool, pushing that budget fight into the future.
For months, Newsom has been tamping down expectations on universal health care, a signature issue for him and many progressive Democrats. Many in the party’s left wing want a single-payer model, in which the state would be the sole organizer of health care delivery.
The cost of that would be huge, however, and Newsom has cautioned that it would be years in the making. In the meantime, though, he wants to make many more Californians eligible for state-subsidized health insurance, an early step toward universal coverage.
“There’s always a bit of a risk introducing something as a ‘down payment’ or a ‘one-time expense,’ since a lot of people don’t look at the fine print” and assume the program is guaranteed for the future, said Sonenshein of the Brown Institute. “But there’s tremendous interest in single-payer among progressives, so Newsom had to get in something to show that it’s moving ahead.”
Despite Newsom’s assurance that he has worked closely with legislative leaders and that the budget “reflects their priorities and not just mine,” the January spending plan is the starting point, not the finish line. Between now and the June 15 budget deadline, there will be lots of impassioned back-and-forth between the governor and legislators seeking money for their own pet projects.
“Newsom did a good job rolling out his vision for California, but he can’t do everything,” Sonenshein said. “Now he will have to decide which of his programs he really wants to fight for and what goes into second place.”
John Wildermuth is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @jfwildermuth
Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 18, 2019
OPINION // OPEN FORUM Shutdown has done more damage to national parks than just trash
By Kurt Repanshek Jan. 13, 2019
Two visitors ride their bikes along the road at Joshua Tree National Park in Southern California's Mojave Desert, Thursday, Jan. 10, 2019. The national park won't be closing because of the partial government shutdown after all. The National Park Service said it's freed enough money from recreation fees to prevent the closure of outdoor areas, although most visitor centers won't operate. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong) Photo: Jae C. Hong / Associated Press
A former oil industry lobbyist and a keep-the-seat-warm acting National Park Service director sat down the other day to figure out how best to give the national parks the appearance of normalcy during the ongoing budget stalemate. But their solution risks further weakening park infrastructure, degrading the visitor experience, and leaving parks shy of seasonal rangers come summer.
Three weeks into the partial shutdown, trash is overflowing and human waste is blighting park roads and visitor areas. Illegal campers and off-roaders have trashed delicate ecosystems. Vandals axed some of Joshua Tree National Park’s namesake spiky evergreens.
The partial shutdown is misguided and also damaging to the parks in ways not as obvious as mounded garbage.
Acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt and National Park Service Deputy Director P. Daniel Smith decided this month to spend Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act revenue on daily custodial services. It was an alternative to completely closing the parks until President Trump and Congress resolved their impasse over building a southern border wall. The revenue comes largely from park entrance fees that Congress intended for improving visitor facilities and experiences, shrinking the park system’s huge maintenance backlog and hiring seasonal rangers. What the two men did not publicly disclose is that they are willing to spend every dime of the park fees on taking out the trash and cleaning toilets.
Using visitor fees for trash and toilets sets an unfortunate precedent: Will the Park Service be forced in the future to lean on fee revenue to pay for operations that are supposed to be funded by congressional appropriations?
Deciding against a full closure of the parks appears to be an effort to avoid the public outcry that greeted that 2013 shutdown, suggested Jon Jarvis, a former National Park Service director and currently the executive director of UC Berkeley’s Institute for Parks, People, and Diversity. “The national parks were the public face of the shutdown,” he said, noting that members of Congress pushed him to acknowledge that the full shutdown was a political move, one that left many congressional constituents angry over their thwarted park visits.
But that 2013 shutdown, he said, was “a stewardship act”: Without employees on duty to manage and provide stewardship, the parks would be vulnerable. “I think we’re actually seeing that play out now,” he added.
Wildlife has been dining on garbage that normally would be collected and secure — a wildlife buffet that contributed to the decision to close Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, and raised dangers of human- bear encounters at parks from Yosemite in California to Big Bend in Texas.
More damage you don’t see:
Delays in scientific research, with information gaps in data collection and monitoring of climate change and species preservation — undermining the scientific integrity of data sets.
Interrupted planning for visitor management, monitoring of environmental impacts and hiring of seasonal rangers — all which will lead to the detriment of park integrity and visitor experience. “It all just grinds to a halt,” Jarvis said of the National Park Service’s wide portfolio in its mission of preserving the nation’s treasured lands for future generations.
