REVISED BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, August 19, 2016 1:30 P.M

REVISED BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, August 19, 2016 1:30 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

1:30 1. STATE LEGISLATION / ISSUES Doyle/Pfuehler A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. AB 2796 (Bloom D-Santa Monica/Low R D-Silicon Valley) – Active Transportation Program 2. SB 450 (Allen D- Santa Monica) – R Vote by Mail Voting and Mail Ballot Elections

B. ISSUES 1. Park Bond Update (AB 2444) I 2. Endowment Bill Update (SB 1020) I 3. Cap and Trade I 4. Other Issues I

2. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / ISSUES Doyle/Pfuehler A. NEW LEGISLATION – N/A

B. ISSUES 1. Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant I Application 2. Other Issues I

3. BALLOT MEASURES A. Oakland Infrastructure Bond R B. Proposition 65 (Doyle L. Johnson) – R Environmental Fee Protection Act and Proposition 67 – California Plastic Bag Ban Referendum

C. Measure CC D

D. Contra Costa Transportation Expenditure R Plan

E. Hayward Area Recreation and Park District R Safe, Clean, Local Parks

F. Bay Area Rapid Transit Bond R

4. ARTICLES

5. OPEN FORUM FOR 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.

6. BOARD COMMENTS

(R) Recommendation for Future Board Consideration (I) Information (D) Discussion Legislative Committee Members Future Meetings: Diane Burgis (Chair); John Sutter; Dennis Waespi January 15 August 19 Doug Siden, Alternate March 18 October 21 Erich Pfuehler, Staff Coordinator April 15 December 16 June 1

Distribution/Agenda Distribution/Full Packet

District: Public: District: Public: Mimi Waluch Norman LaForce Board Members Pat O’Brien Kristina Kelchner Peter Rauch Robert Doyle Dr. George Manross David Zuckermann Afton Crooks AGMs Doug Houston (via-email) Ira Bletz Stana Hearne Erich Pfuehler Bruce Kern (via-email) Connie Swisher Judi Bank Jeff Rasmussen Elissa Robinson (via e-mail) Sharon Clay Michael Kelley Tiffany Margulici Rick Rickard (via-email) Bruce Beyaert (via e-mail) Anne Kassebaum Peter Umhofer (via-email) Mark Ragatz Sean Dougan Mona Koh Yolande Barial Knight Mark Pearson – Local 2428 Eri Suzuki – Local 2428 Xiaoning Huang – Local 2428 Tyrone Davis – POA Lobby/Receptionist Lisa Baldinger

TO: Board Legislative Committee (Chair Diane Burgis, John Sutter, Dennis Waespi and Alternate Doug Siden)

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

SUBJECT: Board Legislative Committee Meeting WHEN: Friday, August 19, 2016 – 1:30 p.m. Lunch will be served

WHERE: Board Room, Peralta Oaks ______

Items to be discussed:

I. STATE LEGISLATION / ISSUES A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. AB 2796 (Bloom D-Santa Monica / Low D-Silicon Valley) – Active Transportation Program Assembly Members Richard Bloom and Evan Low’s bill would require at least 10% of the Active Transportation Program (ATP) funding to be allocated for planning and non-infrastructure activities. By establishing a 10% minimum requirement in statute for planning and non- infrastructure projects, the bill would reduce the amount of funding available for ATP infrastructure projects, thereby creating pressures on an oversubscribed program. Current ATP guidelines specify 2% of funds are set aside for planning. The bill also, however, allows a local agency to spend its own funds on a project and then be reimbursed by the ATP at a later time. This fund advancement concept would help the District in accessing ATP funds in a timely manner. For example, current ATP applications for Lone Tree and Doolittle are for 2019-20 and 2020-21, which is the earliest the ATP program has funding available. Should this legislation be enacted, the District could spend funds on either Lone Tree or Doolittle in advance of 2019 and potentially be reimbursed later by ATP funds when they become available. Overall, the ATP should seek to better align application periods with funding availability, but that is not specifically addressed in this legislation. The bill is supported by Bike East Bay, Rails-to-Trails Conservancy and the Trust for Public Land, among others.

Staff Recommendation: Watch

2. SB 450 (Allen D- Santa Monica) – Vote by Mail Voting and Mail Ballot Elections Senator Ben Allen introduced SB 450 on behalf of Secretary of State Alex Padilla. The bill would allow counties to mail all voters ballots which could be returned at any of several “vote centers.” Vote centers are required to be open, in lieu of polling places, for 10 days preceding, and on, Election Day. Ballots could also be dropped off in secure boxes available 24 hours a day. Drop- off locations are to be available from the 28th day before the election through Election Day. SB 450 is modeled after the way Colorado conducts its elections wherein every voter automatically receives a vote by mail ballot. Colorado voters may then return their ballots by mail or in person at numerous drop-off locations and innovative vote centers. In lieu of traditional neighborhood polling places, these vote centers are placed in convenient locations and open

several days prior to each election. Furthermore, voters can use any vote center or drop-off location in their home county – they are not limited to using the one closest to their residence.

Staff Recommendation: Support

B. ISSUES 1. Park Bond Update (AB 2444) Advocate Houston will provide a verbal update about the status of a possible state park bond and/or inclusion of park interests in any broader infrastructure bond.

2. Endowments Bill Update (SB 1020) Advocate Houston will provide a verbal update about legislation addressing endowments and the District.

3. Cap and Trade The Governor and Legislature agreed to the parameters of the state budget in June. Due to lower than expected revenues in the May auction (generating only 2% of the expected $500 million), however, the Cap and Trade budget allocations have been deferred to a trailer bill. As of this writing, discussions about the $1.4 billion of unspent reserves are being held up by the debate about SB 32. SB 32 requires a statewide emission reduction target of 40% below 1990 levels by 2030. It would essentially ensure the greenhouse gas reduction fund and Cap and Trade program continue until at least 2030. It has become a significant enough debate in the legislature that the Governor has proposed putting the goals of SB 32 before the voters as a statewide ballot measure.

The Governor’s proposal for the “discretionary” funding in this year’s budget is $3.2 million in total and includes:  $150 million for healthy forests  $30 million for urban forests  $60 million for wetland and watershed restoration  $20 million for urban greening  $60 million for renewable energy and energy efficiency projects

The accessibility of these funds for the District is unknown at this time.

4. Other Issues

II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / ISSUES A. NEW LEGISLATION – N/A

B. ISSUES 1. Land and Water Conservation Fund Grant Application The District’s application for $750,000 from the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership LWCF grant program is one of two projects approved by the state Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and recommended to the National Park Service (NPS). The project is tidal marsh restoration, upland enhancement and public access improvements at Bay Point Regional Shoreline. If awarded, this grant would leverage significant funds for the project, estimated to cost between $7 and $9 million. The project will restore 27-acres and acquire an easement on

an adjacent property to improve public access to the main channel of the Delta. The enhanced and restored wetlands and park improvements are designed to be resilient and adaptive to sea level rise. 4,020 people live within a half mile radius of Bay Point Regional Shoreline with a per capita income of $15,920 (Source: LWCF Fact Finder). The NPS will issue $15 million in grants nationwide to benefit mostly disadvantaged communities. With only two applications per state advancing for NPS consideration, this is a highly competitive program. NPS’s project award list is expected mid-September. At this time, District staff and advocates are working to garner support at the Federal level for the Bay Point application.

2. Other Issues

III. BALLOT MEASURES A. Oakland Infrastructure Bond The City of Oakland approved a $600 million infrastructure bond measure for the November 2016 ballot. The funds are divided into three allocation areas: 1. $350 million – Streets, sidewalks, and pedestrian, bicycle and traffic safety; 2. $150 million – Public safety and improving quality of life – libraries, parks and recreation, fire and police; 3. $100 million – Housing anti-displacement measures. This measure will prioritize project funding based on four criteria; does it: 1. Address social and geographic equity; 2. Improve the City’s core capital assets; 3. Maintain or decrease the City’s existing operations and maintenance costs; 4. Address improvements to energy consumption, resiliency and mobility. Specific criteria for the fund applications has not been stated at this time.

