BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, January 17, 2020 12:30 P.M

BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, January 17, 2020 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. Other Matters

B. OTHER STATE MATTERS I Doyle/Pfuehler 1. Governor Newsom’s State Budget 2. New Laws 3. Climate and Resources Bond 4. Sacramento Legislative Meetings I Pfuehler/Hoffman 5. Other Matters

II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION R Doyle/Pfuehler 1. H.R. 5435 (Grijalva D-AZ) – American Public Lands and Water Climate Solution Act 2. S. 2882 (Harris D-CA and H.R. 5091 (Huffman D-CA) – Wildfire Defense Act 3. S. 2975 (Bennet D-CO) – Stop the Speed of Invasive Mussels Act 4. Other Matters

B. OTHER FEDERAL MATTERS I Doyle/Pfuehler 1. Other Matters

III. WASHINGTON D.C. LEGISLATIVE MEETINGS I Pfuehler/Baldinger

IV. ALAMEDA COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION R Pfuehler/Hoffman 30TH ANNIVERSARY

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 Future Meetings: (I) Information January 17 July 17 (D) Discussion February – NO MTG August 21 March 27 September – NO MTG Legislative Committee Members April 17 October 16 Dennis Waespi (Chair); Beverly Lane, Elizabeth Echols May 15 November – NO MTG Ellen Corbett, Alternate June – NO MTG *December 11 Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager

TO: Board Legislative Committee (Chair Dennis Waespi, Beverly Lane, Elizabeth Echols, Alt. Ellen Corbett)

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

SUBJECT: Board Legislative Committee Meeting WHEN: Friday, January 17, 2020 12:30 PM Lunch will be served

WHERE: Board Room, Peralta Oaks ______

Items to be discussed:

I. STATE LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION – N/A 1. Other Matters

B. OTHER STATE MATTERS 1. Governor Newsom’s State Budget On Friday, January 10th, Governor Newsom introduced his second state budget. He held a near three-hour news conference to unveil the $222 billion budget. Big picture items included education, early childhood programs, health care, housing and homelessness, and adding to the state’s reserves.

Resources related highlights include: • $4.75 billion climate resilience bond for the November 2020 ballot – including $500 million for hardening critical community infrastructure, $250 million for forest health, $320 million for coastal wetland restoration, $130 million for nature-based flood protection and resilience, and $200 million for urban greening. • $965 million in Cap-and-Trade funds – including $165 million for Healthy and Resilient Forests. • $65.1 million to advance the Parks for All initiative. • $20 million in the General Fund for a new state park. • $20 million for Outdoor Equity Grants Program. • $11.8 million for access to parks and programming. • $8.7 million in Proposition 68 funds for urban parks – including $2.6 million for Candlestick Point and $4.9 million for deferred maintenance projects in non-profit operated parks. • $4.6 million bond funds to acquire inholding properties to expand existing state parks.

2. New Laws With the beginning of the year, several new laws have gone into effect which are of interest to the District. Among them are a one dollar increase in the minimum wage (SB 3) and extension of paid family leave from six to eight weeks (SB 83). District supported

Assembly Member Monique Limón’s (D-Santa Barbara) Outdoor Equity Grants Program (AB 209) goes into effect and the Governor’s budget includes $20 million to implement. A bill from 2018 requiring State Parks to keep an updated website about dog friendly park areas also goes into effect.

3. Climate and Resources Bond The three State bond measure bills brought forth during the 2019 legislative session – SB 45 (Allen), AB 352 (Garcia) and AB 1298 (Mullin) – were designed to provide for critical investments in climate change adaptation and resilience. While all three contain important initiatives, the District is especially appreciative of the outstanding leadership demonstrated by Bay Area Caucus Member, Kevin Mullin, for authoring AB 1298. Some of the investment priorities identified by Bay Area land management agencies include: • Wildfire and Vegetation Management ($200 million) • State Coastal Conservancy ($500 million with a minimum of $100 million dedicated to the Bay Area Program) • Nature-based Infrastructure prioritization • Community Access (5% of all funds) • Active Transportation ($75 million) • Disadvantaged Communities (use Under-Resourced Communities definition)

District staff participated in a meeting with Assembly Member Mullin recently and identified wildfire vegetation management and equipment as high priorities. Mullin has proposed up to $12 billion in bond priorities. There has also been a renewed call for recommendations on SB 45 and Assembly Member Garcia is engaged. District staff and Advocate Houston will provide additional updates.

4. Sacramento Legislative Meetings On Wednesday, January 22nd, District Board Members and staff will be meeting with the East Bay legislative delegation. The main issues to be discussed are: • Wildfire Protection • Climate and Resources Bond • ADA Accessibility • Public Safety Infrastructure • California Plastic Reduction Initiative Staff will provide a brief PowerPoint to run through the proposed day of meetings.

5. Other Matters

II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. H.R. 5435 (Grijalva D-AZ) – American Public Lands and Water Climate Solution Act Representative Raul Grijalva’s bill directs the Department of the Interior (DoI) and the United States Forest Service (USFS) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions from public lands and waters by 2040. The bill temporarily pauses new fossil fuel leases while the agencies develop a plan to reach the 2040 goal. DoI and USFS must meet climate pollution reduction targets at specific intervals starting in 2025. They must also publish strategic plans every four years detailing how the agencies will meet the pollution

reduction targets established by the legislation. The bill also increases royalties on fossil fuel extraction by oil, gas and coal corporations. It uses the proceeds to support workers and communities impacted by a transition away from energy extraction. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, climate-harming pollution from fossil fuel development on public lands and waters account for nearly a quarter of the U.S. total, while public land ecosystems absorb the equivalent of only about three percent of U.S. emissions each year. The American Public Lands and Waters Climate Solution Act seeks to balance that out by 2040. The bill encourages the development of more renewable energy on public lands, better land management techniques to increase the amount of carbon absorbed by public lands ecosystems, and the use of public lands for geologic sequestration or negative-emissions technologies, while limiting the growth of new fossil fuel development and helping communities achieve a just transition.

Other major provisions of the bill include: • Calculating Net Emissions: Makes the U.S. Geological Survey responsible for tracking emissions from the development and combustion of oil, gas and coal produced on federal leases, as well as the emissions avoided by renewable energy generation on public lands, the amount of carbon absorbed by ecosystems on public lands, and any carbon dioxide captured and permanently sequestered on public lands. • Enforcement: If at any point the climate pollution reduction targets are not being met, no new fossil fuel permits or leases may be issued until compliance is reached. • Fee Increases on Fossil Fuel Extraction: Increases the minimum royalty rate for onshore coal, oil and gas from 12.5 percent to 18.75 percent. The bill also establishes new fees on producing and nonproducing oil and gas leases, to be paid by the fossil fuel industry. • Economic Development for Fossil Fuel Communities: Dedicates the new funds collected from the above fees to fossil fuel-dependent regions. The funds can be used for reclamation and restoration of land and water, transition assistance, worker retraining, economic diversification and other purposes.

The bill is supported by The Wilderness Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Earthjustice, Oceana and Earthworks

Staff recommendation: Support

2. S. 2882 (Harris D-CA) and H.R. 5091 (Huffman D-CA) – Wildfire Defense Act Senator Kamala Harris and Representative Jared Huffman have introduced legislation to expand a grant program within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in consultation with the U.S. Forest Service, to carry out projects that support a diverse portfolio of community wildfire defense strategies. It would set aside $1 billion each year to pay for better infrastructure, land-use and evacuation route planning in fire- prone communities. The proposed legislation would benefit cities and towns throughout the country, but especially those in California, where many communities are vulnerable, and residents are struggling to adapt to longer and more intense fire seasons.

With funds from the FEMA, the Wildfire Defense Act would award municipalities grants of up to $250,000 to develop defense strategies. This could include plans to fireproof critical infrastructure and homes, evacuate residents — particularly elderly and disabled people — and improve land-use planning.

The legislation would also allow municipalities to use grant money to bolster their energy infrastructure with microgrids and battery storage, which can supply power to residents even when the main power grid isn’t providing electricity. Once communities have a plan in place, the proposed legislation would offer them up to $10 million to implement it. Preference would go to low-income areas and places recently affected by wildfire.

While the Democratic-majority House and Republican-controlled Senate have shown interest in increasing wildfire spending, funding for prevention has typically taken a backseat to new funds to combat fires.

In late October, the Senate approved measures increasing wildfire suppression funding by $1.2 billion next year. Other provisions, secured by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), would set aside $150 million for preventative steps like removing dead and dying trees and $5 million to study the long-term effects of wildfire smoke on California’s wine industry.

Staff recommendation: Support

2. S. 2975 (Bennet D-CO) – Stop the Speed of Invasive Mussels Act Senator Bennet’s bill would enable state and federal agencies to more effectively prevent the spread of Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) in the west. The legislation introduced in the Senate would enable collaboration by adding the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation and National Park Service to the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force. It would grant all agencies on the Task Force the authority to, among other things, conduct inspection and decontamination of watercraft. The agencies could also impound, quarantine or otherwise prevent entry to limit the movement of aquatic nuisance species into and out of U.S. water.

It would also vest federal agencies with the clear authorities necessary to manage invasive species on lands and waters under their jurisdiction. It would help ensure state and federal agencies are able to collaboratively protect the west from the spread of ANS.

Staff recommendation: Support

3. Other Matters

B. OTHER FEDERAL MATTERS 1. Other Matters

III. WASHINGTON D.C. LEGISLATIVE MEETINGS

Staff will provide an overview of the District’s proposed legislative meetings in Washington D.C. during the Hike the Hill conference February 8-13, 2020.

IV. ALAMEDA COUNTY SPECIAL DISTRICTS ASSOCIATION 30TH ANNIVERSARY

In honor of the 30th Anniversary of the Alameda County Special Districts Association, staff is recommending the District adopt a commemorative resolution in support of their good work.

Staff recommendation: Support

V. ARTICLES

VI. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT

VII. BOARD COMMENTS

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Project aims to restore creek to natural state

$4 million from the state will go to the restoration of the East Bay waterway

By Annie Sciacca [email protected]

More than 2,000 feet of Mc-Cosker Creek in the Robert Sibley Volcanic Regional Preserve is covered by a failing metal culvert that’s 60 years old. Giant sinkholes have opened up and dissolved the metal, allowing sediment to seep in, according to the East Bay Regional Park District.

But an influx of $4 million in state funding — secured by Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, working with park district officials — should help remedy the situation and provide new opportunities for viewing wildlife, recreation and even camping at the site.

The project entails restoring the culvert section of creek in the upper San Leandro watershed to a natural stream. Park district leaders hope to create a sustainable habitat for fish and other wildlife, as well as native plants.

Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, D-Orinda, points out the McCosker Creek Restoration and Public Access Project site at Robert Sibley Volcanic Regional Preserve.

The area will be able to support up to 10 “special status” wildlife species, including the California redlegged frog, golden eagle, Cooper’s hawk, California foothill yellow-legged frog, Alameda whipsnake and the San Francisco duskyfooted wood rat, according to the park district.

“This project returns the land back to its natural state as a thriving creek ecosystem and will provide access so the restored environment can be experienced and appreciated by the public,” park district board member Beverly Lane said in a news release.

The district’s chief of stewardship, Matt Graul, said it will be the largest creek restoration project the district has attempted. Signs will be added, and so will places for visitors to view wildlife. In addition, there will be a campground for groups of overnight campers.

Park district officials expect the restoration to happen through the 2020 season and say district staff will maintain the habitat once it’s completed.

Contact Annie Sciacca at 925- 943- 8073.

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

SACRAMENTO — California environmentalists battling to stop plastic from polluting the ocean and piling up in landfills say they can’t wait for state lawmakers to act — they’re hoping to take the fight to the ballot box.

Recology, the Bay Area waste hauler, and environmental groups filed a proposed initiative Monday that would require plastic manufacturers to dramatically reduce the amount of products that people use once and toss in the trash.

The initiative, aimed at the November 2020 ballot, is a more far-reaching version of two waste-reduction bills that died at the state Capitol this year, both were opposed by the plastics and petroleum industries.

Eric Potashner, vice president of Recology, said the consequences of inaction are mounting as plastic strangles marine habitats and overwhelms recycling facilities. He also signaled that qualifying the initiative for the ballot is intended in part to get state lawmakers to do something in 2020 that they could not this year — pass a major bill designed to cut plastic pollution. “We’re running out of time,” Potashner said. “We need a backup plan if the Legislature is not able to do something significant on plastic-packaging pollution.”

Supporters must collect 623,212 signatures of registered California voters by the end of April to qualify the proposed initiative for the November ballot.

Tim Shestek, a lobbyist for the American Chemistry Council, which represents the plastics industry, said the “timing of this new proposal strikes us as odd,” given that lawmakers are working on a major packaging recycling bill that could pass in January.

“This new initiative proposal will only serve as a distraction, and resources that could be going toward recycling could now be unnecessarily wasted,” Shestek said in an email.

The measure would require manufacturers to make all plastic packaging and single-use foodware items, including cups, straws and utensils, recyclable or compostable by 2030. It would also:

• Create a fee of up to 1 cent for manufacturers on every plastic item or product with plastic packaging. The money would be used to build recycling and composting facilities, and to pay for restoration projects such as beach cleanups.

• Prohibit food vendors, including restaurants and grocery stores, from using Styrofoam and other plastic-foam takeout containers.

• Require manufacturers to reduce to the “maximum extent possible” the plastic packaging and single-use products they create. That could require them to offer more reusable containers.

Caryl Hart, a member of the California Coastal Commission who lives in Sebastopol, co-authored the initiative. She said the popularity of plastic, made from fossil fuels, has exacerbated climate change.

“We’re seeing activity in the Legislature, but there’s not success,” Hart said. “If California is not going to lead, who is going to?”

Potashner said the penny-or-less fee would build infrastructure like recycling plants and composting facilities so more California communities can dispose of waste locally instead of shipping it overseas.

“This initiative aims to hold the plastics industry accountable for the products they create,” Recology CEO Mike Sangiacomo said in a statement.

Recology, like many waste haulers, sends thousands of tons of plastic waste to landfills every year. The recycling industry has been upended recently, as overseas markets, including China and the Philippines, have begun rejecting U.S. plastics.

Recology has pledged to spend $1 million to qualify the initiative for the ballot, but the effort could cost at least several million dollars more. Potashner said other groups plan to contribute to the fight, but none has made a public commitment.

Environmentalists anticipate opposition from the deep-pocketed plastics industry, which spent heavily to defeat bills in the Legislature this year. One company, Novolex, spent more than $959,000.

Dustin Gardiner is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @dustingardiner Sign up for Political Punch newsletter

Politics from a Golden State perspective. By subscribing, you agree to our Terms of use and acknowledge that your information will be used as described in our Privacy Policy.

Dustin Gardiner

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

House approves $1.4T spending bills to avert shutdown

Two packages would fund federal agencies, programs for fiscal year

By Emily Cochrane

The New York Times

WASHINGTON » The House took the first step Tuesday to avert a government shutdown, giving overwhelming approval to legislation that would fund all federal agencies and programs through next fall just days before federal funding is set to lapse.

A dozen must-pass bills were split into two packages in part to appease President Donald Trump, who had vowed to never again sign a so-called omnibus package. But in essence, the pair of measures were just that: a giant potpourri of unrelated spending and policy measures stuffed full of priorities with enough appeal to each political party to ensure their passage through Congress and smooth their path to Trump’s desk, on the eve of a vote to impeach him. The House passed the measures less than 24 hours after lawmakers formally unveiled more than 2,000 pages of legislation, which cover the federal government for the current fiscal year. The Senate is expected to vote on both measures before the Friday deadline when funding expires.

The Democratic controlled House of Representatives voted Tuesday to pass two governmentwide spending packages totaling $1.4 trillion. J. SCOTT APPLEWHITE — THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

By a 297-120 vote, the House approved one package that contained $632 billion for nondefense programs and a number of additions, including the repeal of three health care taxes and language raising the age to purchase tobacco products to 21 nationally. The measure also includes $25 million in funding for gun violence research, the first time in more than two decades that such funding will be allocated.

Heritage Action, the conservative advocacy group, declared its opposition — saying the bill was “loaded down with liberal poison pills and bad policy riders” — while the U.S. Chamber of Commerce endorsed both measures.

Ultimately, the two spending packages — totaling about $1.4 trillion — will allow agencies and federal departments some stability with a full year’s worth of funding, after two short-term spending bills kept the government functioning while lawmakers haggled over the details.