Even more insidious than trashy parks is Washington’s stewardship direction — with politicians bending, and possibly breaking, federal regulations for spending Park Service revenue. House Democrats and advocacy groups have called for an investigation into the revenue diversion and promise hearings into the legality of raiding park fees.
Joshua Tree typically takes in about $9 million in fees. Most, if not all, of that money from 2018 has already been committed to projects. Has acting Secretary Bernhardt ordered the park to redirect those promised funds, too, to the partial shutdown?
Just a month ago, several members of Congress were working in a bicameral, bipartisan effort to address half of the estimated $11.6 billion maintenance backlog across the park system. Now they’re back at square one.
If anyone is wondering, this is not the way to run the world’s preeminent park system.
Kurt Repanshek is president and CEO of National Parks Traveler, a nonprofit media organization and editorially independent web publication dedicated to coverage of national parks.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 18, 2019
LOCAL // BAY AREA & STATE New effort to require Caltrans to consider bikes, buses and pedestrians in plans
Rachel Swan Jan. 14, 2019 Updated: Jan. 14, 2019 12:05 a.m.
Activists of the People Protected Bike Lane group form a human barrier to separate the car lane from the bike lane, Tuesday, July 10, 2018, in San Francisco, Calif. The demonstration was along Townsend Street between 4th and 5th streets. Photo: Santiago Mejia / The Chronicle
The streets are not just for cars anymore.
That’s the credo behind a bill that state Sen. Scott Wiener will announce Monday, requiring the state Department of Transportation — Caltrans — to consider bike lanes, buses and pedestrian walkways whenever it starts a major road project.
It would mainly apply to state highways that function as city streets — “the 19th Avenues and Van Nesses of the world,” said Wiener, D-San Francisco, referring to a bustling artery in the Sunset District, and a thoroughfare that stretches north from Civic Center. He first pitched the bill in 2017, but it died in committee. Wiener pulled it back the next year to avoid getting caught up in the state gas tax debate.
Now the political will exists to broaden and “electrify” the state’s transportation system, Wiener said. He hastened to add that the bill isn’t trying to wipe out cars — it’s just “recognizing that a lot of people would love to get around without having to drive everywhere.”
“Complete streets,” which accommodate all forms of transportation, would help Caltrans meet a goal it set in 2015 to triple the number of bicycle trips and double the number of people walking throughout the state. Those targets are critical to combat traffic congestion and climate change “that’s strangling the planet,” Wiener said. A recent California Air Resources Board report showed that carbon emissions have increased as more people drive longer distances between home and work.
Streets designed solely for vehicles also create danger for cyclists and pedestrians. In Wiener’s home turf of San Francisco, officials, cyclists and safety advocates are trying to eliminate traffic deaths by 2024.
State Sen. Scott Wiener is introducing the bill on street projects. Photo: Michael Macor / The Chronicle
Wiener’s vision of the future in many ways is grounded in the past. A century ago, California’s streets were rife with trolleys, people strolling and even the occasional horse and buggy — car culture didn’t boom until the 1950s, with the rise of a vast, interstate highway network that allowed middle-class families to flee to the suburbs.
“And then we built everything around the needs of sprawl: enormous parking structures, wider streets, streetcar lines ripped up everywhere,” Wiener said.
In recent years, some Bay Area cities began reversing that urban design. San Francisco and San Jose are shaving off lanes on major roadways to make room for wider sidewalks, bikeways and bulging curbs. Transit officials are pursuing a long-awaited $300 million bike path on the western span of the Bay Bridge, and in Oakland, some starry-eyed urbanists have dreamed of razing the Interstate 980 freeway.
Even so, the bill has critics, some of whom call it a heavy-handed attempt from Sacramento to reshape cities. “This is more state interference and an attempt to control local transportation,” said Quentin Kopp, a former chairman of the state Senate Transportation Committee. “Legally, it’s justifiable,” Kopp added. “But I believe strongly in local control.”
Yet many others see the bill as a way of correcting land use patterns that no longer work for California.
While the Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission has not taken a stand, its members like the “back to the future” idea of welcoming everyone on the street, said legislative director Randy Rentschler.