Staff Recommendation: Support

B. Proposition 65 – Environmental Fee Protection Act and Proposition 67 – California Plastic Bag Ban Referendum The single-use plastic bag ban will appear on the November ballot as Proposition 67. If adopted, the law would disallow grocers from providing single-use plastic bags at the checkout counter. Stores would be required to provide recyclable, reusable and/or compostable bags for a minimum 10 cent fee. This ban should have been enacted in January 2015 when Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 270 into law. The effort was negated by the plastics industry under the “American Progressive Bay Alliance” which secured enough petition signatures to postpone the ban until it received statewide voter approval. Proposition 67, supported by Governor Brown, is the measure seeking to secure statewide voter approval of the plastic bag ban. Should Proposition 67 pass, Proposition 65 would (if it also passed) establish an Environmental Fee account. It would divert the 10 cents paid for paper bags “into a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board to support specified categories of environmental projects.” The California Grocers Association, Surfrider Foundation and others oppose Prop 65 because, while possibly helping the environment, it would undermine the purpose of the paper bag tax. The 10-cent paper bag charge has two functions. One is to encourage shoppers to use their own bags and minimize the need for paper bags. Secondly, the tax buffers the financial burden on grocers who now have to provide paper bags, which cost about 10 cents, whereas plastic bags cost a penny. Under Prop 67, grocers keep the tax to cover that cost. In directing the tax to an environmental fund, grocers would take an economic hit which could lead to their

opposition to the bag ban. Under Prop. 65, however, projects and programs eligible for grants consist of, but are not limited to, drought mitigation projects for restoration of wetlands, fish habitat, or waterfowl habitat, recycling, clean water supply, state, regional, and local parks, beach cleanup, litter removal and wildlife habitat restoration projects. The District could be eligible for such grants.

Staff Recommendation: Support both Prop. 65 and Prop. 67

C. Measure CC The General Manager and staff will provide a brief overview about the current status of Measure CC.

D. Contra Costa Transportation Authority Transportation Expenditure Plan Contra Costa Transportation Authority’s (CCTA) Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) will be on the November 2016 ballot. The final 30 year TEP is a $2.874 billion plan. It calls for an increase in the sales tax by ½ cent making a total of 1 cent of sales tax going toward transportation related projects. The TEP includes $115 million for bicycle and pedestrian projects (4% of total funds). The TEP specifies 1/3 of the funds ($38.3 million) are to be allocated directly to the East Bay Regional Park District for the development and rehabilitation of paved regional trails. It requires the District to spend the allocation proportionally in each sub-region, consisting of West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC), Transportation Partnership and Cooperation (TRANSPAC) for central Contra Costa County, Southwest Area Transportation Committee (SWAT) and the East Contra Costa committee TRANSPLAN. The committees will have input in the review and approval of the conceptual planning/design phase, prior to the funding allocation by the Authority. The bulk of the TEP is allocated to public transit ($770 million) and local streets and roads ($684 million). The local streets and roads funding also can be used for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. The local match money proved by the TEP will greatly increase the County’s ability to secure external funds – including bicycle and pedestrian monies.

Staff Recommendation: Support

IV. ARTICLES

V. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT

VI. BOARD COMMENTS

Addendum Attachment I: Staff Memo - Section III Ballot Measures

TO: Board Legislative Committee (Chair Diane Burgis, John Sutter, Dennis Waespi and Alternate Doug Siden)

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

SUBJECT: Board Legislative Committee Meeting WHEN: Friday, August 19, 2016 – 1:30 p.m. Lunch will be served

WHERE: Board Room, Peralta Oaks ______

Items to be discussed:

III. BALLOT MEASURES

E. Hayward Area Recreation and Park District Safe, Clean, Local Parks Bond Hayward Area Recreation and Park District (HARD) will be placing a $250 million bond measure on the November ballot. The funds are to: • Improve and maintain park bathrooms and other facilities; • Keep local parks and facilities clean, safe and well maintained; • Repair and upgrade children’s playground; • Improve the safety and quality of parks.

100% of funds are to be used toward park and recreation facilities improvement in Ashland, Castro Valley, Cherryland, Fairview, Hayward, South Hayward and San Lorenzo. No funding can be taken by the State or used for administrative salaries or administration.

Three items will be of particular interest to the District are:

1. Funding for the shoreline Interpretive Center and levee improvements which could act as matching funds in partnership with the District for Hayward Shoreline improvements; 2. Funding for the Sulphur Creek Nature Center where the District uses the animal hospital for injured animals found in the regional parks; 3. Funding to repair and restore damaged trails, as well as acquire parcels to make connections where gaps exist adjacent to District assets.

Staff Recommendation: Support

F. Bay Area Rapid Transit Bond Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) will be placing a $3.5 billion general obligation bond measure on the November ballot. This measure will be to improve the safety of BART, as well as to reduce traffic throughout the Bay Area through alternative means of transportation.

$3.165 million will be put toward repair and replacement of infrastructure such as: • $1.225 million – to renew power infrastructure; • $625 million – to improve tracks; • $570 million – to repair tunnels and structures; • $400 million – to replace train control and other system infrastructure to increase peak period capacity; • $210 million – to improve stations; • $135 million – to renew mechanical infrastructure.

$335 million will be used to relieve crowding, reduce traffic congestion and expand station access and safety by: • $200 million – to design and engineer future projects to relieve crowding, increase system redundancy and reduce traffic congestion; $135 million – to expand opportunities to safely access station.

The District would be eligible for the $135 million funding to expand opportunities to safely access stations via bike and pedestrian trails.

