BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, May 18, 2018 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. AB 1956 – Fire Protection Working Group (Limon D-Santa Barbara) 2. AB 2551 – Forest and Wildland Health Improvement and Fire Prevention Program (Wood D-Santa Rosa) 3. SB 1079 – Fire Protection Grants (Monning D-Carmel)
B. OTHER MATTERS I Doyle/Pfuehler 1. Prop. 68 Park Bond 2. Governor’s May Revise Budget 3. Other matters
II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS R Pfuehler A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. H.R. 5471 – American Gateway Communities (Cicilline D-RI)
B. OTHER MATTERS I Pfuehler 1. Other Matters
III. CONSIDERATION OF R Pfuehler/Baldinger MEASURE CC EXTENSION /Doyle
IV. ARTICLES I Pfuehler
V. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT I Pfuehler Individuals wishing to address the Committee on a topic not on the agenda may do so by completing a speaker’s form and submitting it to the recording secretary.
VII. BOARD COMMENTS
(R) Recommendation for Future Board Consideration (I) Information (D) Discussion Legislative Committee Members Future Meetings: Dee Rosario (Chair); Dennis Waespi, Beverly Lane January 8 & 26 July 20 Colin Coffey, Alternate February – NO MTG August – NO MTG Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager *March 9 September 21 April 20 October 19 May 18 November – NO MTG June – NO MTG *December 14 TO: Board Legislative Committee (Chair Dee Rosario, Dennis Waespi, Beverly Lane, Alt. Colin Coffey)
FROM: Robert E. Doyle, General Manager Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager
SUBJECT: Board Legislative Committee Meeting WHEN: Friday, May 18, 2018 12:30 PM Lunch will be served
WHERE: Board Room, Peralta Oaks ______
Items to be discussed:
I. STATE LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. AB 1956 – Fire Protection Working Group (Limon D-Santa Barbara) Assembly Member Limon’s bill would establish a fire prevention working group and a local assistance grant program to improve fire prevention in California. A key goal is to ensure fire prevention activities happen year-round. The bill would repeal the pre-fire working group and replace it with a fire prevention working group of 14 with diverse backgrounds including three representatives from local governments (county, city and resource conservation district). The working group will identify incentives for landowners to implement fire prevention activities in SRAs, identify new methods of fire prevention, and identify new sources and methods of financing fire prevention activities. It also requires CAL FIRE to establish a local assistance grant program for fire prevention activities. Local agencies are eligible for grants. Projects funded by the grants need to improve resiliency on the landscape, adapt landscapes to withstand increased frequency and intensity of large wildfires, and provide improved ecological outcomes.
It is estimated CAL FIRE will spend over $2.5 billion on fire protection for the 2017-18 budget year. It is the largest expenditure in the Natural Resources Agency. Meanwhile, since 2011, CAL FIRE has spent nearly $500 million on fire prevention activities. Given that CAL FIRE is increasingly conducting fire suppression activities year-round, the working group established in this bill would generate new methods and ideas to improve fire prevention.
The bill is supported by Save the Redwoods League and the Nature Conservancy among others.
Staff Recommendation: Support
2. AB 2551 – Forest and Wildland Health Improvement and Fire Prevention Program (Wood D-Santa Rosa) Assembly Member Wood’s bill would authorize CAL FIRE to enter into an agreement with any public agency or natural resource management agency to conduct joint prescribed burning operations. The bill also requires CAL FIRE to develop and implement training programs that
1
use prescribed burns as a training opportunity, as well as a hazard reduction and ecological restoration tool. It requires not less than 18% of all money in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) to be made available annually to CAL FIRE for projects that improve or restore forest and wildland health, fire resiliency and reducing GHG emissions cause by uncontrolled forest fires.
The bill is supported by the California State Parks Foundation, Defenders of Wildlife, National Parks Conservation Association, Save the Redwoods League, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, the Nature Conservancy and Trust for Public Land.
Staff Recommendation: Support
3. SB 1079 – Fire Protection Grants (Monning D-Carmel) Assembly Member Monning’s legislation would allow the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) to provide up to 25% of a grant in advance. Current CDF policies require grant recipients to be reimbursed for their costs rather than receiving some portion of the grant in advance. Reimbursements typically take 60-90 days, which creates project performance and financial hardship issues.