“That’s why we put so much money into bicycles and pedestrians,” he said of the MTC, which plans and funds transportation projects throughout the nine-county region.
Rachel Swan is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email:[email protected] Twitter: @rachelswan
Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 18, 2019
LOCAL // POLITICS Minorities wield power in Nancy Pelosi’s House majority
Tal Kopan Jan. 14, 2019 Updated: Jan. 14, 2019 8:45 a.m.1
Rep. Judy Chu, D-Monterey Park (Los Angeles County), takes the oath of office last week. She is chairwoman of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, a powerful affinity group. Photo: Riccardo Savi / Special to The Chronicle
WASHINGTON — Nearly every night last year, sometimes nearing midnight, Michelle Lujan Grisham’s phone would ring. On the line would be Rep. Nancy Pelosi.
Sometimes, the San Francisco Democrat would call again at 6 a.m. to update Lujan Grisham, a New Mexico Democrat who was then the chairwoman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, on House negotiations involving immigration and border security.
“Really,” said Lujan Grisham, now the governor of New Mexico. “To her credit.”
The calls were a reflection of how seriously Pelosi, now the House speaker, and other Democratic leaders take the influence of the Hispanic caucus and two counterpart groups that represent black and Asian Pacific American lawmakers. Pelosi’s No. 2, Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., even helped Lujan Grisham crash an immigration meeting with President Trump, taking her to the White House unannounced as part of his entourage.
It’s a relationship that Pelosi will need to maintain as she presides over the Democratic House majority this year. After all, as Hawaii Democratic Sen. Mazie Hirono, a former representative and member of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, put it: “Nancy knows how to count.”
More than 100 of 235 Democratic members in the new House, many from California, belong to one of the three affinity groups known collectively as the Tri-Caucus. It will arguably be the most powerful voting bloc for the Democratic majority.
The growth in the groups’ membership — in the last Congress, the Tri-Caucus had roughly 90 core House members — reflects the diverse lineup of Democrats who won election in the November midterms. It also signals that their influence will be wide-ranging.
Among the Tri-Caucus members will be eight committee chairs, leading panels ranging from environmental issues to homeland security to small business. They will have representatives in the No. 3, 4 and 5 spots in Democratic leadership. Lobbying firms in Washington are hiring staff with connections to the Tri-Caucus, a signal of their importance.
The groups’ chairs, two of whom represent California districts, said in interviews that they plan to work together to shape legislation, speak up for often-overlooked communities and show people of color that there is a place for them in Washington.
Castro speaks during a May rally in support of immigrant families. Photo: Billy Calzada / Hearst Newspapers 2018
“We’re going to be active on just about every policy area that this House of Representatives will concern itself with,” said Rep. Joaquín Castro, D-Texas, now chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus.
Pelosi has already committed to convene weekly meetings between leadership and the chairs of the Tri-Caucus groups. During her successful campaign to reclaim the speaker’s gavel, Pelosi sat down with each of the groups — and made promises to them. She told the Hispanic caucus that she would call for a vote on the Dream Act, which would make permanent the protections that young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors were granted under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA. That bill is also a priority for the Asian Pacific American Caucus.
Pelosi said the House would vote quickly on legislation to reinstate some provisions of the Voting Rights Act that were negated in a 2013 Supreme Court decision, a priority of the black caucus. She also has backed Tri- Caucus members for leadership and selective committee spots.
The groups that make up the Tri-Caucus have solidified their cooperation the past two years in response to Trump administration policies on immigration and civil rights issues. A key moment came in January 2018 when Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., convened a conference call to sell fellow Hispanic caucus members on a Senate-negotiated DACA-border security deal. It would have extended protection for DACA recipients and incorporated some White House demands for limits on two vehicles for legal immigration — a “diversity lottery” for entrance to the U.S. from countries with few immigrants, and restrictions on immigrants’ ability to sponsor relatives for U.S. entry.
Those were particularly sensitive proposals for the Congressional Black Caucus and the Congressional Asian Pacific American caucus. The diversity lottery is the main source of migration to the U.S. from sub-Saharan Africa and a major driver of immigration from Asia, and family visas are also extensively used by Asian immigrants. But at stake were protections for DACA recipients — a priority for the Hispanic caucus.