A second measure, billed as a national security package because it included allocations for both the military and the Department of Homeland Security, passed on a 280-138 vote. Seventy-five Democrats voted against the measure, with some protesting what they said was an excessive $738 billion outlay for the military and others objecting to the decision to fund the administration’s immigration policies without adequate oversight. The legislation maintains $1.375 billion for border barrier construction, with no limitations on Trump’s ability to transfer funds from other Pentagon accounts.

“This is not the bill I would have written on my own,” Rep. Nita Lowey, DN. Y., chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee, said in a floor speech about the measure. “But I am proud that we have been able to do so much good in this political environment.”

The top Republican on the committee, Rep. Kay Granger of Texas, declared that the compromise was “good for America, and I’m proud to support it.”

In a closed-door meeting with the Democratic caucus Tuesday morning, three lawmakers stood up to describe their concerns with the package: Reps. Joaquin Castro of Texas, chairman of the Hispanic Caucus; Pramila Jayapal of Washington, a co-chairwoman of the Progressive Caucus; and Ruben Gallego of Arizona. The Hispanic Caucus, fueled by two-thirds of its 38 members, announced its opposition to the bill shortly afterward, as did the Progressive Caucus.

Gallego said he had told L owey earlier this month that “the status quo is not acceptable” when it came to funding the immigration policies, including allowing the administration to reallocate funds from other programs to build the border wall and raise the number of migrants in detention over the levels set by the spending bills.

“I told her today in this caucus again, that she has to go find Republican votes, because I’m not voting for it,” he said Tuesday. Gallego argued that another short-term spending bill would have been preferable to the package put forward by Democrats, though other lawmakers have argued that full-year funding bills offer the stability agencies and departments need to plan and develop programs.

Other members of the Democratic caucus grappled publicly with their choice between voting no to register their opposition to immigration policies they detest or supporting the measure to maintain funding for other national security programs and avoid another government shutdown.

Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, D-Fla., a member of the Hispanic Caucus, called it a “heart-wrenching” decision to vote for the measure, while Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard of California, the top Democrat responsible for the Department of Homeland Security bill, acknowledged that “we’re all frustrated” with the border wall funding that remained and the lack of restrictions on Trump’s ability to transfer funding. Roybal-Allard, a member of the Hispanic Caucus, voted against the package, a rare gesture for a subcommittee chair.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, one of the most vocal foes of the spending process, was among the opponents of both pieces of legislation, calling them “atrocious” and urging his colleagues and Trump to vote against the packages.

Trump and his administration have not said whether they would support the packages, but administration officials were closely involved in the final crafting of the spending text — and most lawmakers in Washington are highly motivated to avoid another government shutdown.

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

With firm control, speaker forges a legacy she never sought

By Sheryl Gay Stolberg

The New York Times

WASHINGTON » Hours before she announced the House would investigate whether to impeach President Donald Trump, Speaker Nancy Pelosi received a call from him at her Washington home, ostensibly to talk about gun violence. But he quickly changed the topic to Ukraine.

“He kept saying, ‘The call was perfect. When you see the notes, you’ll see the call was perfect,’ ” Pelosi recalled in an interview, sharing for the first time how Trump previewed a reconstructed transcript showing he had asked Ukraine’s president to investigate a political rival. “Frankly, I thought, ‘Either he does not know right from wrong, or he doesn’t care,’ ” she said.

In some ways, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s management of the impeachment process was reminiscent of the tactics and style she used to push through the Affordable Care Act. PATRICK SEMANSKY — THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Now Trump has become only the third American president to be impeached. But when the final vote was tallied Wednesday on charges the president abused his power and obstructed Congress, he became one of two Washington figures to go down in the history books.

The other is Pelosi.

From the moment she ascended to the speakership in January, becoming the first woman to hold the office — not once, but twice — Pelosi has been the maestro of the unruly Democratic orchestra that crescendoed Wednesday to an impeachment vote she sought mightily to avoid. Like a conductor, she has presided over the process with discipline and at times an iron fist, knowing which notes to hit, when to go fast and when to slow down, and when to allow the musicians to play solo.

The pursuit is fraught with risks for Pelosi and the Democratic majority that handed her the gavel in January, and they could face a powerful backlash from voters in 2020 for their decision to move forward with the effort to remove the president. Those dangers, including costing them control of the House, have been evident from the moment she took over as speaker.

When Rep. Rashida Tlaib, the liberal freshman firebrand from Michigan, used an expletive on her first day in office to describe how she wanted to impeach Trump, Pelosi pointedly did not criticize her. “I’m not in the censorship business,” she insisted.

But she also made very clear that House Democrats had no intention of doing any such thing, even as she instructed her top lieutenants to investigate Trump on numerous fronts, including his communications with President Vladimir Putin of Russia and whether he had violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause by profiting from his real estate business as president.

When Robert Mueller, the special counsel, released his report documenting Russian interference in the 2016 election and at least 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice by Trump, a new wave of Democrats began pushing to open an inquiry. In private caucus conference calls and one-on-one meetings in her suite just off the Capitol Rotunda, she heard every one of them out — and patiently pushed back.

“I told her that we were struggling to justify why we were not moving forward,” said one of those Democrats, Rep. Val Demings of Florida, recounting her own effort to get Pelosi to change her mind. The speaker, she said, delivered a firm response about “being strategic and arriving to the right place at the right time.”

When news of Trump’s pressure campaign broke, and Pelosi decided she could hold off no longer, she involved herself in every aspect of the impeachment inquiry. She met nearly every day — sometimes twice a day — with the leaders of the six committees that were already investigating Trump on an array of matters.

She insisted on signing off on which witnesses would testify before the House Intelligence Committee, and personally approved the wording of news releases, committee reports and some of the high-profile statements her lieutenants would deliver in public. When Rep. Adam Schiff, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, showed her his opening statement for the panel’s first impeachment hearing, Pelosi changed a single word — “was” to “is” — arguing the present tense made for a stronger argument.

Committee chairs, ordinarily insistent on their autonomy, knew not to make a single move on impeachment without consulting her. When debate in the House Judiciary Committee on the articles of impeachment dragged late into the night last week, the chairman, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., checked with Pelosi before deciding to delay the vote until the next morning. And Tuesday, on the eve of the historic debate on the House floor, the speaker was in her Capitol office late into the night, coordinating which lawmakers would get to speak and for how long.

Over the past week, as Pelosi has rolled out the final stages of the impeachment process, culminating with Wednesday’s vote, she has carefully sequenced each step alongside broadly popular, bipartisan legislative items such as a giant defense policy bill, a $1.4 trillion government spending measure, and the ultimate prize for Trump: a sweeping North American trade agreement known as USMCA.

The result is that the most politically vulnerable Democrats — moderates who represent districts that Trump won in 2016 — can point to a list of legislative accomplishments as they leave Washington at year’s end, telling their constituents they did more with their time in Congress than just impeach the president. The strategy is typical of Pelosi, who excels at determining precisely what will be needed to win over holdouts in her ranks and then delivering it, generating remarkable party unity.

In this case, all but two Democrats voted Wednesday to support the article of impeachment on abuse of power, and all but three supported the article on obstruction of Congress.

As the highest ranking woman in Washington and leader of her party for nearly two decades, Pelosi, 79, of San Francisco, made her mark as a leader with muscle and spine when Trump was still a reality television host. She says she wants to be remembered not for impeachment but for her legislative achievements, primarily a meticulous and politically complex push to pass the Affordable Care Act, President Barack Obama’s landmark health care law.

But for better or worse, people in both parties say, her legacy is now wrapped up with Trump.

In many respects, Pelosi’s management of the impeachment process recalls the tactics and style she used to push through the Affordable Care Act, and to work her way into the speaker’s office for a second time. Her grasp on the speakership seemed tenuous after the 2018 midterm elections. A number of incoming freshmen Democrats, including many moderates, said they would not vote for her.

“I was one of them; I thought it was time for new leadership,” said one of those freshmen, Rep. Dean Phillips of Minnesota. “And I’ve got to tell you, thank goodness. Thank goodness that we have Nancy Pelosi speaking for the House of Representatives, because I do not think there is a better, more qualified, more principled person for these circumstances.”

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

22 apply for former elections chief’s post

By Annie Sciacca [email protected]

MARTINEZ » Twenty-two people have applied for the job Contra Costa County’s elections chief, which opened when Joe Canciamilla stepped down from the post in October and is now facing possible criminal charges for pocketing campaign funds.

Only four of the five members of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will vote to choose the next elections chief. That’s because one of the supervisors, District 4’s Karen Mitchoff, is a candidate as well and will have to recuse herself.

Other candidates include local city council members, attorneys and elections office staffers.

The role of the Contra Costa clerk-recorder — which, thanks to a salary increase approved by county supervisors this year is paid $210,686 a year — is to oversee the county’s elections as well as birth, death, marriage and other county records.

The position has been vacant since Ca ncia milla resigned and was fined $150,000 by a state ethics commission — one of its largest penalties of the year — for misspending $130,529 of campaign funds on a vacation in Asia, a remodel of his Hawaii home and other personal expenses in the past several years. The District Attorney’s Office is investigating whether to file criminal charges against Canciamilla.

The current term doesn’t expire until the end of 2022.

The supervisors last month voted to open the recruitment process for a new clerk-recorder on Nov. 8 and set a Dec. 16 deadline for applications to be submitted.

The chief deputy county clerkrecorder, Debi Cooper, who has been running the office since Canciamilla’s resignation, is one of the applicants for the top job, as are the office’s assistant registrar of voters Scott Konopasek and community engagement and education specialist Paul Burgarino.

Four members of area city councils also have applied. They are Laura Hoffmeister of Concord, who also is assistant to the Clayton city manager; Debra McKillop of Martinez, who is also a forensic manager for the Contra Costa Sheriff’s Office; Mark Ross of Martinez, who also is a real estate broker; and Justin Wedel of Walnut Creek.

Also in the running are attorney and Martinez Unified School Board Trustee Deirdre Siguenza, Antioch City Clerk Arne Simonsen, Martinez City Clerk Richard Hernandez, BART director of customer service Karen Basting, and attorney and former state assemblywoman Catherine Baker.

The list of candidates also includes East Bay Leadership Council CEO Kristin Connelly, former Contra Costa Fire Captain and deputy commissioner of civil marriages Martin Dunlap, city finance director Herman Farmer, consultant and former First 5 Alameda County CEO Mark Friedman, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency administrative hearing examiner Hakim Ali Ibrahim, Uber and Lyft driver Elliott Meltzer, medical insurance verification and demographics specialist Tina Norton, attorney Courtney O’Brien, and voters’ rights attorney Scott Rafferty.

To be considered for the job, applicants have to be at least 18 years old, a citizen of California, and a resident and registered voter of Contra Costa County at the time of appointment. While the county supervisors said they are eliminating the requirement for applicants to already be county residents at the time they applied, the only one who isn’t from there is Catherine Baker, who lives in nearby Alameda County.

On Jan. 14, the supervisors will decide who to interview on Jan. 21. They’re expected to make an appointment on Feb. 4.

To view the applications of all 22 applicants, visit www.contracosta. ca.gov/7694/View-Applications- for- Clerk-Recorder Contact Annie Sciacca at 925- 943- 8073.

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Local // Environment America’s noisiest and quietest national parks — the human factor

Kurtis Alexander Dec. 20, 2019 Updated: Dec. 21, 2019 1:21 p.m.

Visitors leave Muir Woods’ Cathedral Grove, which has been designated a quiet zone.Photo: Gabrielle Lurie / The Chronicle

From the distant canyons of Yosemite to the remote deserts of Death Valley, national parks are among the best places to escape the sounds of the city.

Yet, in an age of increasing thumps, buzzes and hums, noise is invading even this dusty turf. New research finds that 36% of national park sites in the continental United States are at least 10 times noisier than they would be otherwise because of human-produced sounds. Many of these spots are in California.

The clamor, scientists say, isn’t a problem just for people grumpy about loud music and beeping iPhones. Noise has real effects on human health, contributing to anxiety and elevated blood pressure, for example. It also fouls things up for wildlife, which rely on an unobstructed environment to find food, escape predators and communicate for mating.

“It’s something that we generally don’t give much thought to,” said Rachel Buxton, a conservation biologist at Carleton University in Ottawa and lead author of the recent study. “You might notice a loud sound or something, but when you go into these areas and appreciate the natural sound, it is a resource and it’s under threat.”

How noisy is your favorite park?

Decibels work on a logarithmic scale. An increase of 3 decibels means humans make the park twice as loud as it naturally would be. If people add 10 decibels, they are making the park 10 times louder than its natural level. Search: National park sites Decibels above natural sound Cedar Breaks National Monument 1.24 Lassen Volcanic National Park 1.29 El Malpais National Monument 1.3 Great Sand Dunes National Park 1.33 Devils Postpile National Monument 1.44

The National Park Service has been working to limit human noise in some areas, including the giant redwood stands of Muir Woods National Monument, where a “quiet zone” has been put into effect. But in many parks, the intrusion of cars, jets and raucous tourists still trumps the chorus of a songbird, the bubbling of a creek or the howl of a wolf.

In the study published in October, Buxton and colleagues at Colorado State University and the park service modeled median noise levels at 364 sites managed by the federal agency across the lower 48 states. They analyzed 47,000 hours of audio clips and projected how sounds would travel given such factors as topography and road density. Their work appeared in the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

The places they found to be the noisiest, ranked in terms of how much, on average, human noise raises the sound above natural levels across a site, are locations where commotion would be expected: urban parks and historic landmarks.

The park service’s loudest spot is Chamizal National Monument, a small park near downtown El Paso, Texas, that honors the shared culture of the U.S. and Mexico. It is rimmed on three sides by highways, including the Cordova Bridge, where one park interpreter described a constant flow of international truck traffic across the border.

Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National Historic Site in Buffalo, N.Y., ranks second noisiest, and Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site in Arkansas ranks third. Fourth is the White House.

Parks outside of cities, and in many cases celebrated for their unspoiled wilderness, also deal with human noise, where it’s usually quieter but often more problematic.

The Grand Canyon in Arizona, Arches in Utah, Rocky Mountain in Colorado and North Cascades in Washington are among the more primitive national parks that are at least twice as loud as they would be without human sounds, the study finds. So are California’s Point Reyes National Seashore, Muir Woods and Joshua Tree National Park.

“If you think of things like a bird courting another bird, that’s done through song, and a fox listening for a mouse in the snow, it’s hunting,” Buxton said. “By disrupting these sounds, we can have really big effects on an animal’s survival and reproduction.”

One study seven years ago at Grand Teton National Park found that noise from cars, bikes and pedestrians put elk and pronghorn at greater risk of being eaten by grizzly bears, gray wolves and mountain lions. The animals were presumed to have a harder time hearing their predators approaching.

Research has also shown that preserving the natural soundscape significantly benefits humans. Not only does spending time in wild places improve mood and memory, but not getting away from city sounds can raise the risk of cardiovascular disease, sleeping trouble, depression and general annoyance.

The distinction of quietest site in the park service, according to the new study, goes to Cedar Breaks National Monument, a far-flung red-rock canyon in Utah. The next quietest is Lassen Volcanic National Park, a geologically active area in sparsely populated Northern California. El Malpais National Monument in New Mexico, Great Sand Dunes National Park in Colorado and Devils Postpile National Monument near Mammoth Lakes (Mono County) round out the top five.

The most prevalent drivers of noise in the park system, the study finds, are cars and planes. When present, however, trains and boats are the loudest sources of noise.

The human sounds are largely localized, the study also finds, most observed around developed areas such as roads or train tracks. Even though noise levels are more than 10 times higher at more than a third of park sites because of humans, areas that are this loud represent just 2% of all park service lands.

The park service, since its creation, has been entrusted to protect the natural soundscape as part of its conservation mandate. But only in the 1970s did the federal government acknowledge human noise as a pollutant, and only in recent decades have park officials begun studying noise pollution and seriously trying to minimize it.

“There’s so much research on the benefits of natural sounds,” said Megan McKenna, an acoustic biologist for the park service and a co-author of the recent study. “It’s another resource like water quality. We protect the quality of the acoustic environment.”

McKenna is one of three park sound scientists based at Fort Collins, Colo., who have been working in collaboration with researchers at Colorado State University to diagnose and address noise in parks.

Their work, while still evolving, has spurred several noise-mitigation projects. Backup beepers on park vehicles in Alaska’s Denali National Park have been traded for more benign swooshing warnings, for example, and shuttle services and reduced speed limits have helped reduce traffic noise at many other parks.