The bill is supported by Peninsula Open Space Trust, Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority, Save the Redwoods League and others.
Staff recommendation: Support
B. OTHER MATTERS 1. Prop. 68 Park Bond Proposition 68 is a general obligation bond that invests $4 billion in the coming years to address some of California’s most important park and natural resource needs. The state legislature passed the California Clean Water and Parks Act (SB 5) with bipartisan support, and it will appear on the June 5 statewide ballot. The District has been working on enacting a “true” statewide park bond for six years, and Prop. 68 is the culmination of those efforts. The General Manager, staff and Advocate Houston will provide a verbal update.
2. Governor’s May Revise Budget California anticipates $8 billion in higher revenues through 2018-19 compared to the January budget projection. Overall, the Governor has taken a characteristically conservative approach in directing $3.2 billion in additional funding to the Rainy Day Fund. He focuses much of the additional one-time expenditures on: 1. Infrastructure, mostly state facilities, universities and flood control - $2 billion 2. Homelessness, mostly to local governments - $359 million. 3. Mental Health Services, mostly to counties serving youth with mental illness - $312 million.
As part of the Governor’s May budget revision, Governor Brown also issued an Executive Order to address wildfire and climate impacts. Key elements of the order include: • Doubling the land actively managed through vegetation thinning, controlled fires and reforestation from 250,000 acres to 500,000 acres. • Launching new training and certification programs to help promote forest health
2
through prescribed burning. • Boosting education and outreach to landowners on the most effective ways to reduce vegetation and other forest-fire fuel sources on private lands. • Streamlining permitting for landowner-initiated projects that improve forest health and reduce forest-fire fuels on their properties. • Supporting the innovative use of forest products by the building industry. • Expanding grants, training and other incentives to improve watersheds. The Governor’s May budget revision includes $96 million to support these actions. This $96 million comes in addition to $160 million proposed in January’s cap-and-trade expenditure plan to support forest improvements and fire protection.
A Forest Management Task Force will be convened in the coming weeks to help implement this order and its accompanying Forest Carbon Plan, which was finalized this month following more than a year of development and public outreach.
Eight of the state’s 20 most destructive fires have occurred in the past four years. Last winter’s Thomas Fire in Ventura and Santa Barbara counties was the largest in recorded history. Since convening a Tree Mortality Task Force in 2015, more than 1.2 million dead or dying trees have already been removed from the state’s forests.
Recently, the California Environmental Protection Agency released new findings on the significant and growing impacts of climate change in California, noting that fires, drought, sea level rise and record heat pose an immediate and escalating danger to California’s ecosystems, wildlife, public health and economy.
3. Other matters
II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. H.R. 5471 – American Gateway Communities (Cicilline D-RI) Representative Cicilline from Rhode Island has authored legislation to require the Department of Interior establish an American Gateway Communities Economic Development and Conservation Program (Program) to assist gateways to units of the National Park System. It also provides competitive grant making authority to the Secretary of Interior. Grants can be for planning, design, landscaping, wayfinding and interpretation markers, establishing a scenic easement and mitigation of visual blight. Entities eligible for the grants need to be within five miles of a public entrance to a unit of the National Park System. This could apply to District parklands and trails within five miles of the four units of the National Park Service in the East Bay.
Staff recommendation: Support
B. OTHER MATTERS 1. Other Matters
III. CONSIDERATION OF MEASURE CC EXTENSION May 18th is the last Legislative Committee meeting prior to the scheduled proceedings for approving the commitment list to the voters for the possible extension of Measure CC at the June 5, 2018
3
Board Meeting. At the January 16, 2018 Board Meeting, the Board reviewed and accepted a draft list of commitments to the voters in the CC zone. Adoption of the list was a public commitment by the District to the future expenditure of funds on listed projects and tasks, should a 2018 Measure CC extension be placed on the ballot by the Board and approved by voters. Since the January 16, 2018 action was taken, two research surveys have been conducted to provide information critical to the Board’s deliberations.
Staff recommendation: The Committee is requested to review the available information and confirm its go-no-go recommendation to the full Board regarding placing a 20-year extension of Measure CC on the November 6, 2018 General Election ballot.