Members of the Tri-Caucus were considering a compromise — and then Trump rejected Menendez’s brokered deal in a now-infamous White House meeting in which the president denigrated immigration from “s—hole countries.” The groups decided then that they would not endorse the Senate deal even if it could pass that chamber.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., greets Chu. Photo: Riccardo Savi / Special to The Chronicle
“Accepting any element of that truly would have pitted one of our groups against the other,” said Rep. Judy Chu, D-Monterey Park (Los Angeles County), chairwoman of the Asian Pacific American caucus. Leaders of the three groups said the unsuccessful deal was an example of the way the White House has taken a divide-and-conquer approach to communities of color.
“Those are all different subjects that the Trump administration would certainly like to get everybody fighting about. And no one took the bait,” said the Congressional Black Caucus’ chairwoman, Democratic Rep. Karen Bass of Los Angeles. “That was total unity. There was no interest from the Latino caucus to move forward.”
It was also a learning experience for Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who was working with Menendez on the deal.
“On immigration, I couldn’t make a move without them, and when it came to criminal justice reform, the same thing is true,” Durbin said of the Tri-Caucus. “I can allay a lot of fears by getting to them early and explaining some of the things that are happening before they’re mischaracterized.”
While immigration may be where the Tri-Caucus is most visible, the coalition has been instrumental in shaping Democrats’ stances on other issues.
The cooperation of the Tri-Caucus as a bloc goes back at least to the Obama administration, when the groups were key influences in shaping the Affordable Care Act. For more than a decade, the three caucuses have taken turns introducing the Health Equity and Accountability Act, which would create programs intended to improve access to mental and physical health care for communities of color and tighten federal law on discrimination in care.
All three groups’ chairs say one of their biggest priorities is ensuring that underrepresented perspectives contribute not just to policymaking, but to the broader culture.
“Part of it is reclaiming your place in American society,” Castro said. “That’s not a piece of legislation necessarily, or a policy, but it’s important that that emanate from this caucus.”
Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal (left) of Washington, John Lewis (center) of Georgia, Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, and Judy Chu of Montery Park (Los Angeles County) march for immigrant rights in June. Photo: Alex Wong / Getty Images 2018
Castro has served on the high-profile and selective Intelligence Committee, making him a frequent TV guest on national security issues and the Russia investigation. The significance of that is not lost on him. “Growing up, I would turn on the TV and you’d look at the people commenting on the news and you would never see anybody that looks like you,” Castro said. “Hopefully, young people know that they have a place in this country in every aspect of the country.”
Bass said one of her priorities is making it clear to media outlets that caucus members can be more than token talking heads. That’s still an uphill climb, she said. Several members of the black caucus are active in criminal justice reform, for example, but when Bass watched a recent cable news report on the issue, she was angry to see the host interviewing a rapper.
“You don’t get called on to be in the press, you call the media and say, ‘Hey, I’d like to come on your show and talk about X, Y, Z,’” Bass said. “You turn on cable TV, and they’re talking to the same five white guys on almost every show.”
Chu said she remembers when all the Asian Americans in Congress “could fit in a phone booth” — there are now 20 Asian American or Pacific Islander members of Congress — and pictures of the Democratic caucus were overwhelmingly white and male.
“There were these sprinklings of people of color there, so of course they had to struggle to stop being marginalized,” Chu said. “Nobody would marginalize us now.”
Tal Kopan is The San Francisco Chronicle’s Washington correspondent. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @talkopan
Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 18, 2019
Liberals push for a Green New Deal as the way forward on climate change
By Alex Daugherty Updated 3:18 pm PST, Tuesday, January 8, 2019
Photo: Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty Images New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is promoting policy goals to combat climate change.
WASHINGTON — Liberals around the country are talking about the idea of a Green New Deal, a sweeping set of policy goals to combat the effects of climate change 90 years after President Franklin Roosevelt’s expansion of federal agencies and regulations in response to the Great Depression. A Green New Deal, prominently promoted by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez after she upset a Democratic Party leader, has gained widespread attention in recent months. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, the first high-profile Democrat to announce a 2020 White House bid, signaled support for the idea. Ocasio-Cortez and other incoming Democrats lobbied Speaker Nancy Pelosi to create a special committee on climate change, though many demands by liberals regarding specifics of the committee, including barring membership from any lawmaker who accepts campaign contributions from fossil fuel producers, were not met.