In Muir Woods, at a stand of towering redwoods known as Cathedral Grove, park officials have designated a quiet zone. A sign at the beginning of the grove, where ancient trees rise more than 200 feet tall, reads, “Enter quietly.”

“We hope people take a moment to reflect and think about where they are and what the space means,” said Shalini Gopie, a public affairs specialist for Muir Woods.

The quiet zone has resulted in a significant drop in human noise, according to one study that found visitors could hear sounds from about twice as far as they had previously. The fact that the area is still free of cell phone service helps maintain the quiet.

The new reservation system at Muir Woods, which limits the number of visitors who can enter the Marin County site, has also helped preserve the natural serenity by spreading out visitation, Gopie said.

Yosemite and Sequoia/Kings Canyon national parks are much quieter than Muir Woods, owing to their location in the undeveloped Sierra. But human noise has still endured. One of the biggest problems is airplanes buzzing the skies, even in the most inaccessible of wilderness.

“You’re there and you’re there overnight, and you’re enjoying a quiet experience looking at the stars because you’re so far away from everything, and then you hear a flight overhead,” explained Sintia Kawasaki-Yee, a spokeswoman for Sequoia/Kings Canyon.

Because of the importance of hearing the sounds of nature, park officials at Sequoia/Kings Canyon opened a listening exhibit at Grant Grove Visitor Center last summer. The display includes recordings from different elevations and ecosystems, from lush meadows to thick forests to mountain peaks.

Park officials say the project makes it possible for people who can’t get to hard-to-reach spots to experience the sounds of the great outdoors. It also could benefit those who might make it to the backcountry but miss something because of a roaring jet.

“There’s the sounds of the rushing river,” said Kawasaki-Yee, describing the new exhibit. “And there’s the bighorn sheep clashing with their horns. That’s really loud.”

Kurtis Alexander is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @kurtisalexander

Kurtis Alexander

Follow Kurtis on: https://www.facebook.com/kurtis.alexander.92kurtisalexander

Kurtis Alexander is a general assignment reporter for The San Francisco Chronicle, frequently writing about water, wildfire, climate and the American West. His recent work has focused on the impacts of drought, the widening rural-urban divide and state and federal environmental policy.

Before joining the Chronicle, Alexander worked as a freelance writer and as a staff reporter for several media organizations, including The Fresno Bee and Bay Area News Group, writing about government, politics and the environment.

Past Articles from this Author:

• Yosemite hit with outbreak of stomach illness, prompting ‘extensive clean-up and disinfection’ • California has protections against Trump rollback of environmental rules • Yosemite’s Ahwahnee removes its 4-diamond plaque after complaints publicized

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Local // Environment America’s noisiest and quietest national parks — the human factor

Kurtis Alexander Dec. 20, 2019 Updated: Dec. 21, 2019 1:21 p.m.

Visitors leave Muir Woods’ Cathedral Grove, which has been designated a quiet zone.Photo: Gabrielle Lurie / The Chronicle

From the distant canyons of Yosemite to the remote deserts of Death Valley, national parks are among the best places to escape the sounds of the city.

How noisy is your favorite park?

National park sites Decibels above natural sound Cedar Breaks National Monument 1.24 Lassen Volcanic National Park 1.29 El Malpais National Monument 1.3 Great Sand Dunes National Park 1.33 Devils Postpile National Monument 1.44

Parks outside of cities, and in many cases celebrated for their unspoiled wilderness, also deal with human noise, where it’s usually quieter but often more problematic.

The most prevalent drivers of noise in the park system, the study finds, are cars and planes. When present, however, trains and boats are the loudest sources of noise.

“We hope people take a moment to reflect and think about where they are and what the space means,” said Shalini Gopie, a public affairs specialist for Muir Woods.

“There’s the sounds of the rushing river,” said Kawasaki-Yee, describing the new exhibit. “And there’s the bighorn sheep clashing with their horns. That’s really loud.”

Kurtis Alexander is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @kurtisalexander

Kurtis Alexander

Follow Kurtis on: https://www.facebook.com/kurtis.alexander.92kurtisalexander

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

County sells its share of Coliseum to A’s

Supervisors approve $85 million deal that will pay off debt

By Ali Tadayon [email protected]

OAKLAND » Alameda County agreed Monday to sell its half-ownership share of the Coliseum to the Oakland A’s, a move that should help the baseball team eventually build a new ballpark and the county finally unburden itself from a controversial, longstanding debt.

The county Board of Supervisors unanimously authorized the $85 million sale Monday at a special meeting.

Meanwhile, the A’s are still negotiating with the city of Oakland to either buy its half-ownership share for the same price or lease the land in a joint venture arrangement.

The team is banking on redeveloping the Coliseum site into an ambitious mixed-use project and spending the proceeds to build its coveted ballpark on the Oakland waterfront.

“We’re getting an excellent deal for this, from my perspective,” Supervisor Nate Miley told this news organization after the board vote. “Eighty-five million is a little bit above the actual appraisal price. It’s covering our costs with a deposit on top of that. We’ve conditioned that the A’s stay in Oakland. If they leave Oakland we still get our $85 million, so I can’t see any downside.”

A’s president Dave Kaval similarly described the deal as a good one.

The Oakland A’s released renderings of their proposed mixeduse redevelopment plans at the existing Coliseum site. BJARKE INGELS GROUP

“We’re making a huge financial commitment to this community,” he said at a news conference after the meeting. “… This is something that no other professional sports team has ever done. The money has always come the other way as a public subsidy to these actual sports teams. We are investing in Oakland, in Alameda County, and we’re doing that because we believe in this community.”

The county and the A’s had been negotiating the deal since April. County officials have wanted to get out of the sports business, and the A’s intend to convert the Coliseum site into a massive development that will include housing, offices, a park and retail space to fund construction of a new 35,000-seat ballpark along the estuary near Jack London Square.

At Monday’s special meeting, the supervisors agreed that the property was eating up too much of its money and resources and said they believe the agreement favors the county.

County economic consultant Jason Moody said at the meeting that the county’s half-ownership share was worth $82 million, based on a 2016 appraisal report from real estate firm Cushman and Wakefield and adjusted for inflation.

Miley said the sale would allow the county to finally pay off its debt on the 1995 renovation of the Coliseum that the city and county commissioned to lure the Oakland Raiders football team back to Oakland from Los Angeles. The deal has been scorned by critics who say the Raiders’ late owner, Al Davis, fleeced local officials at the expense of taxpayers.

As part of the agreement, the A’s will immediately deposit $5 million in escrow for 190 days. The team subsequently will pay the county $10 million a year until 2023 and $15 million a year from 2024 to 2026. It’ll also foot annual operating expenses of about $5 million.

The decision comes about a month after the city dropped its lawsuit against the county in an attempt to block the sale. The lawsuit alleged a county sale of its ownership share would be illegal under the state’s Surplus Land Act, which requires publicly owned land up for sale to first be offered for affordable housing, parks or open space. But after the A’s made an official offer to the city to buy its share of the Coliseum ownership for $85 million, the city dropped its suit.

Pastors L.J. Jennings of the Kingdom Builders Christian Fellowship and Bishop Robert L. Jackson of Acts Full Gospel Church of God in Christ said at Monday’s meeting they were concerned about the displacement of African Americans both in West Oakland if the A’s succeed in building a new stadium at Howard Terminal and in East Oakland depending on how the Coliseum site is redeveloped.

“When we really think about selling public land, we need to be concerned about those individuals currently in this city and how it will affect how they are able to remain in this city,” Jennings said. Kaval said after the meeting that the A’s are committed to building affordable housing at the Coliseum site to prevent displacement and intend to offer “robust” benefits to the community as part of its agreement with the city. Contact Ali Tadayon at 408- 859- 5289.

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Backlog of toxic Superfund cleanups grows under Trump

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON » The Trump administration has built up the biggest backlog of unfunded toxic Superfund cleanup projects in at least 15 years, nearly triple the number that were stalled for lack of money in the Obama era, according to 2019 figures quietly released by the Environmental Protection Agency over the winter holidays.

The accumulation of Superfund projects that are ready to go except for money comes as the Trump administration proposes funding cuts for Superfund and for the EPA in general. The Superfund program is meant to tackle some of the most heavily contaminated sites in the U.S. and Trump has declared it a priority while seeking to shrink its budget.

“There hasn’t been a sense of urgency,” said Violet Donoghue, who has lived for 31 years on Bon Brae Street in St. Clair Shores, Michigan. Toxic PCBs have poisoned some local soil, water and fish at nearby Lake St. Clair, and the neighborhood is one of the 34 Superfund sites where cleanup projects languished for lack of money in 2019.

“I feel many people have been harmed, but that’s only my opinion,” Donoghue said. She said the last word from the EPA was that soil would be removed from the front of her house. “Now when they say they’re cleaning it, I say, ‘OK, give me the date,’” she said.

The unfunded projects are in 17 states and Puerto Rico. They range from abandoned mines that discharged heavy metals and arsenic in the West to an old wood pulp site in Mississippi and a defunct dry cleaner that released toxic solvents in North Carolina.

Congress created the Superfund program in 1980 after the Love Canal episode and other notorious pollution cases. Its intent is to hold polluters responsible for cleanup costs or provide taxpayer money when no responsible party can be identified. Trump “is focused on putting Americans first,” EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler told a Senate environment committee early 2019. “There may be no better example than our success in the Superfund program.”

“We are in the process of cleaning up some of the nation’s largest, most complex sites and returning them to productive use,” Wheeler said then. But two former EPA officials whose work dealt with Superfund oversight said the growing backlog of stalled Superfund projects under the Trump administration, and steady or ebbing numbers of cleanup construction projects completed, point to a different picture.

“They’re misleading Congress and the public about the funds that are needed to really protect the public from exposure to the toxic chemicals,” said Elizabeth Southerland, who worked for 30 years at EPA, including as director of science and technology in the water office, before retiring in 2017. ‘‘It’s detrimental.”

Asked what the EPA spent money on instead, and why the agency didn’t ask Congress for more to deal with the growing backlog, EPA spokeswoman Maggie Sauerhage offered few specifics Thursday.

The EPA’s Superfund program “will continue to prioritize new construction projects based on which sites present the greatest risk to human health and the environment,” Sauerhage said in an email. “Further, the agency maintains the authority to respond to and fund emergencies at these sites if there is an imminent threat to human health and the environment.” The backlog of 34 unfunded projects is up from only 12 in 2016, Obama’s last year, and the most at least since 2004.

At the site of another of 2019’s unfunded Superfund projects, Montana’s Upper Tenmile mining region, which includes the community of Rimini and a subdivision downstream, the EPA has been providing bottled water to residents for the past decade in response to water supplies polluted by about 150 abandoned gold, lead and copper mines.

Pollution still flows from the mines and into Upper Tenmile Creek more than 20 years after the area was added to the Superfund list. About 6 miles from Rimini in the rural Landmark subdivision is a huge pile of contaminated soil that was removed from residential yards. It was supposed to be hauled away but now has weeds growing over it after sitting untouched for several years, said Patrick Keim, who lives nearby.

Water contaminated with arsenic, lead and zinc flows from a pipe out of the Lee Mountain mine and into a holding pond near Rimini, Montana. MATTHEW BROWN — THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Disposable plastics ban may come to Alameda

By Peter Hegarty [email protected]

ALAMEDA » Alameda officials will take a look at a proposal to ban disposable plastic knives and forks, cup lids and similar items at restaurants.

The proposal comes from Stop-Waste, a public agency in Alameda County that works with cities, the county, businesses, residents and schools to help curb litter and recycle.

Along with mandating reusable food ware at dine-in restaurants, the proposed ordinance would require items provided with takeout food be compostable. Straws, utensils and condiment cups would be available only on demand. StopWaste is urging all Alameda County cities to adopt some version of the ordinance, along with the county.

The ordinance also could include having businesses charge customers 25 cents for a singleuse drinking cup and up to 50 cents for to-go food packaging.

On Tuesday, the Alameda City Council will consider the proposal.

City Councilman Jim Oddie, who serves on the board of the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, which governs StopWaste, put the item on Tuesday’s agenda. The authority is looking for community feedback on the proposal.

“I wanted to bring it to my colleagues and get their input,” Oddie said during an interview Thursday. “I don’t think we will be voting on it. But it’s an opportunity for people to weigh in.”

Some 27 food ware ordinances are already in place statewide, including within the city of Alameda, where a law kicked in in July 2018 that requires establishments to provide customers with a drinking straw only on demand.

“The primary objective of a food service ware ordinance is to reduce consumption of these disposable materials, leading to a reduction in litter, plastic pollution and compost contamination,” Justin Lehrer, a senior management analyst with StopWaste, said in a report. “Single-use food service ware has a short useful life (often only used for minutes), and must be managed and successfully routed to a recycling facility, industrial compost facility or a landfill at considerable expense.”

Reusables are the best option for reducing food packaging waste at the source and shifting away from a disposable culture, Lehrer said.

If implemented countywide, the ordinance could affect up to 6,000 businesses, including restaurants, food trucks, catering businesses, prepared food vendors and services provided via DoorDash or other delivery companies, according to StopWaste.

Enforcement would be based on helping affected parties comply with the law, similar to the county’s reusable bag ordinance, rather than through issuing citations that could place a burden on small businesses.

With the waste management authority’s backing and cities’ approval, the rules could roll out next year and would cost about $300,000 annually to enforce.

Oddie said he thinks most businesses would comply with any ordinance by shifting to vendors that provide environmentally friendly products.

The City Council will meet at 7 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda. Contact Peter Hegarty at 510-748-1654.

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Biz & Tech // Business

California’s latest pollution push: Banning gas-powered mowers and blowers

Mallory Moench Jan. 6, 2020 Updated: Jan. 6, 2020 4 a.m.

Pedro Lopez (left) and Omar Barajas from Vaca Landscaping use gas powered leaf blowers to clear a residential complex in Novato, Calif. on Friday, Jan. 3, 2020. Novato city leaders are considering a ban on gas powered landscaping equipment. Photo: Paul Chinn / The Chronicle

The next frontier in California’s battle against pollution: lawn equipment.

State air regulators are laying long-term plans to phase out gasoline-powered devices like leaf blowers and lawn mowers, saying they can produce more noxious emissions than cars.

Plenty of Bay Area cities are already acting: At least eight have banned gas-powered blowers, and more restrict their use during times of day or up to a certain noise level. Novato may soon join the list.

“What I think we need to realize is that we have to do something different for climate change in the world,” said Novato Mayor Pro Tem Pat Eklund, who proposed a ban on gas lawn mowers and leaf blowers in December. “If not, we are going to see a different world than we do today. Every little bit is going to help.”

Such restrictions force people to use cleaner, quieter electric machinery instead. But they are not universally popular.

Jose Vaca, who owns Vaca Construction and Landscaping, which has locations in Novato and Petaluma, said he would have to buy up to five batteries — costing an average of $100 to $200 each — to finish jobs on large properties like homeowner associations or shopping centers. Electric leaf blowers would make tasks longer and more expensive, he said.

Vaca said he has already ended contracts in Mill Valley because of the city’s ban on gas-powered leaf blowers. If Novato implements a similar restriction, he’ll do the same.

“We would just start canceling more contracts and moving up north,” he said.

Pedro Lopez from Vaca Landscaping uses a gas-powered leaf in Novato. The owner of his company, Jose Vaca, has concerns about the rising number of cities that want landscapers to use electric equipment. Photo: Paul Chinn / The Chronicle

While cars produce more carbon dioxide, small engines can emit more of other problematic gases. Running a lawn mower for an hour generates as much smog-forming pollution as driving a 2017 Toyota Camry from Los Angeles to Las Vegas, according to the California Air Resources Board, which works to keep the air clean. A leaf blower is worse — all the way to Denver. Daily exposure to the fumes also increases cancer risks, a 2018 air board study found.

“The reason that they’re such high polluters, there’s not anything fundamentally different about engines, they’re not fundamentally dirtier, but we haven’t put effort into cleaning them up like cars,” said Dorothy Fibiger, an engineer with the air board’s Monitoring and Laboratory Division. Because some machines such as leaf blowers are handheld, they can’t take on added weight for equipment — like the catalytic converters carried by cars — that reduces emissions, she explained.

This year, the air board is reducing the emissions allowed for gasoline-powered lawn equipment sold in California. As early as 2022, it wants allowed emissions to drop to zero. (Companies can in the meantime earn credits for selling machines that are below the standard, allowing them to continue selling gasoline-powered devices even after 2022.) The ultimate goal is ending the sale of gas machines, but that will come much later, Fibiger said.