V. ARTICLES
VI. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT
VII. BOARD COMMENTS
4
DRAFT - Commitment List - 20 years
Location Draft Ballot Commitment Total Allocation Line #
Increase park and public safety personnel to operate a new regional park. Protect seasonal wetlands, 1 Alameda Point Breakwater Beach shoreline and park facilities by designing for sea level rise adaptation using natural systems. 2,950,000
Reduce storm erosion for improved creek water quality and natural habitat. Upgrade visitor use 2 Anthony Chabot facilities. Increase recreational trail access and provide for trail safety structural improvements. 215,000
Develop sea level rise interpretation with educational programming. Continue year-round Visitor Center services through staffing. Improve San Francisco Bay 3 Crown Beach health by upgrading the beach-front storm water drainage system. Expand park and improve visitor use facilities. 4,225,000
Enhance tidal and intertidal habitat to provide for shoreline protection through use of natural systems. Convert existing paved lands to natural landscape. 4 Gateway Increase public access to the San Francisco Bay Trail and newly constructed Bay Bridge bike path. Provide for park personnel to develop, operate and maintain future park facilities.
1,400,000
5/15/2018 1 DRAFT - Commitment List - 20 years
Location Draft Ballot Commitment Total Allocation Line #
Provide regional trail connectivity for commuters and safe routes to school, specifically in disadvantaged communities and along the San Francisco Bay Trail. Green Expand and maintain parkland trails to increase access 5 Transportation / while preventing erosion for protection of sensitive, Regional Trails natural habitats. Increase public safety patrol to enforce trail use ordinances in protection of wildlife. Explore potential to enter into partnership with transportation provider to increase park access.
4,300,000
Repair erosion of urban creek streambank for 6 Kennedy Grove improved water quality, habitat and trail access. 150,000
Upgrade marina facilities for boating and fishing access, 7 Lake Chabot safety and experience. 400,000
Reduce erosion and sediment build up to improve 8 Leona Canyon water quality of creek through trail maintenance and stewardship efforts. 40,000
Provide for shoreline and natural habitat protection McLaughlin across the State Park and Albany Bulb. Expand park 9 Eastshore State personnel for increased wildlife conservation. Provide Park for protection and monitoring of burrowing owl habitat. Improve visitor use facilities. 6,835,000
5/15/2018 2 DRAFT - Commitment List - 20 years
Location Draft Ballot Commitment Total Allocation Line #
Provide for shoreline protection and sea level rise adaptation using natural systems. Increase park staffing and upgrade Keller Beach visitor experience. Enhance 10 Miller/Knox drought tolerant landscape through stewardship improvements, such as removal of French broom and other invasive plants. 1,040,000
Develop nature-based flood protection for shoreline and facilities in anticipation of sea level rise. Improve marsh habitat for endangered Ridgway's rail. Improve 11 MLK Jr. Shoreline visitor experience with facility upgrades, and increased park and public safety personnel. Provide for expanded educational and recreational programming to serve the surrounding communities. 6,905,000 Enhance conservation and stewardship efforts. Provide 12 Oakland Zoo for youth engagement. 2,000,000
Stabilize banks of Hoffman Channel for shoreline protection, improved visitor access and healthier San 13 Point Isabel Francisco Bay water quality. Provide for conservation for endangered Ridgway's rail habitat and environmental maintenance. 600,000 Provide for park and public safety personnel to 14 Point Molate develop, operate and maintain future park facilities and the San Francisco Bay Trail. 2,350,000
5/15/2018 3 DRAFT - Commitment List - 20 years
Location Draft Ballot Commitment Total Allocation Line #
Provide for shoreline protection through natural systems at Dotson Family Marsh. Enhance habitat of native grasses and other species. Improve visitor use 15 Point Pinole facilities and San Francisco Bay water access. Increase educational and recreational programming to serve the surrounding communities. 3,450,000
Expand partnership with Save the Redwoods League for ongoing redwood conservation. Increase 16 Redwood interpretation of redwood natural history. Provide for creek restoration and erosion control for visitor safety and watershed health. 160,000