The Green New Deal at present is a set of largely amorphous and aspirational goals set out in a document by Ocasio-Cortez and other liberal advocacy groups. The list includes goals like “eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural and other industries” and “meeting 100 percent of national power demand through renewable sources.” “The House has 435 members, everyone has their own ideas about how to address issues, some of them vary,” said South Florida Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch. “But we’re only going to have progress if we’re focusing on the issue and doing something about it and that’s what the new members have helped to galvanize.” Ocasio-Cortez recently referred to the Green New Deal as a “wartime-level, just economic mobilization plan to get to 100 percent renewable energy ASAP,” referring to a massive expansion of government agencies and an increase in taxes to make the nation’s energy system reliant on renewable energy instead of fossil fuels. Florida Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, who ousted Rep. Carlos Curbelo, one of the Republican Party’s leaders on climate issues, plans to make climate change a big part of her work in the next two years. “To fight climate change, the federal government can do what South Florida does, call it by its name and recognize that climate change is in fact a threat, instead of removing references to it on its websites,” Mucarsel-Powell said in a statement. “The federal government should also follow South Florida’s lead by encouraging reductions in its carbon footprint and provide financial incentives to people and homeowners that want to be renewable energy leaders themselves.” Many of the specifics within Ocasio-Cortez’s plan have no chance of passing a Republican-controlled Senate and gaining President Trump’s support, though her document states that one of the goals of the committee is to present legislative language by March 2020, in the midst of the presidential election. The idea would be to start passing bills if Democrats are able to control Congress and the White House. Alex Daugherty is a McClatchy Washington Bureau writer.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 18, 2019
NEWSLOCAL NEWS Governor-elect Gavin Newsom announced the appointment of several key senior staff
Posted: 6:11 PM, Jan 06, 2019
Updated: 6:11 PM, Jan 06, 2019
By: Elisa Navarro
BAKERSFIELD, Calif. — Governor-elect Gavin Newsom announced the appointment of several key senior staff and finance and legislative deputies.
Lindsey Cobia will be Deputy Chief of Staff. Most recently, she served as a Co- Director of Governor-elect Newsom’s Transition Office, as Deputy Campaign Manager for his Gubernatorial campaign and Campaign Manager for Newsom's Yes on Proposition 63 ballot measure. Before joining Newsom’s campaigns, Cobia worked for Lyft's Community and Government Affairs team, and on Capitol Hill for U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer's Office of the Democratic Whip and then-U.S. Rep. Lynn Woolsey. Kate Gordon will be Director of the Office of Planning and Research (OPR). Gordon is a nationally recognized expert on clean energy and economic development. Before joining the Paulson Institute, she was the Founding Director of the “Risky Business Project,” co-chaired by Michael Bloomberg, Henry Paulson, and Tom Steyer, and focused on the economic risks of unmitigated climate change, while serving as Senior Vice President for Climate and Energy at Next Generation, a non- partisan think tank based in San Francisco. Gordon previously served as Vice President of Energy and Environment at the Washington D.C.-based Center for American Progress.
Analea Patterson will be Deputy Legal Affairs Secretary. Patterson was a Partner in the DC office at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, where she specialized in developing creative, multi-faceted solutions to business problems that incorporate legislative and regulatory strategies. She took a leave of absence from Orrick in 2011 to serve as senior advisor for incoming California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris. She has also served as Special Assistant for Policy and Planning to California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, Legislative Director for Assemblywoman Gloria Romero, and as a Policy and Legislative Director for Lieutenant Governor Gray Davis, as well as campaign manager to Bill Lockyer's successful 1998 and 2002 campaigns for California Attorney General.
Erin Suhr will be Director of Operations. Suhr has served at the highest levels of federal and state government. Most recently, she was Director of Strategic Planning and Scheduling for Next Generation, a non-partisan think tank based in San Francisco. Her years in public service included serving as Vice President Joe Biden’s Deputy Director of Scheduling at the White House, Scheduler for the 2008 Presidential Inauguration Committee, Director of Press Advance for the Hillary Clinton for President campaign and Deputy Director of Press Advance for the 2004 Kerry/Edwards campaign. She has also worked as a Special Assistant to California Governor Gray Davis and to Oregon First Lady Sharon Kitzhaber.