It’s part of a push to tackle less-obvious sources of greenhouse gas emissions, like natural gas used in homes and businesses, which is also facing a growing wave of local bans in the state.

California has the small lawn devices in its sights in part because of looming federal standards for ozone, according to David Wooley, executive director of UC Berkeley’s Center for Environmental Public Policy.

In the North Bay, Belvedere, Mill Valley and the city of Sonoma already bar gasoline-powered leaf blowers. Tiburon allows them only in nonresidential areas and at certain times of day.

Berkeley bans gas leaf blowers. Orinda restricts use to certain hours; the City Council voted down a measure to ban them entirely in 2010.

Pedro Lopez from Vaca Landscaping uses a gas-powered blower in Novato. Gas-powered equipment is more powerful than electric equivalents, but noisier and more polluting. Photo: Paul Chinn / The Chronicle

Palo Alto bans gas leaf blowers in residential zones. Los Gatos banned blowers in all areas, saying they “degrade the quality of life” with noise and pollution. The town replaced approximately 10 blowers — at the

cost of $1,370 each for a blower, charger and two batteries — when the ordinance was adopted in 2014. Electric leaf blowers can’t exceed a noise threshold and can operate only at certain times.

Los Altos was one of the first cities to prohibit gas-powered leaf blowers in 1991. Two decades later, the city reconsidered the ban, citing the adverse impact on the parks department, which needed extra battery packs to work on large properties without electric outlets. Ultimately the effort to repeal the ban fell short.

San Jose floated a buyback program this year to make it more affordable to replace gas-powered lawn equipment. Environmental Services Department senior public information representative Carlos Velazquez said the city is not moving forward with any ban but is focusing on reducing emissions from transportation and buildings.

“We don’t want to say never,” Velazquez said of the idea of a ban. “Right now it isn’t a priority.”

Atherton on the Peninsula is also considering a ban on blowers.

Novato’s proposed ban, which would be among the strictest in the region, is due to be discussed by the City Council in the first half of this year, followed by a possible staff report and public hearings.

One resident, speaking at the December City Council meeting, called leaf blowers “the most hated tool of the 21st century.”

Anthony Alioto, who has lived in Novato for 20 years, said he was so bothered by the noise of his old gasoline- powered lawn mower, and his wife by its fumes, that he bought a battery-powered one that weighs less.

Novato officials appreciate the environmental benefits of fewer gas-powered tools, but also are aware of the potential economic impact. “I want to see us doing some outreach to see who is affected,” Councilwoman Susan Wernick said at the December meeting. “I wouldn’t want to see anybody driven out of business.”

Some companies said they’re ready to make the investment. John Markham, manager of Marin Landscape Management, wants to switch to electric equipment to make for a cleaner environment.

“We are considering switching over because we’re aware of not just the laws, but people don’t like those machines,” he said. Non-electric lawn mowers “burn gasoline and have exhaust and are loud. They’re very efficient machines, they get the job done fast and it does a good job, but there are good electric machines out there. They’ve gotten better and better.”

Markham would need to buy up to 10 lawn mowers and leaf blowers over time, reselling his older machines to fund the investment. He supported Novato’s measure but urged the city to phase it in over time.

“If we had to replace every bit of our equipment overnight, it would be significant,” he said.

Mark Bailey, who runs Buck’s Saw and Lawn Equipment in Novato, said sales of cordless electric lawn mowers have risen in the last couple of years. But most people still seek out gasoline-powered equipment.

Electric leaf blowers at the Novato store cost around $130, whereas gas-powered models range from $150 to $600. Battery powered lawn mowers run around $500 while gas versions cost anywhere from the mid $400s to

up to $1,000. Bailey said a battery for an electric lawn machine lasts from 20 minutes to an hour, with a life span of up to six years, depending on usage, although he sells a warranty for only two years.

The advantage of electric lawn mowers is saving money in fuel and maintenance, Bailey said, but the downside is less power and performance.

Fibiger at the Air Resources Board said the effectiveness and efficiency of electric lawn machines have improved as technology has advanced, but some landscapers who tried them years ago may not give them a second chance. The air board has a program to loan test equipment to cities, businesses and schools, with a goal of encouraging adoption.

Besides the cost of buying a new machine, change can be hard, she acknowledged. Landscapers “have been doing the same thing for a really long time, and asking them to change how they do their job, that’s a big ask.”

Mallory Moench is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @mallorymoench

Mallory Moench

Follow Mallory on: https://www.facebook.com/mallorymoenchmallorymoench

Mallory Moench joined The San Francisco Chronicle to report on business in 2019. She previously covered immigration and local news for the Albany Times Union and the Alabama state legislature for the Associated Press. Before that, she freelanced with a focus on Yemen while studying at the City University of New York Graduate School of Journalism.

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

The five issues that should top California’s 2020 agenda

As the state Legislature reconvenes for the second half of the biennial session, we will see a flurry of activity as Gov. Gavin Newsom delivers his second State of the State address and proposes a 2020-21 budget, based on an assumption that the state’s record-long economic expansion will continue for at least another year.

The early flurry will also include the every-other-year ritual of legislators trying to resuscitate their bills that didn’t make it in 2019. There’s a brief window for legislative revival before lawmakers turn their attention to new bills.

While hundreds of new measures will be dropped into the legislative mill, there are a few issues that should top the Capitol’s agenda, to wit:

HOUSING : The state’s acute shortage of housing continues to worsen because we’re building about half of what we need.

Last year, those in the Capitol took only baby steps toward encouraging more investment in housing and one big step — rent control — that, if anything, discourages that investment.

We must make it easier for housing developers to navigate regulatory red tape and overcome local governments’ resistance if the state is to attract the tens of billions of dollars in housing investments it needs.

HOMELESSNESS: Our chronic shortage of housing is a major factor in California’s having at least 150,000 homeless residents, a quarter of the national homeless population.

Many of those living on the streets are there because of mental or substance abuse problems, or are former prison inmates, and we’ve done a poor job of dealing with them.

The state is beginning to experiment with compelling the mentally ill to enter care and treatment programs, and that could be a step in the right direction, but much more is needed to deal with what polls find to be Californians’ No. 1 concern.

PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC:

The nation’s largest investorowned utility is in bankruptcy because of huge claims from wildfire victims and figuring how — and if — it should be reconfigured is work that cannot be postponed.

Newsom says he wants big structural changes, but has not specified what. Meanwhile, competing Wall Street factions are fighting over control of the company, fire victims want compensation, and some political figures want PG&E to cease being privately owned.

California must also address other wildfire-related issues, such as restricting development in fire-prone areas and perhaps creating some form of master insurance for fire losses rather than fighting over liability after the fact.

WATER: Former Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration worked on so-called “voluntary agreements” to resolve decades of political infighting over how much agricultural water could be drawn out of the Sacramento- San Joaquin Delta. President Trump interjected himself by promising more water for farmers, and then Newsom reacted by trying to block Trump in court.

The exchange of political salvos threatens to derail the negotiations on a master Delta deal and they need to get back on track.

ASSEMBLY BILL 5: This union-sponsored legislation, implementing a state Supreme Court decision, seeks to convert hundreds of thousands of contract workers into payroll employees, but has spawned economic, political and legal chaos, including federal lawsuits and a proposed ballot measure seeking to undermine the law.

While deliberate, exploitive misclassification of workers is wrong, so is a law that coerces those genuinely preferring freelance or independent employment. The situation cries out for some workable compromise that protects the interests of both categories. Dan Walters is a CalMatters columnist.

Dan Walters

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Local // Environment New climate change initiative unveiled in Sacramento has far to go

Kurtis Alexander Jan. 6, 2020 Updated: Jan. 6, 2020 8:17 p.m.

Traffic backs up at the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge toll plaza along Interstate 80 on July 25, 2019 in Oakland, California. Lowering the state’s carbon footprint is one of a the newly proposed California Green New Deal.Photo: Justin Sullivan / Getty Images

California promises to remain a leader in the nation’s fight against climate change in 2020, starting the New Year with the launch of a statewide “Green New Deal.”

About a half dozen lawmakers gathered outside the Capitol building in Sacramento on Monday to unveil far- reaching legislation that seeks to create a thriving carbon-free economy while making sure California’s least fortunate residents benefit from the boom.

It presses for green jobs, affordable health care and debt-free education alongside, of course, a phasing-out of greenhouse gases.

“This is a big, ambitious bill, and it must be,” said Assemblyman Rob Bonta, D-Oakland, the primary author of the proposal, which he dubbed the California Green New Deal. “The danger of the climate crisis is limitless.”

The three-page bill, however, falls short of offering a clear path forward, remaining largely aspirational, and it doesn’t provide funding. Supporters will have to rely on follow-up legislation, which California is sure to have plenty of in 2020, to attain its objectives.

Already this year, lawmakers are talking about pushing ahead with billions of dollars in climate bonds — loans that will help communities prepare for natural disasters driven by global warming.

“In addition to the Green New Deal, we need to ensure that California is responding to the climate risks now at our doorstep — fires, flood, sea level rise — with a comprehensive strategy that is aligned with clear funding,” said Jay Ziegler, policy director of the Nature Conservancy’s California chapter and a supporter of new bonds.

The bond money could help harden neighborhoods against wildfires, for example, or boost water supplies in drought-prone areas. Assemblyman Mark Stone, D-Scotts Valley, who co-chairs California’s Environmental Legislative Caucus, said he wants to make sure any new spending would prioritize planning, so that communities can be sure they’re moving ahead with the most advantageous resiliency projects. The specifics of the money remain a long way from being worked out. And even if legislators sign off on the borrowing, voters will have to approve it.

Climate change is likely to underscore several other bills in Sacramento this year. Legislation is almost certain to focus on sorting out insurance for wildfire victims who have lost coverage due to the increasing risk; boosting renewable energy, including offshore wind production and battery storage; and cleaning up the transportation sector, by continuing to encourage public transit and clean vehicles.

“While there might not be a bill that will be the silver bullet, we have the opportunity to do a lot of good to limit global warming pollution,” said Dan Jacobson, state director of the advocacy group Environment California. “We can show the rest of the country and the world how to move off of CO2.”

Backers of the newly proposed Green New Deal said they would do their best to implement the many objectives of the program, which extend from the health-driven goal of increasing access to parks to the social-oriented aim of overcoming institutional racism.

Most fundamentally, though, was reducing California’s carbon footprint.

“There are many things that we work on in Sacramento,” said Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, a co-author of the proposal. “But the truth is that if we don’t get this right, none of the rest will matter.”

Kurtis Alexander is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @kurtisalexander

Kurtis Alexander

Follow Kurtis on:

https://www.facebook.com/kurtis.alexander.92kurtisalexander

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Where political action is — and isn’t — in 2020

By Dan Walters

CalMatters

It’s a presidential election year, so what can California voters anticipate between now and Nov. 3?

For one thing, not much presidential politicking, even though we’ve advanced our presidential primary from June to March in hopes of making California more than an ATM machine to finance campaigns in other states.

Yes, we’ve seen a little personal campaigning by Democratic hopefuls and latecomer Michael Bloomberg is spending some of his multibillion-dollar wealth on television commercials in hopes of making a splash.

However, the Democrats’ very complex system of allocating convention delegates blocks anyone from making a big killing and while former Vice President Joe Biden is favored to top the field, the more decisive primary action most likely will occur elsewhere.

After March, California will once again revert to a backwater in presidential politics. Californians’ Democratic leanings, plus their antipathy to President Donald Trump, guarantee the state’s 55 electoral votes will go to the Democratic candidate, no matter who he or she is.

California’s anti-Trump attitude will likely be a greater impact on our congressional delegation. Two years ago, Republicans lost half of their 14 congressional districts and it doesn’t appear that they can recover substantially this year.

The big action in this year’s elections will be found in three key contests in Los Angeles County, which has a quarter of the state’s population, and in an array of high-octane statewide ballot measures.

George Gascón quit as San Francisco’s district attorney, returned to his hometown of Los Angeles and is now trying to unseat L.A. County District Attorney Jackie Lacey. Gascón’s campaign reflects nationwide efforts by self-proclaimed criminal law reformers, led by billionaire George Soros, to unseat what they regard as punitive prosecutors.

The second big Los Angeles contest is for a rare opening on the county’s five-member Board of Supervisors.

Term limits are forcing Mark Ridley- Thomas to give up what has traditionally been an African American seat on the powerful board, even though his district is only about 25% black. Three prominent black politicians, Los Angeles City Council President Herb Wesson, former Councilwoman Jan Perry and state Sen. Holly Mitchell are engaged in a three-way battle that is becoming nastier by the moment.

Thirdly, the gigantic Los Angeles Unified School District is the scene of the latest battle between unions and charter school advocates for control of its board. It’s a critical contest for the latter because last year, at the behest of unions, the Legislature and Gov. Gavin Newsom gave local school boards more power over charter school applications.

As many as a dozen measures could appear on the November ballot with at least seven heavyweights that would:

• Block a new law that prohibits cash bail in criminal cases, sponsored by bail agents.

• Partially overturn Assembly Bill 5, which aims to make more workers into payroll employees rather than independent contractors, sponsored by Uber and other ride and delivery services.

• Remove some of Proposition 13’s property tax limits from commercial property and thus raise their taxes, backed by unions.

• Give local governments the power to regulate housing rents.

• Mostly repeal a 1975 law that limits pain and suffering damages in medical malpractice cases.

• Authorize sports betting, but only at casinos owned by Indian tribes.

• Modify Proposition 57, a 2016 ballot measure championed by former Gov. Jerry Brown that softened punishment for some crimes.

The Gascón-Lacey duel and the bail and sentencing ballot measures make criminal justice a significant subtheme of this year’s California elections.

Dan Walters is a CalMatters columnist.

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Politics California will open vacant state land for homeless shelters under Newsom order

Alexei Koseff and Kevin Fagan Jan. 8, 2020 Updated: Jan. 13, 2020 5:59 p.m.

A sign reading “Where do we go?” sits on University Avenue next to a homeless encampment on CalTrans property as one of the residents of the encampment prepares to ride a bike on Tuesday, October 22, 2019 in Berkeley, Calif. Photo: Lea Suzuki / The Chronicle

SACRAMENTO — California will open vacant state land to emergency shelters for homeless people under an executive order that Gov. Gavin Newsom intends to sign Wednesday.

The order, which Newsom announced ahead of his annual budget plan due this week, would also create a fund to pay rent and build affordable housing for homeless people. The governor will propose to start the fund with $750 million in taxpayer money, which the Legislature would have to approve.

With the homeless population surging by double-digit percentages in many cities across the state, and California coming under fire from President Trump for its widespread encampments, Newsom is under increasing pressure

to get people off the streets. Homelessness has become the biggest issue of concern to Californians, recent polls show.

Newsom’s executive order will create a state system to track how well local governments are doing in moving homeless people from the street to more stable living situations, according to a summary provided by the governor’s office.

Newsom said in a statement that the order aims to directly connect homeless people with emergency housing and treatment programs.

“Californians have lots of compassion for those among us who are living without shelter,” he said. “But we also know what compassion isn’t. Compassion isn’t allowing a person suffering a severe psychotic break or from a lethal substance abuse addiction to literally drift towards death on our streets and sidewalks.”

The order instructs four state agencies to identify properties that could be made available for short-term homeless shelters. The properties include excess state land that has been set aside for affordable-housing development, lots next to highways and state roads, decommissioned hospitals and health care centers, and fairgrounds.

It will also provide cities and counties with 100 travel trailers from a state fleet and tent structures to set up temporary housing and health and social services. Details about the timeline and eligibility criteria were not included in the summary of the executive order.

There is ample precedent for using excess government land for homeless programs, starting with a 1987 law that allows the leasing of surplus federal property for homeless services for free. And over the past two years, San Francisco has put two Navigation Center shelters on underused Caltrans property on Fifth Street and in the Bayview, at virtually no cost for the land.

Although the governor’s order creates the new fund to support housing access for homeless people, which could also include board-and-care homes for the mentally ill, any state appropriation would require the Legislature’s approval as part of the budget process. Lawmakers will not approve a spending plan until June. In the meantime, Newsom said he will seek contributions to the fund from the private sector and philanthropies.

As part of his 2020-21 budget plan, Newsom will also propose expanding Medi-Cal, the state’s health care program for the poor, to include preventive care and housing support services that could keep chronically homeless people out of the emergency room and other costly care. With matching federal money, the expansion would cost $1.4 billion a year.

Other new initiatives in Newsom’s budget proposal include a task force to redesign mental health services for homeless people and a study of the root causes of homelessness in California.