Staff Recommendation: Support

Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV August 19, 2016

Seventeen Initiatives on California's November Ballot Posted: Thursday, July 14, 2016 12:00 am California voters will decide on seventeen measures placed on the November 8, 2016 ballot. They include legalizing marijuana, banning the death penalty, bonds for schools, and one that directs elected officials to use all of their constitutional authority, including proposing and ratifying one or more amendments to the United States Constitution, to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Proposition 51: School Bonds. Funding for K-12 School and Community College Facilities. Initiative Statutory Amendment. Authorizes $9 billion in general obligation bonds: $3 billion for new construction and $3 billion for modernization of K-12 public school facilities; $1 billion for charter schools and vocational education facilities; and $2 billion for California Community Colleges facilities. Proposition 52: State Fees on Hospitals. Federal Medi-Cal Matching Funds. Increases required vote to two-thirds for the Legislature to amend a certain existing law that imposes fees on hospitals (for purpose of obtaining federal Medi-Cal matching funds) and that directs those fees and federal matching funds to hospital-provided Medi-Cal health care services, to uncompensated care provided by hospitals to uninsured patients, and to children's health coverage. Eliminates law's ending date. Proposition 53: Revenue Bonds. Requires statewide voter approval before any revenue bonds can be issued or sold by the state for projects that are financed, owned, operated, or managed by the state or any joint agency created by or including the state, if the bond amount exceeds $2 billion. Prohibits dividing projects into multiple separate projects to avoid statewide voter approval requirement. Proposition 54: Prohibits Legislature from passing any bill unless it has been in print and published on the Internet for at least 72 hours before the vote, except in cases of public emergency. Requires the Legislature to make audiovisual recordings of all its proceedings, except closed session proceedings, and post them on the Internet. Authorizes any person to record legislative proceedings by audio or video means, except closed session proceedings. Proposition 55: Extends by twelve years the temporary personal income tax increases enacted in 2012 on earnings over $250,000 (for single filers; over $500,000 for joint filers; over $340,000 for heads of household). Allocates these tax revenues 89% to K-12 schools and 11% to California Community Colleges. Allocates up to $2 billion per year in certain years for healthcare programs. Bars use of education revenues for administrative costs, but provides local school governing boards discretion to decide, in open meetings and subject to annual audit, how revenues are to be spent. Proposition 56: Increases cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack, with equivalent increase on other tobacco products and electronic cigarettes containing nicotine. Allocates revenues primarily to increase funding for existing healthcare programs; also for tobacco use prevention/control programs, tobacco-related disease research and law enforcement, University of California physician training, dental disease prevention programs, and administration. Excludes these revenues from Proposition 98 funding requirements. Proposition 57: Juvenile Criminal Proceedings and Sentencing, allows parole consideration for persons convicted of nonviolent felonies upon completion of full prison term for primary offense, as defined. Proposition 58: Would repeals most of the 1998 Proposition 227 provision, the "English in Public Schools" Initiative, effectively allowing non-English languages to be used in public educational instruction. Proposition 59: Requires performers in adult films to use condoms during filming of sexual intercourse. Requires producers of adult films to pay for performer vaccinations, testing, and medical examinations related to sexually transmitted infections. Proposition 60: Prohibits state agencies from paying more for a prescription drug than the lowest price paid for the same drug by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. Proposition 61: Repeals death penalty as maximum punishment for persons found guilty of murder and replaces it with life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Applies retroactively to persons already sentenced to death. States that persons found guilty of murder and sentenced to life without possibility of parole must work while in prison as prescribed by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Proposition 62: Prohibits possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines, and requires their disposal by sale to dealer, destruction, or removal from state. Requires most individuals to pass background check and obtain Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition. Requires most ammunition sales be made through licensed ammunition vendors and reported to Department of Justice. Requires lost or stolen firearms and ammunition be reported to law enforcement. Proposition 63: Legalizes marijuana and hemp under state law. Designates state agencies to license and regulate marijuana industry. Imposes state excise tax on retail sales of marijuana equal to 15% of sales price, and state cultivation taxes on marijuana of $9.25 per ounce of flowers and $2.75 per ounce of leaves. Exempts medical marijuana from some taxation. Proposition 64: Redirects money collected by grocery and certain other retail stores through sale of carry-out bags, whenever any state law bans free distribution of a particular kind of carry-out bag and mandates the sale of any other kind of carry-out bag. Requires stores to deposit bag sale proceeds into a special fund administered by the Wildlife Conservation Board to support specified categories of environmental projects. Proposition 65: Changes procedures governing state court appeals and petitions challenging death penalty convictions and sentences. Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions. Imposes time limits on state court death penalty review. Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals. Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods. Authorizes death row inmate transfers among California state prisons. States death row inmates must work and pay victim restitution. Proposition 66: Overturns Ban on Single-Use Plastic Bags. If signed by the required number of registered voters and timely filed with the Secretary of State, this petition will place on the statewide ballot a challenge to a state law previously approved by the Legislature and the Governor. The challenged law must then be approved by a majority of voters at the next statewide election to go into effect. Proposition 67:. This bill would call a special election to be consolidated with the November 8, 2016, statewide general election. The bill would require the Secretary of State to submit to the voters at the November 8, 2016, consolidated election a voter instruction asking whether California’s elected officials should use all of their constitutional authority, including proposing and ratifying one or more amendments to the United States Constitution, to overturn Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and other applicable judicial precedents, as specified. For more information on ballot measures, candidate filing requirements, and election deadlines, please visit:http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/upcoming-elections/general-election-november-8- 2016.

Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV August 19, 2016

Are Environmentalists Losing Influence in Legislature?

July 17, 2016 By Chris Reed 5 Comments

California environmentalists have long been one of the most powerful forces in the Legislature. But in 2015, the centerpiece of the green agenda — a provision in a broader measure that would have mandated a 50 percent reduction in gasoline use in the state by 2030 — stalled in the Legislature despite heavy prodding from Gov. Jerry Brown and appeals from then-Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, and Senate President Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles. The development was such a break from the norm that it won heavy coverage from The New York Times, which called it “a major setback for environmental advocates in California.” Now there’s a fresh sign that environmentalists’ clout may be on the wane. De Leon has stunned green groups by endorsing a moderate incumbent — Assemblywoman Cheryl Brown, D-San Bernardino — who opposed the push for a sharp cut in gasoline use over another prominent Inland Empire Democrat, attorney Eloise Gomez Reyes. As Calwatchdog reported earlier this year, Brown was indirectly blasted by one of de Leon’s leadership team, Sen. Connie Leyva, D-Chino, who said she was backing Brown’s opponent because “she was a principled human being.” In a strange twist, the document making the rounds in media circles showing de Leon’s endorsement of Brown contends that Leyva and all his fellow Senate Democratic leaders agree with him. “I support Eloise Reyes. Period. Somehow the pro tem must have misunderstood my position, although I thought I was quite clear,” Leyva told The Los Angeles Times. Whatever the logistical problems with de Leon’s endorsement, it amounts to a striking rejection of environmentalists’ argument that they know Brown’s district better than she does. This view was voiced again this week by one of Reyes’ consultants, Leo Briones, who told the Times, “Cheryl Brown can have every special interest and every Sacramento politician … but she still is a legislator that does not represent progressive values or her district when it comes to issues of working families, of consumers, of guns and public safety and the environment.” Green official: Brown a ‘nice person,’ bad lawmaker This argument was offered by a high-profile environmentalist in a January Sacramento Bee story that rubbed some minority lawmakers the wrong way: “There’s no doubt Ms. Brown, who’s a very nice person, has not been representing her constituents when it comes to environmental issues, particularly clean-air issues,” Sierra Club California director Kathryn Phillips told the Bee. “She’s collected too much money from the oil industry and let that guide too many of her votes.”

As Calwatchdog reported then … Phillips, who works out of Sacramento, is a white UC Berkeley graduate who used to work for the Environmental Defense Fund. Brown, who turns 72 next week, has been a fixture in the Inland Empire African-American political establishment for more than three decades. She co-founded a weekly publication that focuses on black issues in 1980 and has worked on a wide variety of African-American causes in western San Bernardino County.

Assemblyman Sebastian Ridley-Thomas, D-Los Angeles, told the Bee he didn’t care for how environmentalists were treating his fellow African-American lawmaker. “I think it’s a tone-deaf approach. … The environmental community, and the broader environmental coalition, needs to figure out whether or not it’s going to be a collaborator and … work with black California on policy, and shared political goals, or if it will be an adversary.” Ridley-Thomas is a vocal supporter of de Leon’s efforts to have a Superfund-type cleanup of the Exide battery plant in Vernon. Originally published by CalWatchdog.com http://www.capoliticalreview.com/top-stories/are-environmentalists-losing-influence-in-legislature/

Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV August 19, 2016

The decaying seawall along the Embarcadero is vulnerable to damage from rising bay waters and earthquakes. Michael Macor, The Chronicle

San Francisco’s Embarcadero and the structures along its bayside edge show why the city’s northeast waterfront has become so alluring — and why its future is at risk.

The piers combine robust history with matchless views. There’s high culture and raffish charm, empty benches and a raucous ballpark. The wide sidewalk attracts pedestrians, joggers, cyclists and even pedicabs.

But the atmospheric structures along the Embarcadero and the piers behind them could be inundated regularly at high tide by 2100 if scientific projections of rising sea levels are correct. In the meantime, the cost of bringing the aged structures up to current building codes is so high that the act of physical preservation can violate the spirit of the past, turning funky relics into posh enclaves.

People fill the sidewalk outside the Pier 23 restaurant and bar on the Embarcadero. Michael Macor, The Chronicle

The biggest problem is mostly out of sight — the more-than-century-old seawall that runs for 3 miles beneath the Embarcadero and separates the bay from inland city blocks that once were shallow mud. A major earthquake could make the aging barrier of rocks and concrete lurch out into the bay while the soils behind it turn to soggy mush. But the estimated cost of needed seismic repairs already is at least $2 billion. Adapting it to prepare for 5 feet or more of sea- level rise could double the price tag.

City leaders need to get serious about figuring out how to make the investments in the Embarcadero’s future that will be unavoidable in just a few decades. They must also decide which aspects of today’s northeast waterfront are worth preserving no matter what, and what is expendable as environmental conditions shift.

The sooner this occurs, the better off we will be. The dilemmas along the Embarcadero, in a very real way, encapsulate those facing the city and the region — finding ways to protect our most valued resources while accepting that profound and unstoppable changes lie ahead.

There’s nothing glamorous about the thick barricade that turned San Francisco’s northeast shoreline from a shifting marsh into a stable waterfront.