Vivek Viswanathan will be Chief Deputy Director of Finance -- Budgets. Viswanathan is currently an Advisor to the Transition of Governor-elect Newsom. Previously, he served as Special Advisor in the Office of Governor Jerry Brown from 2017 to 2018 and as Policy Advisor to former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her 2016 presidential campaign. He was a candidate for California State Treasurer in 2018. Viswanathan received his undergraduate degree from Harvard University in 2009 and his Master of Philosophy from the University of Cambridge in 2010. He received his J.D. from Stanford Law School and his MBA from Stanford Business School.
Jacqueline Wong-Hernandez will remain Chief Deputy Director of Finance -- Policy. In this capacity, Ms. Wong-Hernandez represents the Department of Finance on more than 100 boards and commissions. Ms. Wong-Hernandez was most recently the Director of Legislation for the California Department of Finance. She was also a principal consultant to Senate Appropriations Committee, working on K- 12 and higher education issues.
Stuart Thompson will be Chief Deputy Appointments Secretary. Stuart Thompson is currently an advisor to the Transition of Governor-Elect Newsom. Previously, he served as an associate director in the California Medical Association's Center for Governmental Relations. He was also an associate attorney at Miller and Owen, where he specialized in local state and government law with a focus on redevelopment agencies. He received his undergraduate degree from Brown University in political science and a law degree from the University of California Hastings.
Joey Freeman will be Chief Deputy Legislative Affairs Secretary for Policy. Freeman currently serves on the Transition of Governor-elect Newsom and was most recently Policy Director for the Newsom for Governor campaign. Previously, Freeman worked for Lieutenant Governor Newsom in several capacities including Southern California Director and Chief Consultant for Education Policy, where he oversaw Newsom's cradle-to-career agenda and advanced initiatives at the UC Board of Regents and CSU Board of Trustees. He was also a longtime aide to former Los Angeles City Councilwoman Wendy Greuel. Che Salinas will be Chief Deputy Legislative Affairs Secretary for Operations. He previously served as counsel in the Government and Regulatory practice in the Sacramento office of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, where he advised on legal, legislative, budgetary and political matters, including biotech, energy, health care, transportation, public utilities, and taxation. Prior to joining Manatt, Che worked for the California State Senate in the Office of Ed Hernandez, O.D., providing counsel on legislation and Latino Caucus priorities. He previously served as staff counsel to Senate President Don Perata, Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez and a consultant for Senate Judiciary Committee.
Melinda Grant will remain a Deputy Legislative Secretary. Grant served as deputy legislative secretary for Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr., from 2016-2018. Before that, she was deputy director of legislative and regulatory review at the California Department of Consumer Affairs, an advocate at Platinum Advisors and served as a legislative aide in the Office of California State Senator Kevin Murray. She was a legislative analyst at the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).
Melissa Immel will be a Deputy Legislative Secretary. She most recently worked as a legislative advocate for Shaw/Yoder/Antwih, where she began in 2015 as a legislative aide. She worked on the White House Advance Team for First Lady Michelle Obama and the advance team for the Office of Barack and Michelle Obama since 2017. Immel interned in the East Wing of the White House for the Obama Administration in 2014. Previously, she interned for California State Senator Lois Wolk and at Political Solutions, LLC.
Jennifer Johnson will remain a Deputy Legislative Secretary. She most recently served as deputy legislative secretary in the Office of Governor Brown. Prior to that she was manager of the strategic initiatives group at Apple. She was an education programs consultant at the California State Board of Education and an external affairs project manager at the Oakland Unified School District. Johnson was a substitute teacher for the Marysville Joint Unified School District, a consultant for the California Department of Education and an executive fellow in the Office of the California State Superintendent of Public Instruction. Johnson is a founding member of the Sacramento Latina Leaders Network.
Tam Ma will be a Deputy Legislative Secretary. She previously was assistant secretary of the Office of Program and Fiscal Affairs at the California Health and Human Services Agency, a position she has held since June 2018. Ma was director of legal and policy at Health Access California, a lecturer at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, a principal consultant in the Office of California State Senator Mark Leno and staff attorney at Legal Services of Northern California.