Newsom entered office a year ago promising a greater focus on combatting California’s homelessness crisis, including by appointing a statewide homelessness czar to lead the state’s response.

In his first year, he gave cities and counties $650 million in emergency aid to fight homelessness and signed laws to speed up shelter construction by granting exemptions to environmental regulations and eliminating the public’s ability to challenge the approval of Navigation Centers that meet local zoning requirements.

But his czar never materialized. In August, Newsom said he would rely instead on the advice of a task force he appointed to explore strategies for addressing homelessness.

The panel has been looking into possibilities including mandating shelter or housing for street people, and Newsom credited it for inspiring many of the ideas in his order. But several members have long said that their understanding is that whatever they come up with, Newsom will follow his gut.

“Gavin is the homeless czar in California. Period. End of story,” said Philip Mangano, who is on the task force and was national homeless czar as head of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. “He will own this issue and do the right things — not the task force.

“He is a businessman, and he is smart enough to want some R&D, so he appointed the task force. And that is what we are doing. We are bringing research and development to the governor, and he will act.”

Mangano worked closely with Newsom when he was San Francisco mayor to steer the city’s emphasis more toward supportive housing than shelter, and the effort dramatically reduced the street counts for several years in the mid-2000s before they began climbing again. The city’s homeless population was up 17% over the past two years in the most recent count.

Statewide, homelessness has also shot up in recent years, despite billions of dollars being approved by voters up and down California for supportive and affordable-housing programs. The latest count taken in 2019 found 151,278 homeless people in the state, an increase of 16% since 2018.

Alexei Koseff and Kevin Fagan are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers. Email: [email protected], [email protected] Twitter: @akoseff, @KevinChron

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Politics Trump-aligned automakers would be barred from federal sales under new bill

Dustin Gardiner Jan. 8, 2020 Updated: Jan. 8, 2020 8:08 a.m.

Westbound cars on the Bay Bridge in December 2015. Bay Area Rep. Mark DeSaulnier is introducing legislation that would require federal agencies to buy only vehicles from manufacturers that meet Obama-era emissions standards.Photo: Ben Margot / Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Bay Area Rep. Mark DeSaulnier is throwing another jab in California’s battle with the Trump administration over climate change policy.

The Concord Democrat is introducing a bill this week that would require federal agencies to buy vehicles only from manufacturers that meet Obama-era emissions standards — essentially, California’s tougher rules that President Trump has moved to revoke.

The bill aims to harness the federal government’s buying power to punish automakers that have sided with Trump in favor of more lenient emissions rules.

DeSaulnier’s measure is almost certain to be unsuccessful this year, given Republicans’ control of the Senate. But he said he hopes to start laying the groundwork if a Democrat wins the White House in the fall.

He also hopes the bill will be a blueprint for cities and other states to adopt similar laws. Gov. Gavin Newsom has already implemented such a policy for state agencies in California.

“If you don’t want to work with us, we’re not interested in buying your product,” DeSaulnier said of automakers that have backed the revised emissions standards that Trump wants to impose. “That’s a pretty strong economic incentive for them to come to us.”

The fight between California and Trump over fuel-emissions rules erupted last summer, when the state reached a deal with four companies — Ford, Honda, Volkswagen and BMW — to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases from their cars and light-duty trucks.

Under the deal, car companies agreed to increase their overall mileage to roughly 50 miles per gallon by model year 2026, close to targets set by former President Barack Obama’s administration. Trump’s proposal would require automakers to reach 37 mpg.

Trump, who has sought to roll back Obama-era emissions standards, responded to California’s deal with the four automakers by moving to revoke the state’s nearly 50-year-old waiver under the 1970 Clean Air Act, which allows it to set stricter emissions standards than the federal government.

He argues that California’s stricter tailpipe rules could drive up the cost of vehicles and lead some drivers to hang onto older, less safe cars.

“There will be very little difference in emissions between the California Standard and the new U.S. Standard, but the cars will be far safer and much less expensive,” Trump tweeted in September.

The administration has also argued that automakers should have to adhere to one national standard, not a patchwork of state rules.

General Motors, Fiat Chrysler, Toyota and several smaller manufacturers have sided with the Trump administration. Multiple lawsuits have been filed and could take years to resolve.

DeSaulnier said California and the 12 states that follow its rules should use their economic heft to pressure the automakers in the meantime. His bill, which his office shared with The Chronicle, could cost those manufacturers hundreds of millions of dollars.

From 2011 to 2015, federal agencies spent more than $1.6 billion to buy about 64,500 cars and light-duty trucks, according to his office.

Gil Tal, director of the Plug-in Hybrid & Electric Vehicle Research Center at UC Davis, said that although the federal government makes up a small share of the overall industry — about 17 million vehicles are sold in the U.S. annually — it’s a “secure” market that car companies court heavily.

“There is already a good push from the state,” he said.

Newsom has already excluded automakers that have sided with Trump from state contracts. He announced the move Nov. 15, saying, “Car makers that have chosen to be on the wrong side of history will be on the losing end of California’s buying power.”

DeSaulnier said that although Republicans are unlikely to support his bill, he’s optimistic some Bay Area cities will soon follow suit, though he said those talks are still in the early stages.

He said the best argument for the bill is economic: If U.S. automakers don’t transition to clean cars, they could lose business to other countries that are producing electric-battery vehicles more rapidly.

“We are anticipating the end of the fossil fuel economy,” DeSaulnier said. “If you don’t prepare for the transition, you’re going to be left behind.”

The Environmental Protection Agency, which revoked California’s waiver last fall, declined to comment on DeSaulnier’s bill. So did the National Automobile Dealers Association, which has sided with Trump in the emissions dispute.

Another Trump ally in the dispute, the Coalition for Sustainable Automotive Regulation, did not respond to a request for comment.

Dustin Gardiner is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @dustingardiner

Politics from a Golden State perspective. By subscribing, you agree to our Terms of use and acknowledge that your information will be used as described in our Privacy Policy.

Dustin Gardiner

Follow Dustin on: https://www.facebook.com/SFChronicle/dustingardiner

Dustin Gardiner is a state Capitol reporter for The San Francisco Chronicle. He joined The Chronicle in 2019, after nearly a decade with The Arizona Republic, where he covered state and city politics. Dustin won several awards for his reporting in Arizona, including the 2019 John Kolbe Politics Reporting award, and the 2017 Story of the Year award from the Arizona Newspapers Association. Outside of work, he enjoys hiking, camping, reading fiction and playing Settlers of Catan. He's a member of NLGJA, the association of LGBTQ journalists.

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Facebook exec: Trump won in 2016 due to ‘best digital ad campaign’ ever

Andrew Bosworth also says platform shouldn't actively work against president this year

By Rex Crum [email protected]

Facebook executive Andrew Bosworth, who oversaw the company’s advertising business during the 2016 presidential election cycle, said Tuesday he believes Facebook is responsible for President Donald Trump’s victory, but not due to the reasons many suspect.

In a 2,500-word post on his own Facebook page, Bosworth, a longtime Facebook executive, said Trump won the presidency because of his team’s use of digital media campaigns, including Facebook, and not due to Russian interference or the role of research firm Cambridge Analytica during the 2016 campaign. Bosworth said Trump is in the White House because he, and social- media campaign manager Brad Parscale, “ran the single best digital ad campaign I’ve ever seen from any advertiser. Period.”

And Bosworth said Facebook had a big role in Trump’s election.

“So, was Facebook responsible for Donald Trump getting elected? I think the answer is yes,” Bosworth wrote. “Parscale and Trump just did unbelievable work. They weren’t running misinformation or hoaxes. They weren’t microtargeting or saying different things to different people. They just used the tools we had to show the right creative to each person. The use of custom audiences, video, ecommerce, and fresh creative remains the high water mark of digital ad campaigns in my opinion.”

The role of outside interference in the upcoming election remains a hotbutton topic for many after it was disclosed that Russian trolls ran social-media campaigns, and Cambridge Analytica used improperly obtained data on 87 million Americans to target pro-Trump advertising efforts on Facebook during the 2016 presidential race. However, Bosworth debated the impact such campaigns had in Trump’s victory.

“Russian Interference was real but it was mostly not done through advertising,” Bosworth wrote. “$100,000 in ads on Facebook can be a powerful tool but it can’t buy you an American election. Especially when the candidates themselves are putting up several orders of magnitude more money on the same platform.”

With regards to Cambridge Analytica, Bosworth said the consultancy was “pure snake oil and we knew it,” and at the time “we thought they were just another company trying to find an angle to promote themselves and assumed poor performance would eventually lose them their clients.”

Bosworth, who now heads up Facebook’s hardware business, said he was making his thoughts publicly known after the New York Times obtained a copy of his note which he originally posted to his internal Facebook company profile.

“It wasn’t written for public consumption and I am worried about context collapse so I wanted to share some important context for those who are curious.” Bosworth wrote.

Facebook has also been the subject of criticism regarding its political ad policy, with Chief Executive Mark Zuckerberg saying last year that the he didn’t believe the company needed to change its policy on not fact checking political ads. Zuckerberg said that he believed it was up to individuals to determine for themselves the veracity of candidates’ statements in such ads.

But Bosworth, who described himself as “no fan of Trump” who “donated the max to (Democratic presidential candidate) Hillary (Clinton),” said that in spite of his personal beliefs, he thinks it would be wrong for Facebook to change its stance on political ads even though “it very well may lead to the same result” of a Trump victory in November.

Bosworth compared Facebook’s ability to impact political ads to “The Lord of the Rings” movie series, where the titular ring serves as a means of supreme power that could lead to one’s ultimate destruction.

“As tempting as it is to use the tools available to us to change the outcome, I am confident we must never do that or we will become that which we fear,” Bosworth wrote.

Bosworth’s statements came shortly after Facebook announced a new ban on most so-called “deepfake” ads that are manipulated to make it appear the person in the ad is saying something that they didn’t actually say. Contact Rex Crum at 408278-3415.

“So was Facebook responsible for getting Donald Trump elected? I think the answer is yes,” Donald Bosworth wrote in a Facebook post.

ASSOCIATED PRESS ARCHIVES

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Newsom plan: $1B to help homeless

By Emily DeRuy [email protected]

Cities will be able to open emergency homeless shelters on vacant state land under a new executive order from Gov. Gavin Newsom that escalates his attempts to handle the growing crisis.

The order, which comes amid a surge in homelessness throughout the state and growing concern about the issue from residents, will require state agencies to identify by the end of this month empty lots near highways, fairgrounds, decommissioned hospitals and other spaces where cities, counties or nonprofits can provide space for people to live temporarily.

The news, coupled with a new budget proposal from the governor to spend more than $1 billion serving homeless people, comes as President Donald Trump berates Newsom and other California Democrats for failing to do enough to address the issue.

“The state of California is treating homelessness as a real emergency — because it is one,” Newsom said in a statement. “Californians are demanding that all levels of government — federal, state and local — do more to get people off the streets and into services — whether that’s housing, mental health services, substance abuse treatment or all of the above.”

“That’s why we’re using every tool in the toolbox — from proposing a massive new infusion of state dollars in the budget that goes directly to homeless individuals’ emergency housing and treatment programs, to building short-term emergency housing on vacant state-owned land,” he continued.

In the order, Newsom said the state also would distribute 100 travel trailers and modular tents to local partners, who will receive help from state crisis response teams if they agree to provide counseling and help transition people into permanent housing.

A map of “excess” stateow ned property from the Department of General Services shows a number of Bay Area locations that could potentially be considered, from Santa Cruz and San Jose over to Hayward and San Lorenzo.

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf told reporters she felt “tremendous excitement” about the announcement.

“I was very excited to see the philosophy and experience of Oakland reflected in his recommendations,” Schaaf said, pointing out that the city has worked with Caltrans to open cabins for homeless people on the agency’s land.

San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, who spent months in tense negotiations with Caltrans to lease land for tiny homes for the home-less, said he hopes Newsom’s announcement will prompt the agency to be more collaborative.

“It’s a positive step,” Liccardo said. “What’s sometimes more valuable than the resources is the deadline and by that I mean big cities throughout the state have been scrambling to build various alternative kinds of housing on vacant land. And it’s often been a challenge to get other agencies to move at the speed that this crisis demands.”

Liccardo suggested that housing could even go on cloverleafs near freeways.

“It seems to me like there’s a lot of wasted land,” Liccardo said, “that we should absolutely be able to use.”

The budget, Newsom said, should include a new fund to both pay rent for people facing homelessness and build housing for formerly homeless people. Initially, the fund would be backed by $750 million from the general fund, but the governor will call on nonprofits and businesses to kick in additional money.

The fund would need to be approved by state lawmakers, which wouldn’t happen until later this spring, but the governor’s executive order to open up vacant land does not and is more immediate.

Still, the order relies heavily on local elected officials and other community leaders being willing to manage the emergency shelters and work to move people into more stable housing, which remains in short supply. And they will be tracked on their efforts. The executive order calls for a system to monitor how many people local jurisdictions help get into stable housing.

“We’re glad to see the governor interested in allocating significantly more dollars to addressing our homelessness crisis,” said David Low of Destination: Home, a San Jose-based nonprofit aimed at eliminating homelessness. “It’s going to be equally important that we look at how we can deploy those dollars in a way that supports our local strategies and will have the most impact possible.”

In the last year, the state moved to distribute $650 million in emergency homeless aid to cities and counties across the state, with the final payments going out this week. San Jose, which has seen homelessness spike 42% over the last few years to more than 6,000 residents, was set to receive nearly $24 million. Oakland and San Francisco, which also both saw major increases in homelessness, were allocated more than $19 million each.

Yet despite such efforts, according to data recently released by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, California has more than 151,000 homeless people, including more than half of the country’s unsheltered population — a 16% increase over last year.

In addition to the $750 million fund, the governor’s budget proposal calls for boosting Medi-Cal funding to address the health care needs of chronically homeless people, particularly where mental health struggles, addiction or other issues that could be addressed with health care have led people to the streets. The budget also calls for around $25 million — which would rise to about $364 million over six years — to fund a new pilot program to put people with mental illness into care facilities in communities rather than in big state hospitals.

The executive order and budget proposal surface as a number of lawmakers in Sacramento put forward their own ideas to tackle the state’s persistent housing and homelessness problems. Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, recently brought back a controversial proposal to force cities to build denser housing near transit stops and job centers. And Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose, reintroduced a bill that would create a new ongoing funding source for affordable housing.

U.S. Sen. Dia nne Feinstein, D-California, applauded Newsom on Wednesday for treating homelessness “as the allhands- on-deck crisis that it is.”

“Homelessness will require additional measures from local, state, and the federal government,” Feinstein said in a statement. “I’m heartened that California is stepping up; I will continue to fight for additional tools at the national level as well.”

“We’re glad to see the governor interested in allocating significantly more dollars to addressing our homelessness crisis. It’s going to be equally important that we look at how we can deploy those dollars in a way that supports our local strategies and will have the most impact possible.”

— David Low of Destination: Home

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Justice Department: Too late to pass Equal Rights Amendment

By The Associated Press

BOSTON » The Justice Department has thrown a roadblock into efforts to revive the Equal Rights Amendment, finding that an expired pair of deadlines imposed by Congress on ratification of the measure means it’s too late for additional states to ratify it now.

The memo by Assistant Attorney General Steven Engel comes as Virginia is poised to become the decisive 38th state to approve the ERA nearly four decades after Congress sent it to states in 1972, attaching a 1979 ratification deadline to it.

That deadline was later extended to 1982. During that time just 35 states ratified it — three short of the 38 needed.

“Because three-fourths of the state legislatures did not ratify before the deadline that Congress imposed, the Equal Rights Amendment has failed of adoption and is no longer pending before the States,” Engel wrote.

“Accordingly, even if one or more state legislatures were to ratify the proposed amendment, it would not become part of the Constitution,” he added.

Engel’s finding is unlikely to be the last word on the amendment.

On Tuesday, supporters of the ERA filed a federal lawsuit in Massachusetts aimed at clearing a legal path for adoption of the amendment.

The lawsuit argues that because the deadline was set forth in legislation authorizing states to ratify the amendment — and not in the three-sentence amendment itself — it’s not constitutionally binding and Virginia’s vote would put the amendment over the top.

“We are not surprised that the Trump administration acted swiftly to declare its opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment,” said Wendy Murphy, a lawyer for Equal Means Equal, one of the groups that filed the lawsuit in Massachusetts. “This development makes our lawsuit even more urgent.”

Engel also said Congress may not revive a proposed amendment after a ratification deadline has expired. He said the only option is for Congress to begin the process again.