The 3-mile stretch from Fisherman’s Wharf to AT&T Park was constructed between 1878 and 1916 in 21 sections. The exact methods used to build it differed along the way, but the basics remained constant: Dig a wide trench in the bay mud. Fill it with rocks to form a blunt pyramid. Finish off the pyramid with a concrete wall that rises roughly 5 feet above the average high tide. Stand on a pier and look toward the city, and the wall can be seen below the Embarcadero’s promenade.

On the inland side of the seawall, the waters left stranded were filled with sand and soil to create what is now pricey downtown real estate. Portions of Embarcadero Center rise from that fill. So do some of the glassy residential towers along Folsom Street. Above the seawall, wharves were built to hold the stately bulkhead buildings at the start of finger piers extending as much as 800 feet into the bay. Large sheds atop the piers serviced the ships doing business at what then was the West Coast’s largest port.

Many of those piers now are gone. The blue-collar port gave way to a modern economy where tourism is one of the city’s top industries. The seawall remains, weathered but intact, the only thing that keeps the bay from swamping the northeast corner of the city.

“Every section is different, with 50 combinations of rocks and concrete along the way,” said Steven Reel, the Port of San Francisco’s project manager for adapting the 19th century seawall to 21st century challenges. “Poor soils are under it and poor soils are behind it.” Instead of rigid clay below, he explained, think a “squishy” mix of clay, soil and sand.

That’s a long-term formula for disaster, according to a recent study prepared for the port that warns of “greater than expected risk to the seawall” if there’s a major earthquake on the San Andreas or Hayward faults.

“Complete failure ... is unlikely,” says the report by engineering consultants GHD/GTC, but prolonged shaking could cause stretches of the seawall to slump several feet into the bay. Portions of the Embarcadero and the historic bulkhead buildings could be torn apart. The murky fill behind it would spread into the void and weaken the streets and buildings above.

The study offers a clinical presentation of several engineering remedies, such as drilling through the seawall rocks and then pumping cement into the surrounding soil to strengthen it. Every method would mean years of disruption along the Embarcadero. Even a limited upgrade focused on the weakest sections would involve a “conceptual” budget of $500 million — funding sources as yet undetermined.

“We need to get real specific about what to prioritize, and where we begin the regulatory approval process,” said Elaine Forbes, the port’s interim director. “The most urgent life safety measures are the ones we’ll want to implement as quickly as possible.”

Warning signs are spray-painted on Pier 28 along the Embarcadero. Michael Macor, The Chronicle

Add rising sea levels, and the picture clouds even more.

The existing seawall isn’t nearly tall enough to cope with long-term projections related to climate change. The most recent forecasts by the National Research Council, for instance, suggest that by 2100, the average tides here could rise by 3 to more than 5 feet.

That extra layer of pressure is why the port’s engineering study estimates that the cost of strengthening the seawall at its current height is $2 billion to $3 billion — but “with consideration of sea level rise ... costs could reach $5 billion to fully incorporate adaptation measures needed for the next 100 years.” In a proactive move, City Hall and the port will spend $10 million during the next two years to begin detailed engineering and environmental studies. Any construction is at least five years away.

Before those studies are completed, the city needs to confront the Embarcadero’s dilemma. The seawall can be adjusted ever upward. But what becomes of the piers and buildings left on the water side as the bay rises?

Directly south of the Ferry Building, work will start this fall on two new ferry berths and a plaza that can accommodate waterborne commuters and the popular weekend farmers’ market. It’s also designed to accommodate the next 80 years of sea-level-rise projections: The elevation will be 38 inches higher than the paving now there, and the curb along the water’s edge will extend up another 12 inches.

The handsome but weary Agriculture Building from 1915 on the south edge of the plaza-to-be will remain in place, at risk of flooding and in need of major renovation.

This one small stretch of waterfront shows the bind faced by the port. Where no buildings exist, improvements can be made that prepare for the future, while making today’s waterfront more attractive and functional. But it’s not as easy to adapt stocky landmarks on old piers beyond the constructed shoreline — especially considering the costs that would be involved.

In short, sea-level rise adds another complication to the long political debate over the downtown waterfront and what it should be.

Mechanic Jaime Martinez maintains bicycles at Golden Gate Pedicab, which is headquartered at Pier 28. Michael Macor, The Chronicle

It’s easy to forget how much has changed since 1997, when San Francisco’s current waterfront land-use plan was approved after a development moratorium and four years of meetings. The goal was to bring people to the water but also protect what remained of the maritime port, from ship repair to fish processing.

Parts of the plan have succeeded beyond expectations, as the Embarcadero shows.

The Ferry Building’s retail bazaar opened in 2003, becoming an instant magnet. Ramshackle Pier 15 was reborn a decade later as the Exploratorium science museum. Several piers between them have been rebuilt with meticulous affection, all with public walkways along the water. There’s a new cruise terminal at Pier 27, and a grassy wharf south of the Bay Bridge near the Giants ballpark — another major improvement that’s now cherished, a local treasure.

But those projects are costly — which is why a flight of single-malt whiskeys costs $30 at Hard Water, triple the cost of a hamburger and a Rolling Rock at Red’s Java House. The latter is a simple wooden shed erected in the 1930s at the edge of Pier 30, a spot where longshoremen could grab a quick meal. The former is one of the marquee restaurants at Piers 1.5-5, a $65 million restoration completed in 2006 that includes offices for such tenants as Bloomberg News.

With each such investment, the air along the Embarcadero grows more rarefied. To catch a hint of when this was a blue-collar zone, you need to peek into an unrestored survivor like Pier 28, where the long warehouse behind its Mission Revival entrance is used for pedicab parking and storage space for construction firms.

“Some tenants just like the sheds,” shrugged Jay Edwards, a port property manager. “They like being here. They like the funky environment.”

But no matter what the condition of the piers might be, sea-level rise is an equal-opportunity foe. Water already spills across the walkways behind Piers 1.5-5 during the extreme conditions known as king tides. Pier 28 would be buffeted by high tides twice daily by 2102 at the high end of current projections. The Agriculture Building would face daily tidal onslaughts by 2068 in the same scenario.

Nobody questions the importance of the piers, which have national protection as the Embarcadero Historic District. But the port is wary of giving the green light to restoration efforts that might prove short-lived, while preservationists are fearful of seeing landmarks consigned to oblivion.

“One of our main concerns is that the fate of historic piers not be closed off by decisions made now,” said Mike Buhler, president of San Francisco Heritage and a member of the 32-member working group advising the port on an update to the waterfront plan. “They’re an incredibly rare and valued resource.”

Chris Stricklen waits for a ferry on the bay side of the Ferry Building on the Embarcadero at the foot of Market Street. Michael Macor, The Chronicle

The port would have more flexibility if piers could contain such lucrative uses as housing or hotels. But the option of housing was ruled out in the 1960s by state regulators as not being a “water-related use,” even though other coastal states allow it on piers as long as public access remains. San Francisco voters banned hotels when they approved the 1990 initiative that spawned the waterfront land-use plan.

All these constraints, though understandable at the time, make it more difficult to plan how best to face the pressures ahead.

“The piers express values about how the city came to be, and how it relates to its surroundings,” said Diane Oshima, the port’s deputy director of planning. “But sea-level rise is a real issue, and it’s ahead of the solution options that now are out there.”

The decayed exterior of Pier 28 on the Embarcadero. Michael Macor, The Chronicle

The best scenario for the Embarcadero, and the port-owned waterfront as a whole, is to set politics aside — no easy task in San Francisco — and place sea-level rise at the center of future planning efforts along the shoreline.

The update to the land-use plan should include a financial strategy for fixing the seawall. It also should lay out a timetable for analyzing each pier in terms of its adaptability to rising tides and its value at bringing us close to the water. This doesn’t necessarily mean that some piers will be written off. Instead, it will provide a context for the public and elected officials to make decisions about where scarce resources should be deployed.

The update needs to explore whether the city should make the case for trade-offs in terms of the port owned-piers — allowing additional types of development if there’s a clear measurable return in terms of strengthening the seawall and giving structures like the Agriculture Building a new lease on life.