Ronda Paschal will remain a Deputy Legislative Secretary. She served as deputy legislative secretary in the Office of Governor Brown since 2017. Before that, she served as deputy secretary for legislation at the California State Transportation Agency and as deputy secretary for legislation at the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency. She served as a deputy secretary of state in the California Secretary of State’s Office, associate vice president at the California Medical Association and a consultant and legislative aide in the Office of State Senator Joe Dunn from 1999 to 2006. She was also an associate consultant for California State Senator Tom Hayden and the California State Senate Committee on Natural Resources.
Ronda Paschal will remain a Deputy Legislative Secretary. She served as deputy legislative secretary in the Office of Governor Brown since 2017. Before that, she served as deputy secretary for legislation at the California State Transportation Agency and as deputy secretary for legislation at the California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency. She served as a deputy secretary of state in the California Secretary of State’s Office, associate vice president at the California Medical Association and a consultant and legislative aide in the Office of State Senator Joe Dunn from 1999 to 2006. She was also an associate consultant for California State Senator Tom Hayden and the California State Senate Committee on Natural Resources. Rachel Machi Wagoner will be a Deputy Legislative Secretary. She has 22 years of legislative and public policy experience. She most recently served as Chief Consultant to the California State Senate Committee on Environmental Quality. Wagoner previously served as the Legislative Director to the Department of Toxic Substances Control and Deputy Legislative Secretary to Governor Gray Davis.
Rachel Machi Wagoner will be a Deputy Legislative Secretary. She has 22 years of legislative and public policy experience. She most recently served as Chief Consultant to the California State Senate Committee on Environmental Quality. Wagoner previously served as the Legislative Director to the Department of Toxic Substances Control and Deputy Legislative Secretary to Governor Gray Davis.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 18, 2019
OPINION // JOHN DIAZ San Francisco’s No. 1 export: political leadership
John Diaz Jan. 12, 2019 Updated: Jan. 12, 2019 10:26 p.m.2
Gov. Gavin Newsom, Sen. Kamala Harris, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Dianne Feinstein all got their start in San Francisco politics.Photo: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press
San Francisco has often been been overrepresented at the top levels of the state and national capitals. Still, there has never been a moment quite like this, when leaders who came from the city by the bay have assumed roles as speaker of the House, both U.S. senators and governor of the nation’s most populous state, along with the statewide offices of lieutenant governor, controller and treasurer.
Oh, and one of those senators, Kamala Harris, just happened to be the No. 1 “get” last week for all the coveted shows — from “The View” to Stephen Colbert to NPR to “Good Morning America” — as she embarked on a tour for her new memoir (“The Truths We Hold: An American Journey”) in advance of the expected announcement of her 2020 presidential candidacy.
So what is it about California’s fourth-largest city that produces such extraordinary depth and diversity of leadership skill? It’s not as if they come from a singular mold. They’re all Democrats, of course, but their styles could not be more different. Gov. Gavin Newsom has the movie-star looks and a desire to dissect and discuss data to the point of audience exhaustion; House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has a force of personality, with an ability to pivot from charm to steeliness as circumstances merit, which makes her a formidable fundraiser and world-class legislative tactician; Harris has a touch of all those qualities along with a prosecutor’s focus and an aura of destiny that put her in the conversation for president from the day she was sworn into the Senate just two years ago.
What they all have in common is having been tested in San Francisco.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi meets with reporters in her first formal news conference since taking control of the House with the Democrats in the majority. Photo: J. Scott Applewhite / Associated Press
“San Francisco is a rough political environment,” said state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco. “Getting elected to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is much harder than getting elected to Congress in many parts of the country.”
And why is that? The answer may be evident on the streets, where an elected official has nowhere to hide, even in a city of about 860,000.
“One of the wonderful things about San Francisco is that the residents of our city are so deeply engaged,” Wiener added. “When you represent all or part of San Francisco, you can’t B.S. your constituents. People watch, people, know, people understand what’s going on.”
Nathan Ballard, a prominent strategist who served as communications director for Newsom when he was mayor, cited three factors for San Franciscans’ elevation in Sacramento and Washington: a highly engaged electorate, a “robust media culture” and an “unusually competitive election process” that can be grueling for even the lower-level offices.