Efforts by ERA opponents are underway to block its ultimate adoption as the Constitution’s 28th Amendment, including a lawsuit filed in federal court in mid-December by Alabama, Louisiana and South Dakota.

Conservative activists have depicted the ERA as a threat to their stances on abortion and transgender rights.

The language of the ERA states that “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

Wendy Murphy, left, legal counsel for Equal Means Equal, addresses issues about a lawsuit she filed in U.S. District Court on Tuesday in Boston. Supporters of the Equal Rights Amendment filed the federal lawsuit aimed at paving the way for adoption of the long-delayed constitutional amendment. STEVEN SENNE — THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Work at weapons site up in the air after vote

City Council told the developer, workers to go back to negotiating

By Annie Sciacca [email protected]

CONCORD » After investing three years of its time and money laying out the groundwork for a massive development that would add 12,000 homes and thousands of jobs at the Concord Naval Weapons Station, the project’s developer is deciding whether to continue or pull up its stakes.

One day after the Concord City Council decided not to step in to settle its dispute with local labor over how much of the $6 billion redevelopment of old Navy land should be done by union workers, developer Lennar Concord LLC and Five Point declined to say or speculate what their next move will be.

The council essentially told both sides to go back to the table and work out their differences, culminating a hearing that began Tuesday night and, after six hours, was continued to Wednesday evening.

“I’m not sure this gives us guidance to get out of impasse,” Lennar executive Kofi Bonner told the council at the end of Wednesday’s meeting. “One wonders how one goes forward.”

Lennar, which was selected in 2016 to redevelop the former weapons station property, has invested about $15 million so far in consultant costs, reimbursements to the city for staff time spent on a disposition and development agreement, the creation of a specific plan and the drafting of an environmental analysis, according to city documents.

When both Lennar and the Contra Costa Building Trades Council indicated they were at an impasse over union labor, the council was asked to step in and decide whether the labor agreement offered by Lennar satisfies city- approved terms.

On Wednesday, the council instead instructed both sides to keep negotiating and established nonbinding guidelines that include hiring a certain number of local workers, running an apprenticeship program, offering assistance and workforce placement/training to veterans and maintaining a prevailing wage standard. The unions had suggested most of those guidelines.

The council also directed Lennar to return with proposed changes to other terms of the development that might help broker a deal with labor, as long as no community benefits from the project — such as the affordable housing — are removed.

Bill Whitney of the Building Trades Council said he was encouraged by the council’s decision.

“They wanted to do it as cheaply as possible,” Whitney said about Lennar.

The proposed development would be the biggest in Concord’s history and one of the largest in the region, slated to cover 2,300 acres with 13,000 housing units and millions of square feet of office, retail and campus space.

Lennar representatives say the amount of union work desired by the trades council would cost more than half a billion dollars and eliminate profits. City staffers advised the council that Concord’s consultants have validated those numbers but cannot share Lennar’s proprietary financial information publicly.

The unions contend Lennar has not been negotiating in good faith. The talks have spanned more than a year.

Council member Edi Birsan, who called for further negotiations, said he didn’t want to decide who was acting in good or bad faith.

For more than six hours Tuesday, the council heard from almost 100 residents, union workers, business leaders and housing advocates. About half of the speakers supported the unions, but others urged the council to keep the project moving. Local business leaders described the site as a potential hub for technology companies and other job creators, and housing advocates said they wanted to see the vision of 3,000 affordable homes come true.

The hearing stretched past midnight, so the council continued it to Wednesday evening.

Although Lennar representatives wouldn’t say what will happen next, a city staff report suggests the company might walk away from the project if forced to use more union labor.

In October, Lennar stopped reimbursing the city $37,000 a month for staff time spent on redevelopment planning.

The city also has a financial stake in the project, having spent roughly $14million in planning costs that City Manager Valerie Barone said would be repaid over time.

Council member Carlyn Obringer and Vice Mayor Dominic Aliano both asked Lennar representatives during the meeting whether they planned to resume payments but didn’t get an answer because that wasn’t part of the agenda.

“People can interpret it in different ways, but to me it’s like sending the city and community the middle finger,” Aliano told Lennar of its stopped payments.

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Forget plastics at restaurants in our city, officials say

Council considers a countywide proposal to reduce waste

By Peter Hegarty [email protected]

ALAMEDA » City officials are generally on board with possibly banning disposable plastic knives and forks, cup lids and similar items at Alameda County restaurants.

The proposal comes from StopWaste, a public agency in Alameda County that works with cities, the county, businesses, residents and schools to help curb litter and recycle.

“At the end of the day, we’ve got this environment to protect,” Alameda Mayor Mar ylin Ezz y Ashcraft said Tuesday, when the City Council was asked to offer suggestions about the proposed ban.

Though the council took no formal action, all its members said they generally supported it.

Councilman Jim Oddie, who serves on the board of the Alameda County Waste Management Authority, which governs StopWaste, put the item on the Tuesday meeting’s agenda. The authority is looking for community feedback on the proposal.

Along with mandating reusable food ware at dinein restaurants, an ordinance, if adopted, could include requiring that items such as container boxes and condiment cups that are provided with takeout food be compostable. Straws would be available only if a customer requested them. The ordinance also could include having businesses charge customers 25 cents for a single-use drinking cup and up to 50 cents for to-go food packaging.

In Berkeley, a city ordinance that requires all cafes and restaurants to charge 25 cents for disposable cups, as well as that all to-go cups be compostable, took effect Jan. 1.

Business owners keep the fee, which is not a city tax. Customers can avoid paying the extra cost by bringing their own cup.

“It’s my opinion that the city of Alameda should encourage the use of reusable ware through positive incentives,” Councilman Tony Day sog said during Tuesday’s meeting.

But Daysog also said he wanted the county to be “mindful” of the financial burden regulations can have on small businesses.

Some 27 food ware ordinances are already in place statewide, including within the city of Alameda, where a law took effect in July 2018 that requires establishments to provide customers with a drinking straw only on request.

Depending on the level of public support, new county rules could roll out next year, according to StopWaste.

The proposal remains at its early stages, however, and the ordinance could be used just as a model that local jurisdictions can customize without it being implemented countywide. Contact Peter Hegarty at 510-748-1654.

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Measure Y: East Bay Regional Park District Formally Backs Project The controversial proposed development of 69 single-family lots on 29 acres will be put to voters on the March 2020 ballot.

By Courtney Teague, Patch Staff

Jan 9, 2020 2:49 pm PT | Updated Jan 9, 2020 2:50 pm PT

Measure Y would allow 69 single-family lots on 29 acres on the Magee Preserve property. (Shutterstock)

DANVILLE, CA — The East Bay Regional Park District has formally backed the Magee Preserve project, central to the Measure Y initiative that voters will see on the March 2020 ballot. The district declared its support for the project in a letter to the Danville Town Manager.

In that letter, the park district said it has worked closely with the town to "ensure that open space protection and public access is maximized," according to a statement sent Wednesday by Yes on Y, the group backing the project.

Measure Y would allow 69 single-family lots on 29 acres on the Magee Preserve property — a 410-acre site on the south side of Diablo Road and Blackhawk Road extending approximately two miles east from the intersection of Diablo Road/Green Valley Road/McCauley Road. The other 381 acres would be permanent open space with dedicated hiking and biking trails for public use.

Read Patch's Measure Y voter guide.

The development would fund the management of the open space areas, the park district wrote in its letter of support.

East Bay Regional Park District has backed the project since 2018, according to the statement.

Danville Town Council approved the project in July 2019, but some voters objected and successfully petitioned to put the issue on the March 2020 ballot. Opponents claim the project could bring additional traffic and traffic hazards, force school diversions for students and make wildfire evacuations more difficult. They also argue that open space would be lost in areas where homes are erected.

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

From housing to health care: Here’s what’s in Gavin Newsom’s $222 billion California state budget

By Sophia Bollag

January 10, 2020 03:51 PM

Gov. Gavin Newsom discusses education as he introduces his proposed state budget for fiscal year 2020-21 on Friday, Jan. 10, 2020, in the Governors Press Conference Room at the California State Capitol in Sacramento.

What Gavin Newsom plans to do about California's homeless problem

Gov. Gavin Newsom wants to use a strong economy to help lower-income Californians by boosting education funding, revamping the state’s health program for the poor and getting homeless people off the streets through his second state budget proposal.

During a nearly three-hour news conference on the $222 billion plan, he detailed strategies to address the state’s teacher shortage, expand early childhood programs and steer more money to Medi-Cal, the state’s health program for low-income people.

“Our state has provided the rocket fuel for the nation’s economic expansion,” Newsom wrote in his plan. “California is showing the nation and the world what big-hearted, effective governance looks like.”

If approved by lawmakers, the proposal would represent the biggest state budget in California history and reflects a remarkably long economic expansion, which began in June 2009. It’s a big jump from the 2007-08 budget at the cusp of the Great Recession, which totaled $145.5 billion.

Newsom’s plan relies on financial projections that predict a $5.6 billion surplus next fiscal year. That’s much smaller than the $21 billion surplus surplus predicted for the current budget, reflecting expectations that the economy will continue to grow, but at a slowing rate.

“While we’ve enjoyed 11 years of growth and expansion, that is not a permanent state,” Newsom told reporters. “We’re not seeing a contracting economy, we’re seeing a slowing down of our economic growth.”

To guard against a future recession, Newsom wants to continue adding to reserves. The current $215 billion state budget also added billions to those reserve funds.

Newsom acknowledged that despite optimistic projections, he’s still proposing a new tax on vaping. It would charge $2 for every 40 milligrams of nicotine. The proposal would generate tens of millions of dollars, aimed at combating the dramatic rise in vaping among teenagers, which Newsom says deeply concerns him as a parent.

His budget also proposes tax cuts for small businesses and extensions of sales tax breaks on diapers and tampons.

Here’s a look at what else is in the record-setting proposal:

Education

Newsom called for a “steady focus on the basics,” starting with spending more on teachers. Although California is successfully closing education gaps for some students, the state must do more to improve education for African American students and students with disabilities, Newsom said.

He’s proposing roughly $900 million to address the state’s teacher shortage and improve teacher training. That includes $350 million to train teachers in special education, science and math, mental health intervention, English language learners, and support for LGBT students and other marginalized groups.

Newsom said his wife, First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom, will work on an initiative to improve student nutrition through school meal programs.

For younger children, Newsom wants to create a Department of Early Childhood Development and continue expanding early education and childcare programs. The budget includes more money to expand preschool and aims to direct more money toward building or renovating more preschool classrooms.

Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, R-Big Bear Lake, vice chair of the Assembly Budget Committee, criticized Newsom’s focus on preschool and said he would prefer to see state solve “existing problem with our K-12 education system” first.

“We continue to be the last in the nation, the worst record in the nation for student-teacher ratio,” Obernolte said. “That’s something that I think needs to be fixed and I would really like to see more state resources devoted to solving that problem.”

Newsom also wants to boost funding for education in Fresno. He said the effort is a top priority of his higher education council, which relied on help from outside consultants to develop strategies to better prepare students for industries in the region.

Health Care

Newsom is also calling for a “once-in-a-generation” revamp of Medi-Cal to increase preventive health services, boost assistance for homeless people and improve mental health care.

HIs plan would also steer nearly $700 million in additional money to the program.

His budget would allow undocumented people over age 65 to enroll in Medi-Cal, provided they meet the program’s income requirements. That proposal builds on the current budget’s Medi-Cal expansion to undocumented young adults.

The budget proposal also contains ambitious plans to cut prescription drug costs, including creating a state- owned generic drug label and a single drug purchasing market in California.

Republicans are critical of Newsom’s prescription drug plans, arguing they would be a government overreach.

“History has not been kind to previous state efforts to compete with private industry, they have not been crowned with glory,” Obernolte said. “I remain cautiously skeptical about efforts to get the state into the manufacturing business.”

Duration 3:28 Here's how Gavin Newsom wants to cut health care costs with the new state budget California Gov. Gavin Newsom talks about how he plans to reduce the cost of health care in his 2020-21 budget proposal on Friday, Jan. 10, 2020. By Xavier Mascareñas

Housing and Homelessness

In total, Newsom says the budget includes $6.8 billion related to housing, mostly from ongoing spending already approved in previous years.

Currently, housing funding travels through a complicated network of different state agencies, departments and offices, which Newsom said he wants to streamline.

His proposal also directs $750 million from the state’s anticipated surplus to help homeless Californians. That money would be distributed to local providers. It could be used to pay rent, build housing and improve shelters, according to Newsom’s office.

The budget also includes:

• $250 million per year for four years to provide loans for small businesses to buy green technology to combat climate change.

• Funding to increase enforcement of AB 5, the controversial California labor law that makes it harder for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors. • Plans to develop a California version of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. • $20 million to open a a new state park, although Newsom refused to say where because he said it would drive up the price of the land. • A goal to close a state prison by 2024. • Intent to shorten probation terms for California felons, which Newsom acknowledges will be controversial. • Creation of a new Department of Cannabis Control to consolidate the state’s cannabis regulation and oversight. • $50 million for the state’s animal shelters to work toward making California a “no-kill state” in 5 years.

Newsom’s announcement kicks off months of negotiations between his office and the Legislature. He’ll release a revised proposal in May. He and lawmakers have until June 15 to pass a budget in time for the start of the upcoming fiscal year on July 1.

The Bee Capitol Bureau’s Andrew Sheeler contributed to this report.

‘If I'm not willing to stand up to a bully…’ Gov. Newsom on Twitter war with Trump California Gov. Gavin Newsom responds during his budget proposal press conference on Friday, Jan. 10, 2020, to a reporter's question about his interactions with President Donald Trump on Twitter. By Xavier Mascareñas

Xavier Mascareñas [email protected]

916-326-5545 Sophia Bollag covers California politics and government. Before joining The Bee, she reported in Sacramento for the Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times. She grew up in California and is a graduate of Northwestern University. Support my work with a digital subscription

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Op-Ed

Organizing for Resilience The Bay Area open space community has an opportunity to reimagine itself by Annie Burke January 6, 2020

Share This:

Think about the wildfires in Sonoma County this past October. Or the fires that ravaged the town of Paradise in November 2018. Or the fires that ripped through parts of Santa Rosa in October 2017.

I bet you remember those fires viscerally. We remember the smoke, fear, and devastation. I hope you also remember how people helped one another while the fires burned and for months afterward as those communities recovered and healed. Donations of clothes flooded in; thousands of meals were cooked for people we did not know. We did more than send our thoughts and prayers. We rolled up our sleeves to help one another.

Climate change is happening here in the Bay Area to all of us. There is certainly a dark side of climate change, but I believe there is also a bright side: an opening to usher in the change that our planet and society so desperately need. The opportunity, the gift, to be in community with our neighbors. And the urgent call for changing how we steward the land and connect people to it.

Annie Burke is the executive director of this new regional coalition. Learn more at www.aNewRegionalCoalition.org.

This call is the reason we are launching a new regional coalition to champion and be the regional voice for climate resilient lands, water, and people in the Bay Area. While our roots are in the Bay Area Open Space Council (BAOSC), the new collaboration will be different.

It envisions a Bay Area that is home to healthy lands, people, and communities for generations to come. We want to adapt to and mitigate the impacts of climate change and to work for a more just and equitable society. This will be a large, diverse, and powerful team of nonprofits, public agencies, and indigenous tribes that serves all 8 million Bay Area residents in the 10 counties of the greater Bay Area.

The common thread of this new and diverse coalition is a commitment to creating a Bay Area where land, water, and people can adapt, flourish, and thrive.

The common thread of this new and diverse coalition is a commitment to creating a Bay Area where land, water, and people can adapt, flourish, and thrive. Because all lands need to be cared for, our work will encompass urban, rural, private, and public lands. Because water is essential to life, we include watersheds from the ridgelines to the Bay. And because all people are affected by climate change, we will work on climate justice and social equity, acknowledging and celebrating our differences and working together toward shared goals.

We aim to be transformative in order to catalyze 21st-century solutions in the region.

This new regional coalition will lead two programs. The top priority will be to advocate for regional funding and policies that promote and support climate resilient lands and people. Working at this level will enable us to have the deep and lasting impact we desire. The second program will build relationships across issues, organizations, jurisdictions, and the region. We will convene an annual summit, support and connect working groups, and share information regularly via digital communications. The first summit will most likely be held in autumn of 2020.

Relationships built on trust are key to this new coalition. To quote The People’s Supper, a national initiative that builds relationships across political divides, “Social change moves at the speed of relationships. Relationships move at the speed of trust.” That principle will also guide our work to bridge the divisions in our region.