These are combustible topics. But they’re best dealt with all at once, laying out possible benefits and perils side by side. If the overall package is compelling, it can go to voters as a detailed vision with a laudable aim: the ongoing renewal of one of the Bay Area’s most treasured urban destinations.

ABOUT THIS PROJECT All credible forecasts indicate that climate change will cause sea levels to rise at an ever-more rapid pace in coming decades, including the waters of San Francisco Bay.

Chronicle Urban Design Critic John King is exploring this challenge in all its manifestations, from the perils facing the city’s crumbling Embarcadero to the potential rebirth of the South Bay’s salt marshes and the creation of a small city on man-made Treasure Island.

The region needs to prepare for these shifting tides. We can protect ourselves and adapt in ways that are enticing as well as scientifically sound. But to do this, the Bay Area must begin planning for that future now and upend a half-century of priorities that inhibit adventurous decision- making and design.

Forbes, the port’s interim director, understands that sea-level rise is an issue that won’t be going away.

“I’d love to have us thinking about how to become perennially adaptable,” Forbes said. “Get out to midcentury and slightly beyond and continue to enjoy our assets.”

Wherever discussion of the Embarcadero’s future leads, it can’t remain theoretical much longer.

“We don’t know what a permanent solution is. We don’t have a proclamation to issue,” Forbes said. “If the piers are at risk, so is the Embarcadero. At some point the city will need to make decisions on how to protect itself.”

http://projects.sfchronicle.com/2016/sea-level-rise/?cmpid=sfc_em_topstories#part2

Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV August 19, 2016

Borenstein: BART bond measure tax double what agency claims

By Daniel Borenstein, [email protected]

POSTED: 07/07/2016 04:17:26 PM PDT | UPDATED: 21 DAYS AGO

A BART engineer prepares to take a train out toward Pittsburg while stationed at the North Concord station in Concord, Calif., on March 21.(Jose Carlos Fajardo/Bay Area News Group) (JOSE CARLOS FAJARDO)

When BART officials rolled out their $3.5 billion bond measure planned for the November ballot, they said repayment would cost the average homeowner about $35 to $55 annually for 30 years.

In fact, the average annual property tax for a home would be roughly twice that. And it would last for 48 years, according to BART's own projections. But don't expect any tax amount to appear on the ballot. In a cynical political calculation, BART directors and staff decided to only mention the size of the bond issue and the sorts of capital projects for which the money would be spent.

Unlike state bonds, which are usually repaid from existing revenues, local bonds typically require new taxes to cover the debt. In this case, the language BART plans for the ballot makes no mention of the property tax increase.

Matthew Burrows, BART's general counsel, gave the board two reasons for the omission. First, he said, with the ballot language limited to 75 words, there wasn't room to mention the tax. That's bogus. Second, the planned ballot wording had tested best in a voter opinion poll. In other words, the political ends justify the means.

In fact, BART officials never considered ballot language that mentioned the tax, said Kerry Hamill, assistant general manager for external affairs. Nor did they include it in their polling.

The ballot measure in the three BART counties requires two-thirds approval. BART officials know that voters informed about the tax amount would be less likely to support the bond. Since no law requires BART officials to put that information on the ballot, they won't.

For tax information, voters will have to dig deep in a voluminous election guide they will receive in the mail. BART officials know many won't bother.

Those voters will rely on the incomplete ballot language and perhaps news accounts, which understated the tax because of bad information from BART.

Specifically, Hamill and Rose Poblete, the district's controller-treasurer, misinformed the board and the public about the amount of the tax. At a May 26 board meeting, Director Tom Blalock asked Hamill how much the tax would be.

"The average cost per household per year would be between 35 and 55 dollars per year over the life of the bond," Hamill said.

"I assume they're 30-year bonds?" Blalock then asked. To which, Hamill then replied, "uh huh" and nodded.

That information was interpreted to mean that the tax would last for 30 years, and that's what reporters disseminated in June, when BART voted to place the bond measure on the November ballot. But it's wrong.

Agency documents show the tax lasting for 48 years, not 30, beginning in 2018 and ending in 2065. That's because BART plans to spread the bond issues over nearly two decades as the money is needed. Each issue would then be repaid in the following 30 years. As for the amount of the tax, Hamill relied on a document Poblete provided showing the estimated average annual levy for an average home in each of the three Bay Area counties.

The complex calculation relies on annual tax rates derived by estimating the bond repayment amount each year and forecasting for the next half century the total assessed value of property in the three counties.

Poblete then applied those annual tax rates through 2065 to a home in each county with a current average assessed value. But she did not increase the value of that home over time.

Consequently, she reported that the "estimated average annual tax" would be $37 in Contra Costa, $39 in Alameda County and $52 in San Francisco. That roughly approximates the average tax in current dollars. But that's not how it was presented.

In future dollars, assuming, for example, a 3 percent annual inflation on that home, the average annual tax through 2065 would be $79 in Contra Costa, $83 in Alameda County and $111 in San Francisco.

It's been more than two weeks since I pointed out the error to Hamill and Poblete. They have yet to issue a public correction.

Daniel Borenstein is a staff columnist and editorial writer. Reach him at 925-943-8248 [email protected]. Follow him at Twitter.com/BorensteinDan.

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/daniel-borenstein/ci_30102598/borenstein-bart-bond-measure-tax- double-what-agency

Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV August 19, 2016

Fremont: Mayor, two council seats up for election Nov. 8

By Julian J. Ramos - Staff Writer, [email protected]

POSTED: 07/07/2016 10:26:10 AM PDT | UPDATED: 16 DAYS AGO

With the nomination filing period for the November general election set to open in 10 days, Fremont Mayor Bill Harrison and Councilman Vinnie Bacon have already started campaigning for re-election to their respective seats and at least three other people have taken initial steps to enter the contest.

Meanwhile, Vice Mayor Lily Mei, who is in her first term on the council, confirmed in an email to The Argus her intention to run for mayor. She would be Fremont's first elected female mayor. If she's not chosen, Mei still would have two years left in her council term.

In addition to Harrison and Bacon, the city has received candidate intention statements from mayor hopeful Steve Cho and council hopefuls Raj Salwan and Rakesh Sharma, according to City Clerk Susan Gauthier.

The mayor's seat and two council seats will be on the Nov. 8 ballot. The mayor is elected by voters and serves a four-year term, with a limit of two terms. Council members are elected at-large and serve four-year terms; they too are limited to two terms. The mayor is compensated $3,500 per month and council members $1,970.

Former mayors and council members who served two terms are eligible to return after a four-year absence.

Because of term limits, the seat held by Councilwoman Suzanne Chan will be open. After serving on the city's planning commission for three years, Chan joined the council in December 2008 and was re- elected in 2012.

The nomination filing period begins July 18 and ends Aug. 12.

Bacon, who began his first term on the council in December 2012, held a campaign kickoff event June 11 at the Fremont Senior Center. He said he expects the campaign to start picking up momentum in mid-July. In 2012, Bacon made two promises -- to not accept campaign donations from developers and to reject new residential developments if schools aren't able to adequately serve children who would live there.

Bacon previously served on the city's Economic Development Advisory Commission.

Cho, a councilman from 2000 to 2008, couldn't be reached for comment. He ran against Harrison in the 2012 mayoral election and was also a candidate for mayor in 2008.

Either Cho or Mei could be the city's first Chinese-American mayor if elected.

Following the June 7 primary election, Harrison, who has served as mayor since December 2012, began assembling his election team and soliciting donations to retain his post.

"We're proceeding forward and looking forward to the election process," he said.

Harrison, who joined the council in December 2006 and was re-elected in 2010, said he intends to focus on expanding the city's economy while controlling growth and improving the quality of life for all residents. He also plans to continue helping local schools and ensuring police and firefighters have the resources they need to keep neighborhoods safe.

He previously served on the planning commission.

Salwan, currently chairman of the planning commission, said he expects to decide whether to run for council in mid-July.

"I'm definitely looking at running," he said.

Salwan previously served on the council from January 2013 to December 2014 and on the planning commission from 2011 to 2013. He rejoined the planning panel in January 2015, filling the seat of Rick Jones, who was elected to the council in November 2014. Coincidentally, Jones took Salwan's seat on the planning commission when Salwan joined the council.