“They say that San Francisco’s sourdough is the best in the world because the foggy air does something special to the yeast,” Ballard said. “You can take the same yeast to Seattle, Buffalo or Portland but it won’t make the same sourdough. The same can be said of our politics: There is something in the air that gives our political leaders great strength.”
One of those elements is mentorship. The late Rep. Phil Burton, a master of machine politics, was a powerhouse in both the city and nation’s capital during his tenure in Congress from 1964 to 1983. He had a knack for spotting and coaching leaders, including his brother John (who later became state Senate leader) and Willie Brown (state Assembly speaker, then mayor).
The Burton-Brown machine changed the dynamic of state politics, pulling the balance of clout northward. Its influence resonates to this day with Brown’s role as “the nursing father” in “the new generation of leaderings including California’s governor (Newsom), its junior senator (Harris) and the mayor of San Francisco (London Breed),” observed James Taylor, professor of political science at the University of San Francisco.
“It is precisely because of the legacy and foundation of Phil Burton’s Democratic machine that San Francisco dominates the state’s national and key statewide elected offices,” Taylor said.
Kicking off her book tour, Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., speaks at George Washington University in Washington.Photo: Sait Serkan Gurbuz / Associated Press
Or, as political consultant Mary Hughes put it, “In Los Angeles you have the entertainment industry ... in San Francisco our industry is politics.” She attributed the city’s preoccupation with politics, in part, to the “intensity and density” of talent — along with the city’s image as a welcoming place for experimentation and acceptance of the unorthodox.
“There is a sizzle and energy and excitement in San Francisco that attracts people who are doers,” said Hughes, who has been building an impressive network of her own in recruiting and grooming female candidates. “If we’re talking romantically about American political ambition, San Francisco is a place where people cluster who have different ideas, new ideas.” And they are willing to export them, most famously in the Valentine’s Day revolution of 2004, when, under Newsom, City Hall began to issue same-sex marriage licenses in open defiance of state law.
As he moved from City Hall to the state Senate in 2016, ex-Supervisor Wiener said he was reminded of expectation of a San Francisco legislator by his predecessor Mark Leno. “The beauty of representing San Francisco in Sacramento is that you have the space and the latitude to push the envelope,” Wiener said he was advised. “Not everyone here has that. Our constituents demand it.”
Fox News and other right-wing outlets might like to caricature San Francisco as “Left Coast City,” and same-sex-marriage champion Newsom as its poster child, but the fact is that he was the centrist in every race he ran until he went statewide. As mayor, Newsom’s willingness to take into account the legitimate concerns for the business environment put him in constant conflict with a progressive faction on the Board of Supervisors that resented his charisma and resisted his policy initiatives at almost every turn.
“This brutal ‘Game of Thrones’-style culture produces some unusually strong political leaders,” Ballard said. “Gavin Newsom went through hell and back when he was mayor. And that’s a big reason that he is arguably the best political athlete on the scene today. If you can make it in San Francisco, you can make it anywhere.”
Newsom may have moved from San Francisco, to Kentfield with his young family, and then to the governor’s mansion in Sacramento, but there is no escaping the influence of the city on honing his political acumen and establishing his national stature. Harris, the former San Franciso district attorney and twice-elected state attorney general, now lives in Los Angeles with her husband and stepchildren, but she surely will be cast as an icon of “San Francisco values,” by critics and admirers alike, in a presidential campaign.
Lt. Gov. Eleni Kounalakis, state Treasurer Fiona Ma and state Controller Betty Yee all have San Francisco pedigree — and each is a possible contender for other statewide offices.
It’s worth noting that the former governor, Jerry Brown, had San Francisco roots of his own. He was by the side of his father, Pat Brown, in a campaign for San Francisco district attorney in 1943 with the slogan, “Crack down on crime, elect Brown this time.” The elder Brown won an upset victory that year and was elected governor in 1958. Young Jerry was “raised in the rough and tumble of San Francisco political campaigns,” Ballard reminded, calling him “the Dutch Newsom of his time,” a reference to the new governor’s 2-year-old son who stole the spotlight at Monday’s inaugural.
So keep an eye on that kid on the stage; the San Francisco magic tends to transcend generations.
John Diaz is The San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial page editor. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @JohnDiazChron