This is an experiment that we launch with humility. We do not have it all figured out. The new coalition will need a name; goals for justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion; guidelines for the policies it advocates for; and much more. We are clear about our intentions and will need to work together, as a coalition, to manifest them.

The new coalition is born from the Bay Area Open Space Council, and our effort stands on the shoulders of those who built the BAOSC. And we recognize that we need to change in order to meet today’s challenges and opportunities.

Throughout 2019 we led a comprehensive process with the open space community and a diverse planning committee to reimagine the BAOSC after a financial crisis in 2018 (see my op-ed in Bay Nature’s winter 2019 issue for more about the crisis). The process included 360 online survey responses, nine stakeholder interviews, 146 attendees in four input sessions, six meetings of the planning committee, and hours and hours of conversations. We considered lessons learned from the previous 29 years of the BAOSC and focused our attention on what our Bay Area lands, waters, and people need today and moving into the future.

Four BAOSC members supported the planning process: Marin County Parks, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, and Sonoma Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District. The Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria provided critical funding and participated in meaningful ways. We are also grateful to East Bay Regional Park District, Peninsula Open Space Trust, and Save the Redwoods League for their leadership and financial support during the BAOSC’s transition.

We are forming this coalition with an urgent hope, acknowledgment that we do not have all the answers, and openness to what is possible when different perspectives are valued and listened to.

It’s a new day. Join us.

About the Author

Annie Burke

Annie Burke is the interim executive director of the Bay Area Open Space Council.

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Politics Gavin Newsom seeks more money for homeless, health care for undocumented seniors

Alexei Koseff and John Wildermuth Jan. 10, 2020 Updated: Jan. 10, 2020 5:28 p.m.

Gov. Gavin Newsom introduced a $222 billion state budget Friday that he said represents a snapshot of his priorities for California. Photo: Rich Pedroncelli, Associated Press

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed a $222 billion state budget Friday that he said represents a snapshot of his priorities for California, including boosting funding for homelessness programs, paying for health care for undocumented-immigrant seniors and closing a state prison.

He repeatedly portrayed those plans as a rebuke of a federal government that he said is increasingly unwilling to help the state tackle its most pressing problems, as well as of “a California derangement syndrome going on in the popular media — that somehow our best days are behind us, that somehow California’s not hitting on many cylinders.”

“I’m very proud to be a Californian,” Newsom said during a news conference at the state Capitol. “I’m proud of this state, and I’m proud of the budget that we are presenting today, because I am not naive about the areas where we’re falling short.”

The governor’s proposed spending blueprint for fiscal 2020-21 is 2.3% larger than the current budget. It calls for a 3% hike in funding for K-12 schools and community colleges, an $80.5 million expansion of the Medi-Cal health program for poor people to cover about 27,000 undocumented-immigrant seniors, and a $1.5 billion boost in the state’s rainy day fund.

The budget estimates a $5.6 billion surplus, slightly less than the $7 billion predicted by the Legislative Analyst’s Office in December, because it does not count on the Trump administration renewing California’s expiring tax on health insurance plans. Most of that money will go toward one-time expenditures, projects that can be quickly completed and won’t be a long-term drain on the budget, Newsom said.

While the governor said the budget is balanced for this year and at least three years after that, he warned that the state’s growth isn’t guaranteed, “although some seem to think that it is” — a dig at legislators and interest groups calling for increased state spending on new and existing California programs.

Newsom did endorse one new tax: a vaping levy of $2 per 40 milligrams of nicotine, which would raise about $32 million that would be used for youth e-cigarette prevention and other health care programs.

The rise in youth vaping, he said, “scares the hell out of me as a parent.”

The governor pledged to close a state prison within five years, and end most of California’s private prison contracts this year, if the inmate population continues to decline at projected rates. In a change that he acknowledged would be controversial, Newsom also called for cutting the time that convicted felons remain on probation to two years, down from the current five years. That would reduce the prison population by keeping offenders from being locked up for what the governor suggested are low-level offenses committed during a longer probation term.

Newsom touched on countless minutiae during a presentation and news conference that lasted nearly three hours, but there were a few things he didn’t want to talk about in detail.

While he said that the budget provides $20 million to acquire land for the first major state park since the 1940s, Newsom refused to say where that park would be, arguing it would boost the price of the land.

And when asked what he planned to do about tax reform, the governor said the state desperately needs dramatic change, but declined to give specifics.

“I can be stubborn,” Newsom said. “I can be pragmatic. Here, I’m stubbornly pragmatic.”

The governor’s spending plan kicks off months of negotiations with the Legislature over the state budget. He will offer a revised proposal in May, and lawmakers must approve a budget by June 15.

Democratic leaders had plenty of good words for Newsom’s budget, but made it clear that it’s the beginning, not the end, of the process.

“The governor’s proposal provides a solid starting point,” said state Senate President Pro Tem Toni Atkins of San Diego. “My colleagues and I appreciate the governor giving us the opportunity to start that process with a budget plan that is already so in sync with California values.”

Newsom got most of what he sought in last year’s budget, spending billions to pay down debts and build up reserves while also taking initial steps toward a sweeping liberal policy agenda that is shared by much of the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

California reinstated the individual mandate to carry health insurance, which the federal government had eliminated; became the first state in the country to extend health benefits to undocumented young adults; added a second year of free community college; and expanded paid parental leave by two weeks.

Newsom previewed several major proposals in the days leading up to the announcement of his new budget plan, including a renewed push to move homeless people off the streets and into more stable living situations. He signed an executive order that directs state agencies to find vacant properties that could be used for emergency homeless shelters.

His budget would create a $750 million fund to pay rent and build affordable housing for homeless people, which Newsom would seek to augment with private contributions. He proposed a $1.4 billion annual expansion of Medi-Cal to cover preventive care and housing support services that could keep chronically homeless people out of the emergency room and other costly care.

That focus earned praise from Republican lawmakers, though Assemblyman Jay Obernolte, R-Big Bear Lake (San Bernardino County), said he would push to make sure the homeless problem in rural areas was not overlooked. Obernolte, vice chair of the Assembly Budget Committee, added that the state would not solve homelessness without a stronger dedication to bringing down the cost of housing.

“It’s more than just moving people into shelters,” he said.

On wildfire prevention, the budget provides “north of $1 billion for emergency preparedness,” Newsom said. That includes money for more full-time firefighters, additional fire engines and other equipment and $110 million to make structural improvements to buildings in fire zones to make them more resistant to wildfires.

Alexei Koseff and John Wildermuth are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers. Email: [email protected], [email protected] Twitter: @akoseff, @jfwildermuth

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

The politics of California’s slow population growth

By Dan Walters

CalMatters

During the first decade of the 21st century, demographers in California’s Department of Finance and those in the U.S. Census Bureau found themselves in a genteel conflict.

Years by year, the two agencies’ estimates of California’s population diverged, finally reaching a gap of about 1 million human beings.

It was officially resolved by the 2010 census, which declared that California had 37.3 million residents, close to the state’s precensus estimates.

Of course, the number was wrong because it’s impossible to precisely count everyone, and could easily have been a million or two too low, given the state’s large number of homeless and undocumented immigrants. However, it was the official number used by the federal government, including its allocation of congressional seats.

After the 2010 census, California’s delegation was frozen at 53 seats, still by far the largest of any state but a culture shock for a state that had been accustomed to seeing its congressional allocation grow steadily ever since it had entered the union in 1850.

Another census is scheduled for this year and last month, the two demographic agencies released their final estimates of the state’s population (as of July 1, 2019) before the official count begins.

Once again, they are markedly different, although not by as much as they had been a decade earlier. And once again, the state’s number is higher than the Census Bureau’s — 39.96 million by the state’s calculation, 39.5 million in the federal estimate.

The state calculated population growth in the year ending July 1 at 141,300 or .35%, the lowest year-to-year rate ever recorded.

The feds, meanwhile, estimated that California’s population grew by just 50,635 people during the 12-month period ending July 1, which is very close to a statistical zero. California barely escaped joining New York and the nine other states deemed to have lost population.

The low growth in both estimates reflects a strong outflow of Californians to other states — a net loss, in fact — a declining birthrate, a rising death rate and slowing immigration from other nations.

The 2020 census will once again settle the demographic conflict, and California officials are very concerned that President Donald Trump’s administration will not try very hard to count everyone in politically blue states. They are especially concerned that relying on the internet as the primary vehicle for counting the population will undercount the poor.

California is spending millions of dollars to improve the count. However, what emerges from the census will be the official number and if the Census Bureau’s latest estimates are validated, it’s highly likely that California, for the first time since it became a state in 1850, would lose a congressional seat.

In contrast, the 1990 census found that during the 1980s, California’s population increased by a whopping 6 million or 25% and it gained seven new congressional seats.

However, it added just one after the 2000 census.

If California does lose a seat, it’s more a symbolic event than one with practical effects, but it does give California’s critics new ammunition to argue that the Golden State is now tarnished as its accumulated flaws, such as rampant homelessness, income disparity and skyhigh housing costs impel people to move elsewhere.

A loss would have one concrete effect, decreasing the state’s presidential electoral votes by one, joining the larger phenomenon of blue states such as California losing congressional seats and electoral votes to faster growing, conservative-voting states in the South and Southwest, such as arch-rival Texas.

Given the very close national political divide, that could have a very significant effect in the years ahead.

Dan Walters is a CalMatters columnist.

In this Aug. 13 file photo, a worker gets ready to pass out instructions on how to fill out the 2020 census.

FILE PHOTO: JOHN AMIS — THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Local // Environment Newsom, legislators seek to add Bay Area open space to California park system

Peter Fimrite Jan. 12, 2020 Updated: Jan. 12, 2020 8:56 p.m.

The 80-square-mile N3 ranch in the East Bay is being sold with an asking price of $72 million.Photo: California Outdoor Properties

An immense stretch of ecologically valuable woodlands and open space covering four Bay Area counties has been targeted by Gov. Gavin Newsom and state legislators to become the first major property added to the California state park system since the 1940s.

The governor’s $222 billion budget includes $20 million to acquire potential parkland. During his news conference on the budget Friday, Newsom refused to identify the site, warning that it could boost the cost. But

legislators confirmed Saturday that the property in question was the N3 Ranch, an 80-square-mile swath of land an hour’s drive from San Francisco.

The ranch, on sale for the first time in 85 years, includes canyons, woodlands, grasslands and meadows in Santa Clara, Alameda, San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties. The asking price is $72 million.

“This is an extraordinary opportunity to acquire this pristine open space 50 times larger than Golden Gate Park and a few bus stops away from millions of Bay Area residents,” said state Sen. Steve Glazer, D-Orinda, one of 15 Bay Area legislators who signed a letter Jan. 6 urging Newsom to allocate state funds to acquire the ranch.

“It’s pristine wildlands, important Bay Area watershed and it could provide extraordinary passive recreation opportunities on trails and hills,” he said. “This is not something in the foothills of the Sierras. This is in our backyard.”

The idea is to combine the state money with about $30 million raised by the Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Land and other potential contributors.

Todd Renfrew, the broker and principal owner of California Outdoor Properties of Vacaville, told The Chronicle that he has received interest from local and international buyers, including owners of neighboring ranches.

Some potential buyers have inquired about possibly subdividing the property, but Renfrew said the owners want to keep the property whole.

The land, which includes 200 miles of dirt roads for hiking, running and biking, has been owned by the Vickers and Naftzger families since the early 1930s. It was put up for sale in July by two surviving sisters who live in Southern California and rarely visit the ranch anymore.

The property, which is only 15 minutes from downtown Livermore, includes a four-bedroom home, barns, sheds, 14 hunting camps with cabins, skinning sheds and grazing land for up to 3,200 cows.

“We’re impressed by the stewardship of the N3 Ranch for the past eight decades and its unique conservation values, including the size and scope of the property, its sharp-cragged backcountry terrain, and its habitat for species of interest,” said Mike Sweeney, executive director of the California branch of the Nature Conservancy. “We’d like to see N3 protected.”

The N3 would be difficult to develop because it is remote and rugged, while building on it would require major changes in zoning. The property also is covered by the 1965 Williamson Act, which allows owners to reduce their annual property taxes in exchange for preserving the land as farmland and open space.

The potential property tax hit and the cost of new infrastructure like roads, sewer, electricity and water is why the state and its potential partners believe they can acquire the land for less than the asking price.

There is, however, real value in how much unspoiled habitat is on the land, according to everyone involved. The 50,500-acre property stretches from Tracy to Del Valle Reservoir and from Calaveras and San Antonio reservoirs to both the Sunol and Ohlone regional wilderness areas. The Alameda Creek watershed, which supplies water to San Francisco, runs through the property.

The land includes 4,089-foot Eylar Mountain, skirts the east side of Mission Peak and runs up toward Mount Diablo State Park and Henry Coe State Park. It is habitat for mountain lions, coyote, bobcats, fox, elk, deer and migrating birds.

And it is huge, covering 19,935 acres in Santa Clara, 16,880 acres in Alameda, 4,590 acres in Stanislaus, and 9,095 acres in San Joaquin County. That’s bigger than San Francisco and more than twice the size of nearby Mount Diablo State Park.

“This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity,” said Democratic state Sen. Jerry Hill, who represents San Mateo and Santa Clara counties and also signed the letter. “This would protect acres of ranchland and wilderness by creating a new state park. It would pay dividends for generations to come in an area that needs recreational opportunities.”

California, which created its state park system in 1864, has about 280 parks, more than any other state. They cover 1.5 million acres, including 280 miles of coastline and 625 miles of lake and riverfront. Only Alaska has more land, 3.2 million acres, devoted to state parks.

The park system has recently been plagued by budget shortfalls, requiring closures a few years ago. A park the size of N3 hasn’t been added to the system in more than 70 years.

“If we don’t acquire this we lose the opportunity,” Glazer said. “This would be a new state park of extraordinary size and importance.”

Peter Fimrite is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @pfimrite

Peter Fimrite

Follow Peter on: https://www.facebook.com/SFChronicle/pfimrite

Peter Fimrite is The Chronicle’s lead science reporter, covering environmental, atmospheric and ecosystem science. His beat includes earthquake research, marine biology, wildfire science, nuclear testing, archaeology, wildlife and scientific exploration of land and sea. He also writes about the cannabis industry, outdoor adventure, Native American issues and the culture of the West. A former U.S. Forest Service firefighter, he has traveled extensively and covered a wide variety of issues during his career, including the Beijing Olympics, Hurricane Katrina, illegal American tourism in Cuba and a 40-day cross country car trip commemorating the history of automobile travel in America.

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Love affair with e-scooters can bring a world of hurt

By Lisa M. Krieger [email protected]

Electric scooters are surging in popularity, pioneers of what’s hailed as the “micromobility revolution.”

They’re also risky.

In the first nationwide analysis of the health risks of escooters, a new UC San Francisco study reports that the number of injuries and hospital admissions has soared in the United States, suggesting the need for better safety measures and regulation.

Injuries climbed by 222% from 2014 to 2018. The number of hospital admissions increased higher, by 365%, according to the team of San Francisco trauma specialists and researchers.

Disturbingly, nearly a third of the patients suffered head trauma. That’s more than twice the rate of head injuries to bicyclists.

“It is a rising public health concern that needs attention,” said Nikan K. Namiri, 22, a medical student at the UCSF School of Medicine and first author of the study, published in Wednesday’s issue of JAMA Surgery. “Injuries and hospitalizations have risen significantly.”

Cities are swarming with electric scooters, enabled by innovations in technology and transportation. They’re convenient and cheap to use, and they don’t require a license or training before someone hops on. They don’t contribute to traffic or pollution. They’re shared and practical, helping solve the “last mile challenge” of moving commuters between public transit, work and home. And they’re fun.

But the love affair can end in a crash.

Nearly 40,000 injuries occurred from e-scooters in the U.S. from 2014 to 2018. The most common injuries were fractures (27%), contusions and abrasions (23%) and lacerations (14%), the study found.

About two-thirds of the injuries were to men, and people 18 to 34 were the most often injured for the first time.

To be sure, other forms of transportation — from walking and cycling to driving a 2-ton car in chaotic rush- hour traffic — pose risks as well.

But this study is the first to detect a worrisome rise in e-scooter injuries. The UCSF study, led by Dr. Benjamin N. Breyer, used data from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance System on national estimates of injuries related to emergency room visits.

Julie Jones of San Jose shattered her right wrist in a fall, an injury that required surgery, eight weeks in a cast, lost time off work and three months of physical therapy. Now, nearly 10 months after the injury, she still doesn’t have full range of motion.