Sharma, who served on the planning commission from 2002 to 2010, said he intends to run for city council and has taken some preliminary steps in his campaign. He previously ran unsuccessfully for the council in 2002, 2012 and 2014.

In his 2014 campaign, Sharma pledged to bring high-tech, biotech and green tech jobs to the city; provide more resources to the police and fire departments; and address the city's unfunded pensions liability.

For more information on becoming a candidate, visit fremont.gov/77/election-information.

Contact Julian J. Ramos at [email protected] or (510) 661-9920 or follow him ontwitter.com/julianjramosmp.

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/my-town/ci_30101521/fremont-mayor-two-council-seats-up-election-nov

Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV August 19, 2016

Fremont: Mayor, two council seats up for election Nov. 8

By Julian J. Ramos - Staff Writer, [email protected]

POSTED: 07/07/2016 10:26:10 AM PDT | UPDATED: 16 DAYS AGO

Former mayors and council members who served two terms are eligible to return after a four-year absence.

The nomination filing period begins July 18 and ends Aug. 12.

In 2012, Bacon made two promises -- to not accept campaign donations from developers and to reject new residential developments if schools aren't able to adequately serve children who would live there.

Bacon previously served on the city's Economic Development Advisory Commission. Cho, a councilman from 2000 to 2008, couldn't be reached for comment. He ran against Harrison in the 2012 mayoral election and was also a candidate for mayor in 2008.

Either Cho or Mei could be the city's first Chinese-American mayor if elected.

Following the June 7 primary election, Harrison, who has served as mayor since December 2012, began assembling his election team and soliciting donations to retain his post.

"We're proceeding forward and looking forward to the election process," he said.

He previously served on the planning commission.

Salwan, currently chairman of the planning commission, said he expects to decide whether to run for council in mid-July.

"I'm definitely looking at running," he said.

For more information on becoming a candidate, visit fremont.gov/77/election-information.

Contact Julian J. Ramos at [email protected] or (510) 661-9920 or follow him ontwitter.com/julianjramosmp.

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/my-town/ci_30101521/fremont-mayor-two-council-seats-up-election-nov

Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV August 19, 2016

Election 2016: Daunting ballot awaiting California voters

By Matthew Artz, [email protected]

POSTED: 07/04/2016 09:54:06 PM PDT | UPDATED: 21 DAYS AGO

A man fills out a ballot while standing at a voting booth at City Hall in San Francisco, Tuesday, June 7, 2016. (AP) ( Jeff Chiu ) Voters are in store for another thick November ballot -- one that will offer up more statewide initiatives than IHOP has pancake dishes.

With California Secretary of State Alex Padilla certifying 17 ballot measures late last week -- the most for any election since March 2000, when the state's voters grappled with 20 measures -- local residents can expect to cast upward of five double-sided pages worth of votes and receive election guides that could number more than 200 pages, said Joe Canciamilla, Contra Costa County's election chief. "The ballot is just going to be a nightmare," he said.

Eileen Ray, right, president of Discovery Petition Management reviews petition signatures with Teresa Torkelson in Sacramento, Calif. Discovery Petition is one of several companies that is having a banner year in California, a hotbed for voter initiatives. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli) ( Rich Pedroncelli )

As voters labor over questions about legalizing marijuana, eliminating the death penalty and making adult film actors wear condoms during sex, studies show that nearly 1 in 10 of them will likely give up before making it to the raft of local races, including a $3 billion BART bond measure. And many more will find themselves nixing initiatives they never had the time to grasp, said Shaun Bowler, a ballot measure expert at UC Riverside. "The conventional wisdom is the more propositions you have, the more 'no' voting you get because people say, 'I don't want to take the time to figure this out,' " he said. But that's the price of the election business in California, where the state's century-old commitment to direct democracy is both a hallowed institution and a source of ritual bellyaching. Advertisement

Many of the measures on the upcoming ballot were destined to go before voters because state law requires any constitutional amendment and nearly all general obligation bonds to receive public consent. California also has a relatively low bar for citizens -- or well-heeled interest groups -- to circumvent the Legislature and go directly to the voters. Low turnout in the 2014 election reduced the number of signatures needed to qualify a ballot measure. And a 2011 law pushed nearly all measures to November, when voter turnout is highest.

The initiative system is hardly perfect, but it has given voters the power to exercise their will when entrenched lobbies block action in Sacramento, said Kim Alexander of the California Voter Foundation.

"I know this will be a long and intimidating ballot," she said. "But there are a lot of topics covered in these initiatives that will get people excited and engaged and that can draw more people out to vote." Canciamilla, a moderate Democrat from Pittsburg who served six years in the Assembly, countered that the initiative process had become just as political as lawmaking itself.

The ever-growing number of initiatives resulted in "an overall culture of cowardice" in the Legislature, he said. Meanwhile, politicians worked on measures of their own whose goals included turning out like-minded voters or advancing their own ambitions.

Voters fill out their ballots on Election Day on Tuesday, June 7, 2016 at the Registrar of Voters office in the Rene C. Davidson Courthouse in Oakland, Calif. (Laura A. Oda/Bay Area News Group) ( Laura A. Oda )

Canciamilla sees that happening this year with a gun control measure championed by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who will be running for governor in 2018, and a $2-per-pack cigarette tax hike backed by billionaire environmental activist Tom Steyer, who is also considering joining the governor's race.

"This allows them to campaign without actually campaigning," Canciamilla said. "And they can wrap themselves in God, mother and apple pie ... and do it in a way to that gives them good press and good name recognition."

Steyer spokesman Gil Duran countered that Steyer led previous initiative drives, while Dan Newman, who is working on the gun control measure, noted that Newsom hasn't been afraid to tackle controversial issues, including gay marriage, when he was mayor of San Francisco.

It might be hard to fathom, but California hasn't always been awash in citizen-initiated ballot measures. After going gangbusters with measures in the early part of the 20th century, the state had just nine for the entire decade of the '60s -- one of which proposed denying political party status to Communists. That failed.

The watershed moment in the rise of initiatives occurred with Proposition 13, the landmark 1978 measure that capped property tax increases, said Kurt Oneto, an attorney who specializes in ballot measure law with the law firm Nielson Merksamer.

"You see a change there where even the voting public lost some confidence in the Legislature and started taking matters into their own hands," he said.

For the first time this year, state law allowed legislators to head off ballot measures by working with sponsors to pass similar legislation. That avoided the need for a measure to raise the state's hourly minimum wage to $15, but a package of gun control measures signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown on Friday hasn't convinced Newsom to abandon his measure. As the number of statewide ballot measures has jumped, so has the cost for getting them on the ballot. In 2012, advocates spent more than $28 million collecting signatures for 13 measures, according to the website Ballotpedia.

One thing money can't buy is a friendly place on the ballot. State law requires that bond measures go first in the order they were certified. Those are followed by constitutional amendments, measures forwarded by the Legislature, citizen initiatives and referendums. That means the last measure on the ballot in November will be the plastic bag industry's effort to overturn a state law banning plastic grocery bags.

Oneto said his studies show placement doesn't have much impact on the success of a California measure -- money is the better indicator. Voters are far more likely to approve propositions referred to them by the Legislature than citizen-driven initiatives, he added.

Eric Zell, a political strategist working on a Contra Costa transportation tax measure, said he expected about 8 to 9 percent of voters will leave the item blank, but he said it likely wouldn't have much impact because Democrats and Republicans are just as likely to skip votes.

Alexander, whose organization defends the rights of voters, said skipping certain measures isn't a sin when confronted with a big ballot.

"It's not a test," she said. "It's perfectly fine to leave some blank if you're not confident in your choices."

Contact Matthew Artz at 510-208-6435. Follow him at Twitter at Matthew_Artz.