Expand partnership with Save the Redwoods League 17 Roberts for ongoing redwood conservation. Increase interpretation of redwood natural history. 60,000 Continue sustainable forest management practices consistent with the approved Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan to lessen Safe Healthy 18 the potential for wildland urban interface wildfire. Forests Develop a redwood forest management plan. Provide for stewardship of natural vegetation to improve forest health. 14,200,000 Enrich natural habitat for threatened pallid manzanita and other vegetation with increased stewardship Sibley/Huckleberry/ 19 efforts. Upgrade the Bay Area Ridge Trail for improved Claremont watershed health and trail safety. Increase park personnel. 1,125,000
5/15/2018 4 DRAFT - Commitment List - 20 years
Location Draft Ballot Commitment Total Allocation Line #
Enrich natural habitat for threatened pallid manzanita 20 Sobrante Ridge and other vegetation through stewardship efforts. 75,000
Improve water quality, habitat and recreational swimming experience at Lake Temescal with efforts 21 Temescal such as dredging. Provide for erosion control to benefit watershed health and recreational trail safety. 1,500,000
Increase stewardship staff to support protection of Wildcat Creek watershed. Restore recreational trails for erosion control and sensitive habitat protection. Improve access and pedestrian safety at the Brazil 22 Tilden Room and Botanical Garden Visitor Center. Begin design planning for park-wide improvements at visitor use facilities such as the Environmental Education Center, Little Farm and Botanical Garden Visitor Center. 200,000
Improve water quality across parklands with stewardship efforts for watershed protection and preservation of shorelines, marshes, lakes, riparian areas and urban creeks. Manage harmful algae blooms Water Resources - 23 for improved visitor and wildlife health. Increase Regional water supply in preparation for climate related weather events with facilities such as rainwater collection systems. Install additional water bottle filling stations throughout region. 4,800,000
5/15/2018 5 DRAFT - Commitment List - 20 years
Location Draft Ballot Commitment Total Allocation Line #
Improve protection of Wildcat Creek watershed by mitigating erosion. Enhance and restore natural habitat 24 Wildcat Canyon throughout park. Increase ADA trail access and safety for visitors. 150,000 Allocations TOTAL 59,130,000 10% Contingency TOTAL 6,600,000 TOTAL 65,730,000 ALL numbers are preliminary and subject to change.
5/15/2018 6
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV May 18, 2018
First-ever water tax proposed to tackle unsafe drinking water in California
AP Photo/John Locher In this Sept. 18, 2015 photo, a man loads a truck on farmland near Fresno, Calif. U.S. officials with the Geological Survey’s Sacramento office and elsewhere believe the amount of uranium increased in Central Valley drinking-water supplies over the last 150 years with the spread of farming.
By KATY MURPHY | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group PUBLISHED: August 23, 2017 at 10:49 am | UPDATED: August 24, 2017 at 10:31 am
SACRAMENTO — For the first time Californians would pay a tax on drinking water — 95 cents per month — under legislation aimed at fixing hundreds of public water systems with unsafe tap water.
Senate Bill 623, backed by a strange-bedfellows coalition of the agricultural lobby and environmental groups but opposed by water districts, would generate $2 billion over the next 15 years to clean up contaminated groundwater and improve faulty water systems and wells. The problem is most pervasive in rural areas with agricultural runoff.
“My message is short and direct: We are not Flint, Michigan,” co-author Sen. Robert Hertzberg, D-Van Nuys, said at a Wednesday rally outside the Capitol, where demonstrators held signs reading “Clean water is not a luxury” and “Water is a human right.” Ironically, many Californians are more aware of the crisis in Flint — where state and local officials in 2015 told residents about lead contamination in the drinking water, after claiming it was safe to drink — than about the water problems in their home state, said the measure’s main author, Sen. Bill Monning, D-Monterey. He called this “a pivotal time in our state’s history to do the right thing.”
SB 623 has been moving through the Legislature for months, but was amended Monday to include the tax on water for both homes and businesses. It also imposes fees on farms and dairies, roughly $30 million annually, to address some of the contamination caused by fertilizers and other chemicals. Because it includes new taxes, the proposal will need a two-thirds vote in each house to pass, which supporters concede will be a battle.
Still, Monning has been able to forge the unusual alliance of farmers and environmental groups, which rarely agree on public policy. He also has the support of at least one Republican lawmaker: Sen. Andy Vidak, a cherry farmer who said his Central Valley district — which includes Hanford and parts of Fresno and Bakersfield — is the epicenter of the drinking-water problem.