A woman rides an electric scooter on Grand Avenue near Lake Merritt in Oakland. The number of nationwide hospital admissions from scooter accidents increased by 365% from 2014 to 2018, and injuries climbed by 222%, according to a new study.

JANE TYSKA — STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

The accident happened in an instant when the Bird scooter hit an inconspicuous divot in the road and sent her flying over its handlebars. She was visiting her father on a busy Easter weekend near the beach in the Los Angeles suburb of Marina Del Rey — and she was watching pedestrians, not the street surface.

“My wrist will never be 100 percent,” she said. “But it broke my fall. If I had hit my head instead, it would have been very traumatic.”

Erik Metzroth, a 43-yearold San Rafael native, still has a dark scar on his right leg from last year’s scooter accident.

A cautious rider, he was on an errand in a woodsy neighborhood of Washington, D.C., when his rented scooter suddenly lost connectivity with the host company’s network and decelerated. In a rushed and futile effort to restart the machine, he injured his calf.

“It took a chunk of my leg. I was bleeding like crazy,” said Metzroth, a marketing and production consultant.

His advice: “I don’t care if you don’t have a helmet — go find one. I didn’t fall, but I could have gone barreling over the front of it.”

Meanwhile, the tension between scooter transit and safety is playing out on many city streets. Pedestrians are frustrated by the clutter of abandoned scooters on sidewalks, street corners and in doorways, as well as near- miss collisions when riders zip down crowded sidewalks.

Cyclists are angered by the addition of motorized traffic to bike lanes. Scooter riders say the real problem is cars — and America’s outmoded transportation infrastructure, with not enough room for everybody.

According to a study by the National Association of City Transportation Officials, riders took 38.5 million trips in about 100 U.S. cities on e-scooters in 2018, the first year they were widely available.

Scooters “offer an inexpensive, quick way to travel short distances, which is particularly attractive in busy commercial districts,” Kevin Fang said in a 2019 analysis of e-scooter policy for the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University.

But they compete for already contested space on streets and sidewalks, and raise questions about safety, he said.

In 2018, California loosened safety regulation for scooters, removing the helmet requirement for riders older than 18. Scooter rental company Bird, which backed the legislation and lobbied for the change, noted that adult bicyclists are not required to wear helmets — and that more people would ride scooters if helmets weren’t mandated.

“That is not helpful,” said Namiri. “People over 18 experience the highest number of injuries. Not wearing a helmet poses a health risk.”

The rise in the number of injuries — from 6 per 100,000 Americans in 2014 to 19 per 100,000 in 2018 — could simply reflect scooters’ growing popularity, Namiri said. Scooters can be unlocked for $1 with a smartphone app and then cost just 15 cents a minute to ride.

“Typically, before all these apps, scooters were a household novelty. Now they’re all over the streets, which is a more dangerous place to ride,” said Namiri.

According to news reports, at least two Californians have been killed while riding scooters. A 53-year-old man died in San Diego after he lost control and hit a tree. A 41-year-old man died in Santa Monica when he fell off a scooter and was hit by a car.

The San Francisco researchers note that the actual incidence of e-scooter trauma may be underestimated because some riders likely don’t go to the hospital, despite their injuries. They also urged future research into pedestrian and cyclist injuries caused by scooter collisions.

Scooter regulations vary widely from state to state, according to the Mineta Institute. In some states, an escooter is considered a “vehicle” and is required to follow those rules, while other states classify the devices as a “pedestrian.”

The major scooter companies — Bird, Lime and Spin — say they do what they can to encourage riders to be safe.

Bird gave away an estimated 75,000 helmets over the past two years and has launched a “Helmet Selfie” campaign, where riders photographed wearing a helmet will earn future ride credits. Lime offers riders 50% off the price of some helmets and promotes safety tips — such as the use of hand signals for turning — on its website.

California law limits scooter speeds to 12 mph. They can’t be ridden on sidewalks; if the street has a speed limit greater than 25 mph, they must be ridden in a bike lane.

To use a scooter, you need a California driver’s license or instruction permit. You can’t carry packages. Those laws are frequently broken.

While helmets do not shield riders from careening cars, they can reduce the risk of head trauma, the scientists said.

Prev ious research showed that a tiny fraction of injured e-scooter riders — ranging from 2% to about 5% — wore helmets when they were hurt. Helmets are mandatory only for riders younger than 18.

Injured rider Metzroth had other advice, as well.

“Don’t be an idiot. Don’t ride with two people, just because they fit. Don’t go the wrong way on a street.

“So many people are still novices,” he said, “and the odds of wiping out are considerable.”

Gary Richards contributed to this report. Contact Lisa M. Krieger at 408-859-5306.

An electric scooter rider makes his way near pedestrians along Santa Clara Street in San Jose last week.

ANDA CHU — STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

NEW STATE PARK IN SJ COUNTY? Newsom budget calls for buying 50,500 acres of the pristine N3 Ranch straddling four counties 20 miles southwest of Manteca

Updated: Jan. 13, 2020, 2:05 a.m.

San Joaquin County could get its third state park if the California Legislature OKs Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed $329 billion overall budget for the fiscal year starting July 1.

The aim is to buy the sprawling and pristine N3 Ranch that covers 50,500 acres or nearly 80 square miles of the Diablo Range in four counties — San Joaquin (9,095 acres), Stanislaus (4,590 acres), Santa Clara (19,935 acres), and Alameda (19,880 acres).

It also contains the highest point in San Joaquin County — Mt. Boardman at 3,619 feet. By comparison Mt. Diablo that sits in Contra Costa County is 3,848 feet.

You can see Mt. Diablo looking slightly to the northwest as you head west on the 120 Bypass past Airport Way. Mt. Boardman is the second highest peak as you look to the southwest from most points in Manteca. The

highest peak— by 10 feet — in the area as you look to the southwest is just to the north of Mt. Boardman at 3,629 feet and is within Alameda County.

Within the N3 Ranch just to the south of the Mt. Boardman summit is where the four counties meet.

Newsom has included $20 million from a one-time budget surplus to help purchase the ranch that was put on the market in July 2019 with an asking price of $72 million. It is the largest parcel currently for sale in California.

The $20 million would be wedded with a $30 million commitment from The Nature Conservancy and The Trust for Public Lands.

The N3 Ranch is just over 20 miles as the crow flies from Manteca.

There are perhaps three dozen buildings on the working cattle ranch that includes 14 hunting lodges. The highest point is Eylar Mountain at 4,089 feet. There are also 200 miles of well-maintained dirt roads.

If it were to become a state park, the closest access from the San Joaquin Valley would be via Highway 130 through Del Puerto Canyon out of Patterson to Milnes Road that takes you to Mt. Hamilton. The property is listed with a Livermore address. It is north of the Highway 130 segment that climbs through Del Puerto Canyon

The northern most edge touches the Del Valley Regional Park south of Livermore. It skirts the Sunol Wilderness and the Calaveras Reservoir and runs to the east of Mission Peak near San Jose. It nearly connects with Henry Coe State Park accessed out of Morgan Hill and straddles Milnes Road.

Henry Coe at 89,164 acres is the second largest state park in California behind Anza Borrego Desert State Park at 595,930 acres. The second largest state park is the Ocotillo Wells State Vehicle Recreation Area at 50,553 acres — just three acres larger than the N3 Ranch — and is immediately adjacent to Anza Borrego Desert State Park.

N3 Ranch could end up being the state’s fourth largest park at more than double the size of Mt. Diablo State Park at 20,129 acres. It also comes close to connecting with Henry Coe State Park. Also, as a comparison, N3 ranch is eight times larger than the 6,498-acre Calaveras Big Trees State Park.

If the state acquires the ranch it would mean much of the land in the southern Diablo Range stretching from Del Valle Reservoir to near the southern base of the mountains north of Hollister will be protected from development. Between the N3 Ranch, Henry Coe State Park and a series of East Bay Regional Parks most of the area between the Santa Clara Valley and the Northern San Joaquin Valley will be in parks and protected watersheds. It would be significantly more muscular in terms of protection of the various open spaces and regional wilderness parks that team with Mt. Diablo State to create a continuous 50,000 plus acres of wilderness between a point north of Livermore and Walnut Creek.

Botanists consider the ranch a treasure trove. It supports species such as tule elk, black-tail deer, wild pig, turkey, quail, dove, rabbit, ground squirrel, raccoon, coyote bobcat, grey fox, mountain lion, bald eagles, and an endless array of birds from road runners to finches. Countless migrating birds rely on the property. There are bass and catfish in various reservoirs as well as ponds stocked with trout.

"This is a matter of urgent concern because this irreplaceable property is for sale now," Democratic Sen. Steve Glazer said in a statement. "Nonprofit conservation groups have assembled funding commitments that could finance more than half the cost. We need to move on this quickly."

Glazer is one of 17 lawmakers who have been urging Newsom to budget state money to purchase the ranch.

Two Southern California sisters of the fourth generation family that founded the N3 Ranch 85 years ago put the rarely-visited ranch on the real estate market in July.

Cattle still roam the property, which comes with a four-bedroom headquarters, a one-bedroom annex, a bunkhouse, shops, outbuildings, and four cabins for employee housing. The Alameda Creek watershed runs through the property, capturing drinking water for Bay Area residents. T

"It's quite a place," Todd Renfrew, broker and principal owner of Vacaville-based California Outdoor Properties told the Associated Press. "This is a landscape that looks like it did more than a century ago."

There are currently two state parks in San Joaquin County. Caswell Memorial State Park that preserved the largest stand of remaining valley woodlands along the Stanislaus River is south of Manteca and west of Ripon. The other is the Corral Hollow State Vehicle Recreation Area off Corral Hollow Road south of Tracy.

To contact Dennis Wyatt, email [email protected]

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Newsom: $20M for newstate park

Governor urged to target N3 Cattle Company Ranch near Livermore

By Angela Ruggiero [email protected]

LIVERMORE » A scenic, nearly 51,000-acre cattle ranch in the hills near Livermore that straddles four counties could become the state’s newest park in a decade — and one of its largest.

In the proposed state budget he introduced Friday, Gov. Gavin Newsom dedicated $20 million toward the purchase of a new state park. Though Newsom didn’t specify where the park would be, 17 lawmakers, mostly from the Bay Area, sent him a letter last week urging himto target theN3Cattle Company Ranch, which went on themarket in July for$72million.

California hasn’t opened a new state park in more than 10 years. “This is a matter of urgent concern because this irreplaceable property is for sale now, and nonprofit conservation groups have assembled funding commitments that could financemore than half the cost,” the lawmakers wrote.

Specifically, the Nature Conservancy and The Trust for Public Lands have secured $30 million for the purchase of the land, the lawmakers wrote.

They asked the governor to appropriate $20 million from the one-time budget surplus to “complete the funding package and create one of the largest public parks in the state.”

The nearly 80-square-mile ranch hadn’t been on the market for 85 years until this summer. Broker Todd Renfrew, who owns California Outdoor Properties, said Monday that the owners would prefer to keep the property whole.

Since July, a few potential buyers have expressed interest, including some from other countries, Renfrew said. But some offers have been to buy portions of the property.

Two sisters who are members of the Vickers/Naftzger family and have owned and operated the property for 85 years, are aware the statemay be interested in the land, but terms have not yet been discussed and “a lot needs to happen” before such a sale would be finalized, Renfrew said.

The sisters, who live in Southern California, decided it was time to sell after their parents died.

When they approached Vacaville-based California Outdoor Properties last year about listing the land for sale, Renfrew said he didn’t know such a large property existed in the Bay Area.

The ranch, which lies where Alameda, Santa Clara, San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties intersect, is south of Livermore and east of San Jose and Oakland.

About 80% of the property, including 9,600 acres of the Alameda Creek watershed, provides drinking water for the Bay Area and California residents, according to lawmakers.

“The N3 Ranch property is a critical asset in the efforts to protect our open spaces and fight climate change — Californians deserve this opportunity to be provided clean air, clean water and access to parklands,” Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, DOrinda, said in a statement.

N3 Ranch is above sea level, ranging in elevation from800 feet to 4,000 feet, which is higher thanMount Diablo.

During the last big storm, 6 inches of snow fell on its highest points, Renfrew said. Cattle graze on the operational ranch, which has deep canyons, open grasslands, rolling hills and wildlife such as wild pigs, bobcats, turkeys, gray foxes and elk.

Until last year, the ranch housed a hunting club with 14 cabins. Structures on the site include a four-bedroom main residence, a one-bedroom annex, a bunkhouse, barns and sheds.

The last time California opened a new state park was in 2009, when the U.S. Army donated beach property in Monterey County for what became Ford Ord Dunes State Park.

This news organization found in an investigation last year that of the 4,088 transactions since 1970, the state park department’s once high pace of acquiring new land for public consumption and protection has slowed to a historic low. Staffwriters Paul Rogers and George Avalos contributed to this report.

Board Legislative Committee Attachment V January 17, 2020

Newsom’s luck will be needed to achieve his many priorities

By George Skelton

Los Angeles Times

Each governor is unique. Gov. Gavin Newsom certainly is different.

Jerry Brown was a narrowly focused political pragmatist after evolving from an ambitious young rebel rock star. Arnold Schwarzenegger was a restless entertainer, Gray Davis riskaverse, Pete Wilson a scrapper, Ronald Reagan a true believer, Pat Brown a builder.

Newsom? He’s the lucky one.

The state treasury keeps overflowing with tax revenue. There’s ample money to spend freely and still save. Unlike his predecessors, Newsom hasn’t had to whack popular state programs to balance the books, angering allies.

Both legislative houses are controlled by supermajorities of fellow Democrats. They don’t need Republicans for anything.

And since passing a budget now requires only a simple ma-jority, getting a state spending plan approved is easy. Newsom has no significant political rivals. Republicans are too weak. Democrats don’t dare.

The telegenic 52-year-old now shows faint streaks of gray in his coiffured hair that could turn pleasantly presidential when the time comes. But for the moment, the governor’s focus must be on the mundane matter of state budgeting.

Newsom conducted a remarkable briefing for reporters on his proposed $222.2 billion state budget Friday. For nearly 100 minutes, he delivered a nonstop monologue on details of his spending plan, covering a wide range of subjects and spewing out reams of numbers.

Then for the next 70 minutes he addressed every question any reporter had, although some queries weren’t actually answered.

The second-year governor was impressive in his knowledge of specifics and seemed to revel in delving into the wonky weeds.

“Two hours and 51 minutes. YEA!” Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg of Van Nuys declared in a written statement. “For us policy wonks, this is as good as it gets.”

Yes, such gubernatorial enthusiasm for the nuts and bolts of governing and his willingness to publicly share his views are admirable.

Newsom began his marathon monologue Friday by warning it would be long, explaining: “I want you to know what my priorities are. I want you to know what matters to me.”

But, as chronicled by Los Angeles Times reporters Taryn Luna and Phil Willon, “no topic was too big, no detail too small: tampon taxes, a looming economic downturn, billiondollar pension liabilities and the food on school lunch trays.”

Besides lucky, Newsom is broadly focused — which can mean unfocused.

When there’s a long list of priorities, nothing is a real priority.

Newsom spent 40 minutes talking solely about education, including preschools and child care, as if he were running for state superintendent of public instruction. He was passionate, particularly about special education, noting that as a child he battled dyslexia.

“It’s a miracle I’m here,” he said.

Newsom suggested spending $84 billion of the $153 billion general fund on K-12 schools and community colleges.

Discussing education for 40 minutes would suggest it’s a major Newsom priority. But it wasn’t included among the “three top priorities” for 2020 — “homelessness, health care affordability and wildfires” — announced by a senior gubernatorial adviser before the budget rollout.

The health care and homelessness priorities include two innovative ideas that offer great promise if Newsom can develop them as he envisions.

One is the governor’s proposal for California to become the first state to sell its own brand of generic prescription drugs. The goal is for the state to negotiate volume deals and provide discount prices for consumers, thereby reducing drug price gouging.

But Newsom didn’t provide details about which drugs he has in mind. He said the state is negotiating but wouldn’t say with whom.

On homelessness, Newsom wants to use the Medi-Cal program — California’s version of federal Medicaid health care for the poor — to help house and treat mentally ill people living on the street. That makes much sense and should have been done years ago.

“We believe there’s a tremendous capacity in the system today that isn’t being utilized,” the governor said.

But that would require federal approval because major Medi-Cal funding comes from Washington. And it doesn’t help that the Newsom and Trump administrations are constantly at each other’s throats.

“If we could move away from these tweets to responsible policy-making,” the governor said, not finishing the sentence.