MEASURES ON NOVEMBER BALLOT

Proposition 51 School bonds: Authorize $9 billion in school construction bonds Proposition 52 Hospital fees: Safeguard fees intended to make state eligible for federal health funds Proposition 53 Bond rule: Require voter approval for state revenue bonds $2 billion and more Proposition 54 Transparency: Require Legislature to publish bill 72 hours before passage Proposition 55 Tax extension: Extend 2012's Proposition 30 income-tax surcharge on wealthy to fund schools Proposition 56 Cigarette tax: Raise by $2 per pack to $2.87 Proposition 57 Sentencing: Earlier parole for nonviolent offenders; more latitude for judges to not try juveniles as adults Proposition 58 Bilingual education: Overturn 1998's "English Only" initiative Proposition 59 Citizens United: Nonbinding query on whether lawmakers should seek to overturn 2010 Supreme Court ruling voter instruction Proposition 60 Porn: Require adult film actors to wear condoms during sex Proposition 61 Prescription drugs: Limit prices on state purchases of prescription drugs Proposition 62 Death penalty: Make life imprisonment with no parole strongest sentence Proposition 63 Gun control: Tightens weapons restrictions further Proposition 64 Marijuana: Legalize recreational use and tax purchases Proposition 65 Carry-out bags: Require grocery stores direct paper bag sale proceeds toward environmental fund Proposition 66 Death penalty: Preserve capital punishment and speed up judicial review Proposition 67 Plastic bags: Overturn 2014 plastic bag ban

SOME measures that never made it on ballot Pension reform: Would have curtailed public employee pension benefits Hospital CEO pay: Would have capped pay for public hospital CEOs Drinking age: Would have lowered the drinking age to 18 Political ad tax: Would have placed 1,000 percent sales tax on political advertising

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/california/ci_30090177/election-2016-daunting-ballot-awaiting-california- voters?source=email

Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV August 19, 2016

Pelosi says House Republicans no different from Trump

By Carolyn Lochhead

July 3, 2016 Updated: July 3, 2016 7:13pm

Photo: Lester Cohen, WireImage Former U.S. vice president Al Gore, Apple’s SVP of Internet software and services, Eddy Cue, Apple CEO Tim Cook, music producer Jimmy Iovine and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi attend the pre-Grammy Gala and Salute to Industry Icons honoring Martin Bandier at the Beverly Hilton Hotel in Los Angeles in February.

WASHINGTON — “Poor Tim,” as Nancy Pelosi dubbed Apple CEO Tim Cook last week, became the perfect foil for the House minority leader’s plan to wrap Donald Trump around the neck of every House Republican.

For months, the San Francisco Democrat has been telling anyone who will listen that there’s “not a dime’s worth of difference” between House Republicans and their presidential standard bearer. As a political tactic, tying House Republicans to a leader as deeply unpopular as Trump makes sense, even as many of them are distancing themselves from him. If he loses big in November, Trump could take enough of them with him to return the House to a Democratic majority and Pelosi to speaker.

Pelosi faces a huge climb. With Republicans holding their largest House majority since 1929, she will need to net a whopping 30 seats to retake the speakership, a feat analysts say is possible only in a national Democratic landslide.

Tethering House Republicans to Trump is “smart politics,” said Stanford University political scientist Bruce Cain. “It’s possible that if Donald Trump really ends up being a very bad candidate, it could put not only the Senate, but a lot of House seats in play.”

Only about a fifth of the 247 House Republicans have endorsed Trump so far, and several of those, including Darrell Issa of Vista (San Diego County) have since expressed misgivings about the party’s presumptive nominee. Many California Republicans have still not formally endorsed Trump.

Photo: Robert F. Bukaty, Associated Press Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks at a town hall-style campaign event at the former Osram Sylvania light bulb factory in June in Manchester, N.H.

Similar tone, substance Rep. David Valadao of Hanford (Kings County) is a case in point. The two-term Republican represents a sprawling, heavily Latino swath of farming towns that stretches across the central San Joaquin Valley between Paso Robles and Fresno. He crushed Democratic challenger Amanda Renteria by 20 points in the last election, and would be tough to unseat in a normal year.

After avoiding endorsing Trump for months, Valadao issued a statement last week denouncing him as someone who “denigrates people based on their ethnicity, religion, or disabilities.”

But as a matter of substance, Pelosi’s claim is accurate on many counts, and wrong on others. In both tone and substance, House Republicans have matched or even outdone Trump on signature Republican issues from immigration to abortion. Yet on others, none more than free trade, a bedrock of Republican economic philosophy, Trump has turned GOP orthodoxies upside down.

When word leaked that Cook was holding a private fundraiser for House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., Pelosi came out swinging. “Poor Tim. What a nice guy he is, but somebody gave him bad advice,” Pelosi told Chronicle reporter John King.

Hearing that just days earlier, Cook had announced that Apple would be withholding its sponsorship of this summer’s GOP national convention in Cleveland because of Trump’s inflammatory comments throughout his campaign about immigrants, women, Muslims and others, Pelosi said, Cook “probably doesn’t think that much about politics.”

Just days earlier, Pelosi lambasted Cook at a sit-down with reporters in Washington.

“Here’s the thing that really gets me. They’re worse than Donald Trump, or at least as bad,” Pelosi said of House Republicans. “But they have power. He doesn’t.”

She ticked of a list of top issues for Silicon Valley: immigration, women’s health, LGBT rights, climate change and gun control.

“Do these people care about immigration?” Pelosi said, referring to Silicon Valley executives, who have pounded on Washington to expand legal immigration for at least a decade. “The single biggest obstacle and only obstacle to bringing an immigration bill to the floor is the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives.”

Photo: Connor Radnovich, The Chronicle House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, talks to 8th grade students during her trip to Children's Day School in San Francisco in May.

Likely nominee outdone A comparison of the House GOP record on these issues with Trump’s statements shows multiple instances where House Republicans have matched or outdone their likely nominee.

•Immigration: Trump promises to build a wall on the border and get Mexico to pay for it. Since 2006, Republicans have blocked bipartisan bills that would have expanded legal avenues to immigration while fighting to harden physical barriers on the southern border. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, famously said in 2014 that for every Mexican valedictorian who crosses the border illegally, “there’s another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds — and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.”

•Muslims: Last fall, House Republicans voted overwhelmingly to block the administration’s efforts to expand the number of refugees the United States admits from Syria. And following the mass shooting in Orlando last month, more than 80 House Republicans proposed a bill, HR3314, by Rep. Brian Babin, R-Texas, to ban all refugee resettlement in the U.S. without prior approval of Congress. By applying a ban to all refugees, the GOP plan parallels Trump’s call for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on.”

Alike on climate change •Climate change: House Republicans, avid defenders of coal and oil, have waged all-out war on efforts to address the issue, which Trump has called a Chinese-inspired hoax. Republicans opposed last year’s Paris climate accord and have sought to block funding for climate initiatives, including President Obama’s plan to limit power plant emissions.

Rep. Lamar Smith, the Texas Republican who chairs the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, has issued subpoenas to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, demanding all internal communication related to a 2015 NOAA study that dismissed conservative claims of a “pause” in global warming. NOAA Director Kathryn Sullivan has refused to comply, and in an extraordinary step, the heads of eight leading U.S. science academies wrote a joint letter to Smith last fall accusing him of harassing federal scientists, saying his investigation of federal climate research threatens to chill scientific inquiry.

•LGBT issues: House Republicans may be to the right of Trump, who has said transgendered people should be allowed to use the bathroom of their choice. On July 12, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform plans hearings on the First Amendment Defense Act, which would allow discrimination against LGBT people based on a person’s religious beliefs.

•Abortion: While Trump has defended Planned Parenthood, House Republicans have attacked the group, creating a “Select Investigative Panel on Infant Lives,” to investigate fetal tissue research and abortion.

•Guns: House Republicans have blocked legislation to expand gun background checks for all commercial sales, including those made over the Internet and at gun shows, and to ban people on the federal terrorist watch lists from buying firearms. Trump’s campaign website contends the current background check system covers “the overwhelming majority of all gun purchases” and that too many states fail to add mental health and criminal records to their own background check requirements. “What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended,” the campaign states, in line with the general GOP position. “What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system.”