“This is very, very important to my constituents,” he said after the rally, as some of them began chanting on the Capitol steps. “This is one of the most important things in my district.”
But water agencies say taxing drinking water sets a dangerous precedent and that the bill would turn them into state tax collectors. “Water is essential to life. Should we tax drinking water? We don’t think so,” said Cindy Tuck, a spokeswoman for the Association of California Water Agencies.
Sue Stephenson, a spokeswoman for the Dublin San Ramon Services District, said she supported the intent of the proposal — potable drinking water for all — but argued that lawmakers should use the money in existing coffers.
“The whole purpose of the general fund is to help take care of disadvantaged communities,” she said. “There’s no reason that they could not also fund communities that need access to drinking water.”
Marie Barajas, of San Jose, had a similar reaction. “That’s not fair. We’re not responsible for that,” she said. “That’s why we pay taxes.”
Monning, however, argues that the general fund isn’t a reliable funding source and that the proposed tax on households, amounting to roughly $11.40 per year, is negligible. “You’re not going to notice it on your water bill,” he said.
The bill is now relegated with hundreds of others in the “suspense file” of the Assembly Appropriations Committee. The panel must decide by Sept. 1 to move it to the Assembly floor for a vote.
Selerina Chavez took a day off from work to drive from the Kern County city of Arvin for the rally. She said she hoped lawmakers would try to fix the problem posing health risks to her family and her neighbors, many of whom are farm workers or living on fixed incomes. When she moved from Ventura County more than 20 years ago, she said, it never occurred to her that the water would be unsafe for her family to drink. They drank it for years, she said, before she learned a few years ago that it contained unsafe levels of arsenic.
“I thought about my children,” she said in Spanish. “How many years have we been drinking this water?”
In addition to her regular water bill, she spends $40 per week buying drinking water. She also buys water for cooking.
Now, she said, “I have three water bills.”
SENATE BILL 623 What is it? SB 623, by Sen. Bill Monning, D-Monterey, would generate $2 billion over 15 years for a Safe and Affordable Drinking Water Fund, which would provide emergency water and longer- term system fixes for hundreds of communities whose tap water doesn’t meet safe drinking- water standards. Where would the money come from? The proposal would generate roughly $110 million per year through a 95-cent monthly fee on home water bills as well as taxes on businesses of up to $10 per month. Another $30 million would come from higher fees on agricultural and dairy businesses, industries whose chemicals contribute to the problem of contaminated groundwater. Who’s for it? Who’s against it? The bill is backed by the agriculture and dairy lobbies, as well as by a long list of environmental, social justice and civic groups — an unusual combo. Water districts are against the bill, saying that taxing water users creates a bad precedent and that collecting the money would be burdensome. Will it pass? If the Assembly Appropriations Committee moves the bill to the floor, it needs a two-thirds vote of each house, which is always a challenge. What’s more, Assembly Republican Leader Chad Mayes has faced intense blow-back for his bipartisan collaboration to extend California’s landmark climate program, called “cap and trade.” But SB 623 does have one Republican co-author: Sen. Andy Vidak, of Hanford.
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV May 18, 2018
California Republican voters get scant guidance from party on candidates
By John Wildermuth May 7, 2018 Updated: May 7, 2018 5:07pm
Photo: Gregory Bull / Associated Press Lots of candiate posters decorated the state Republican Party convention in San Diego, but party endorsements were scarce.
The big news out of the state GOP convention in San Diego over the weekend wasn’t who the Republicans endorsed, but who they didn’t. The split in the governor’s race, where neither John Cox nor Travis Allen received the 60 percent support needed for the party endorsement, got the headlines. That, however, was not the worst news for the Republicans.
The party managed endorsements in just three of the seven statewide constitutional offices on the June 5 primary ballot that are partisan races: Cole Harris for lieutenant governor, Steven Bailey for attorney general and Mark Meuser for secretary of state.
Throw in the U.S. Senate race, in which the party endorsed no one, and that’s five of eight major offices for which California Republicans weren’t able to come up with a name to guide their voters.