5 ways GOP acts like Trump “Immigration, guns, the environment, women, LGBT — at least five reasons why it is inconsistent for somebody to say, ‘I don’t like what Donald Trump has to say, but I’m going to support people who are acting upon what he says in the Congress of the United States’ and have been doing so for a long time,’” Pelosi said.

But on several issues — trade, entitlement programs such as Social Security, and U.S. global military reach — Trump departs from basic GOP values, so flummoxing Washington Republicans that Ryan last month rolled out an entire program called “A Better Way.” Its purpose is to differentiate House Republicans from Trump.

Where Trump wants to charge U.S. allies for overseas military bases, Ryan wants to extend American influence abroad. Where Trump has said he would not cut Social Security, Ryan has proposed privatization and cuts in future benefits.

Control ‘is pure fantasy’ Within days, Trump erased any hope that he would fall in line behind Ryan, a strong supporter of trade deals. Reading a prepared speech in Pennsylvania Tuesday, Trump blasted “a leadership class that worships globalism,” and positioned himself to the left of presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton with promises to rip up trade deals.

Apple has not responded to Pelosi’s comments. Cook has donated in the past to Democrats, including President Obama and Rep Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose. In February, Trump called for a boycott of Apple amid the company’s encryption battle with the FBI, when the company rebuffed the bureau’s demand that it unlock the iPhone used by the killers in the San Bernardino mass shooting.

Cain of Stanford said Cook’s courting of Ryan is “all about access,” adding that “businesses have been doing that forever” to curry favor with politicians in both parties to promote their financial interests. But of Ryan’s efforts to forge a Republican path separate from Trump’s, with the aim of forcing the party’s presumptive leader to support it, Cain said: “The illusion anyone can control (Trump) is pure fantasy.”

Carolyn Lochhead is The San Francisco Chronicle’s Washington correspondent. Email:[email protected] Twitter: @carolynlochhead

Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV August 19, 2016

Governor hopefuls Newsom, Chiang raise millions for 2018 race

SACRAMENTO — With more than two years to go, the race for California’s next governor is already attracting millions of dollars in campaign contributions.

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom has been raising money for more than a year and has $8.6 million in cash between two campaign accounts — including $1.6 million raised between Jan. 1 and June 30 — but a competing candidate is proving to be a strong fundraiser as well.

Campaign finance reports released Monday show that state Treasurer John Chiang raised $2.3 million in the seven weeks of his campaign that were covered by the filing. Chiang, who entered the race in May, has an additional $3.2 million in his campaign account from his successful run for treasurer that can be used in his race for governor. More candidates are expected to join the race to replace termed-out Gov. Jerry Brown, with those potentially including former Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, former state Controller Steve Westly, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and billionaire environmentalist Tom Steyer.

“Money doesn’t always win, but in a race like this when there are potentially half a dozen or more candidates, someone would like to jump ahead to give others a reason to say, ‘Well, maybe I will consider something else,’” said Larry Gerston, professor emeritus of political science at San Jose State University.

In Bay Area legislative races, former Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner, D-Berkeley, raised $102,000 in the reporting period of May 22 to June 30 and has $936,000 in cash for her effort to replace termed-out Sen. Loni Hancock, D-Berkeley. Skinner’s opponent, former Assemblyman Sandré Swanson, D-Alameda, raised $113,000 during the reporting period, but has $76,000 in cash.

In the contentious San Jose state Senate race, incumbent Jim Beall has been spending big against his rival, Assemblywoman Nora Campos. Beall has spent $883,000 since January, with half of those expenditures coming right before the June 7 primary, which he won by a large margin. Beall has $125,000 in cash remaining heading into the runoff against Campos in November.

Campos reported Monday that she has $36,000 among four campaign accounts. She spent $184,000 ahead of the June primary on campaign mailers.

The Bay Area’s only Republican in the state Legislature, Assemblywoman Catharine Baker of San Ramon, has a significant fundraising lead over Democratic challenger Cheryl Cook-Kallio in the East Bay’s 16th Assembly District.

Baker raised $237,000 between May 22 and June 30 and ended with $991,000 in cash. She has spent $452,000 since January. Cook-Kallio raised $169,000 during the most recent reporting period.

In the mad dash to qualify Gov. Jerry Brown’s ballot measure on prison sentencing reform for the fall ballot, the campaign supporting Prop. 57 spent nearly $5 million on signature gathering this year, according to Monday’s filings. Brown’s own ballot measure committee contributed $4.1 million to the Yes on Prop. 57 campaign, which now has just $120,000 in cash on hand.

Wealthy Palo Alto physicist and Republican donor Charles Munger Jr. gave $7 million to the Yes on Prop. 54 campaign. The ballot measure would require the state Legislature to wait 72 hours after a bill is made public before voting on it and mandate that videos of public hearings be put on the Internet within 24 hours.

A ballot measure to extend taxes on the wealthy to fund education has raised $18 million so far this year. The Yes on Prop. 55 campaign has spent $4 million this year in its efforts to extend income taxes being paid under Prop. 30. Its biggest contributor is the California Teachers Association, which gave $3.5 million this year.

Melody Gutierrez is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected]: @MelodyGutierrez

Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV August 19, 2016

CREATORS SYNDICATE The Road to Donald Trump Wasn't Built in a Day

By Froma Harrop

The implosion is so big it's drowning out the "he said this monstrous thing" or "that easily caught lie." Donald Trump has moved from the chaos candidate to the kamikaze candidate to the crazy-as-a-loon candidate.

But none of his behavior is new. He's been incoherent and ignorant — vulgar and indecent

— since he started his campaign. The list of Republican defectors is now growing, but what took it so long?

In truth, the groundwork for Trump's sort of candidacy was being laid decades ago. Here are five signposts:

1) The rise of right-wing talk media. The business model that serves Rush Limbaugh, Bill

O'Reilly and Laura Ingraham seemed to serve the Republican Party at first. It riled up listeners with grievance, self-pity and the belief that Democrats are not people they just disagree with but evil. A fevered public became conditioned to regard normal politics as a war for America's soul.

2) The Bill Clinton impeachment. In 1998, Republicans doggedly pursued the president over a sexual indiscretion, sending U.S. governance into the deep freeze for months. So grotesque was the overkill that public sympathy swung to Clinton. (He left office with a higher approval rating than did Ronald Reagan.) Most Republicans ignored the lesson there.

3) In-your-face obstructionism. Shortly after Barack Obama's election, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell infamously announced: "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."

Putting politics above governing — and at a time of great economic hardship — created an opening for a Trump-like candidate. It hurt government's ability to deal with the sort of problems that have Trump supporters fuming. For example, the Republican House leadership blocked a comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have tightened the borders. That left the problem to fester year after year.

4) The debt ceiling crisis. Never before had honoring the "full faith and credit of the United

States" been used as a political bargaining chip. But in 2011, Republicans initially refused to raise the debt ceiling as had always been done. A last-minute fix stopped a U.S. default from setting off a global economic panic — but not before the stock market plunged, consumer confidence fell through the floor and Standard & Poor's lowered America's credit rating, costing taxpayers billions.

The world was stunned, but Republicans who knew better decided to treat the situation as an unfortunate incident rather than as a portent of future trouble for their party. The "falling rock zone" signs were gone.

5) The Republican convention in Cleveland. It had become increasingly clear that the nominee's racial and ethnic slurs were jeopardizing their own candidacies — that Trump was tearing conservative principles to shreds. So why was Ben Sasse of Nebraska the only one of the Senate Republicans to say that Trump was unacceptable? It shouldn't be too shocking that Trump would later attack an American Muslim family that lost a son fighting in Iraq. And what kind of naive faith in Trump led House Speaker Paul

Ryan to assume that The Donald wouldn't go after him, even after he had compromised himself by endorsing Trump?

Some say Trump's trying to blow it. Some say he's just psycho. Again, all that was said before he became the standard-bearer for the Republican Party.

In any case, the downward spiral didn't start with Trump's altercation with the gold star parents. It didn't even start with Trump.

The road to this debacle was being built long ago. Whether it leads to a huge pothole that can eventually be filled or a cliff with no guardrails remains to be seen. These are disquieting times for Republicans and everyone else.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at [email protected]. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other

Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at www.creators.com.