There’s a reason for that in the insurance commissioner’s race, since there isn’t a Republican on the ballot. But there’s a Republican running for state controller, two Republicans in the treasurer’s race and a whopping 11 looking to unseat Democratic U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
But those other races weren’t even discussed over the weekend, with GOP officials arguing that none of those candidates met party requirements for a speaking spot at the convention, much less an endorsement.
Job One of any major party is to recruit candidates who can get elected. But a Republican hasn’t been elected to a down-ballot statewide office since 2006 — and that candidate, Steve Poizner, is running for insurance commissioner this year as an independent, not as a Republican.
Down-ballot offices “are typically decided by a party vote, since generally no one knows who (the candidates) are,” said Tony Quinn, a former GOP consultant who is now an editor of the nonpartisan California Target Book, which looks at state elections.
But in Democrat-heavy California, Republicans have had problems recruiting top-tier candidates “because there’s no sign of any reason to expect they’ll be elected,” Quinn said.
Republicans, however, seem to be willing to give up without a fight. While Democratic incumbents like Feinstein and state Controller Betty Yee are tough targets for a GOP challenger, Republicans already are waving the white flag for open seats like treasurer and insurance commissioner.
Even if Republicans can’t find a candidate to love in these statewide elections, it’s important that they settle on someone they can at least live with. The alternative is the embarrassment of GOP voters, lacking guidance from the party, backing a little- known neo-Nazi like Patrick Little.
While Little was unceremoniously booted from the convention hall last weekend, his name is still on the ballot for U.S. Senate, with the same party status as the other unendorsed Republicans.
John Wildermuth is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @jfwildermuth
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV May 18, 2018
Silicon Valley water agency votes to give $650 mil to Brown’s tunnel project
By Kurtis Alexander
Updated 6:06 pm, Tuesday, May 8, 2018
Photo: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press 2016 People try to catch fish from the Sacramento River near Courtland. Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan would build two tunnels to move water through the delta.
The South Bay’s largest water agency gave a big lift to Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan for a pair of water conveyance tunnels through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta on Tuesday, committing $650 million to the effort. The $17 billion tunnels project, which would help move water from Northern California to the drier south, has been among the governor’s top priorities but has lacked the necessary funding to move forward. The Santa Clara Valley Water District came out against the proposal in October, reiterating a common concern that the cost of the tunnels might not justify the unknown boost in water supplies, but reversed itself with this week’s 4-3 vote by the agency’s board. The majority agreed the project will ensure steadier water deliveries, even if they can’t quantify the benefit. “Simply put, this courageous decision will help 2 million Santa Clarans have a more reliable water supply,” the governor said in a statement after the board meeting. The agency’s vote follows a similar decision last month by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the state’s largest residential water provider. After backing away from the project over cost concerns, the district decided to provide $11 billion to the tunnels, giving new momentum to the then-idling effort. Brown has heralded the proposed 35-mile delta tunnels, formally called California WaterFix, as the best way to make sure the Bay Area, San Joaquin Valley and Southern California get a share of the far north’s more plentiful water supplies. Concerns about fish and other wildlife in the delta often slow north-south deliveries as state and federal water officials limit pumping to protect the estuary. But the plan is controversial. While Brown and the California Department of Water Resources say massive tunnels beneath the area will limit the disruptive pumping and protect the wildlife above, many fear the project will only lead to more Northern California water being shipped south, stripping the delta of its needed supply. “We have worked extensively to attempt to stop litigation and to focus on positive solutions for delta and state water management,” said Barbara Barrigan-Parrilla, executive director of the environmental group Restore the Delta, which opposes the tunnel plan. “But DWR, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and Gov. Brown insist on forcing the project on Californians. Litigation is a form of collaboration, and the next chapter of this fight that is far from over.” The courts may indeed have final say over the tunnels as problems with financing dwindle. While the state’s largest agricultural water supplier, Westlands Water District, remains unsupportive of the project, others have stepped up. The Santa Clara Valley Water District’s board said its change of course came largely as a result of the agency’s financial risk being lessened by Southern California’s Metropolitan district’s recent decision to pick up so much of the tab. “Protecting water supplies for homes and businesses in Silicon Valley is a top priority, and we’re still working to get the best deal for the residents and businesses here,” said board member Tony Estremera. “This is just the first step in a long effort to secure our water supplies.” The Santa Clara Valley Water District gets about half its water from Northern California reservoirs, and sells it to many cities and water agencies in the South Bay. District officials have estimated that contributing to the tunnels plan would prompt water rates for South Bay households to rise gradually over future years, by an average of $10.26 a month in 2033. Kurtis Alexander is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @kurtisalexander
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV May 18, 2018
Patagonia vs. Donald Trump
We all knew the legendary outerwear company Patagonia lived and breathed the adventurous life. We knew they cared about the environment. But it wasn’t till Trump came along that we realized they were ready to fight.
Patagonia was built in the image of its founder, Yvon Chouinard. In late January, when we met for the first time, that image included a flannel shirt, beat-up trousers, and flip-flops. Chouinard is an unlikely nominee for wealthiest man in the room. He walks with an air of deflection, as if to duck attention. “It's funny, the first time I met him,” the celebrated mountain climber Tommy Caldwell told me, “I walked into the cafeteria at Patagonia, and I was like, ‘That guy looks like a homeless dude.’ ”
Chouinard is both a beatnik dropout and a renegade capitalist. A revolutionary rock climber in his day, who still disappears regularly to surf and fly-fish, he oversees a corporation that did $800 million in sales last year. At 79, Chouinard looks like a recovering mountain troll who enjoys sunshine, food, and wine but will probably outlast the rest of us if the apocalypse hits tomorrow. “I've spent enough time in the mountains,” he told me, “that I can get from point A to point B safely and efficiently. If shit hits the fan, I could feed my family off the coast. But I'm totally lost in the desert. I don't understand the desert at all.”
In the months leading up to our meeting, Chouinard and Patagonia had seen a few disasters. The Thomas wildfire, the largest in California history, torched the hills around the company's Ventura headquarters. Five employees lost their homes, and then came the mudslides. All of which took place while Patagonia dealt with a crisis back east: a decision by President Trump, the great un- doer, to shrink some of his predecessor's national monuments. The pledge was a first for an American president; limiting the size of monuments like Bears Ears in Utah would mean the largest reduction of protected land in U.S. history. Which is what led Patagonia, in early December, to change its home page to a stark message: “The President Stole Your Land.”
In response, the U.S. House Committee on Natural Resources sent out an e-mail with the subject line “Patagonia: don't buy it.” This wasn't just Trump whining on Twitter that Nordstrom wasn't supporting his daughter's fashion line. The federal government, run by allegedly pro-business Republicans, basically called for the boycott of a privately held company—provoking a former director of the Office of Government Ethics to label the action “a bizarre and dangerous departure from civic norms.”
Chouinard has been known to be a prickly contrarian. He doesn't do e-mail. His cell phone goes largely untouched. But he's adept at delivering powerful sound bites. In December, Chouinard went on CNN—wearing what looked to be the same flannel shirt from the day we met—and said, “I think the only thing this administration understands is lawsuits. We're losing this planet. We have an evil government.… And I'm not going to stand back and just let evil win.”
Which explains why Patagonia is presently suing the White House in federal court.
Jacques Pavlovsky / Sygma / Corbis / Sygma Via Getty Images Andy Hayt / Sports Illustrated / Getty Images
Yvon Chouinard started out making gear for himself and his climbing buddies, including Tom Brokaw (right). COURTESY OF RICK RID GEWAY / PATAGONIA
This is not your parents’ fleece-maker. We're past the old jokes about Patagucci or Fratagonia. Sure, you still see a Synchilla vest on every venture capitalist in Palo Alto; not for nothing does the Jared Dunn character on Silicon Valley possess a Patagonia collection supreme. But the vest also crisscrosses popular culture: DeRay Mckesson, one of the faces of Black Lives Matter, wears Patagonia so often his vest has its own Twitter feed. A$AP Rocky shows up in Snap-T sweaters. Louis Vuitton cribbed its Classic Retro-X jacket for a mountaineering look. Universities from Oregon to Ole Miss are Patagonia-saturated, and meanwhile, vintage finds—the rarest featuring the original “big label” logo—fetch a premium on eBay.
The company's HQ looks like a cross between a college campus and a recycling center. Solar panels everywhere. Wet suits drying on the roofs of cars—the five-acre spread is a short walk from the beach. The company has an on-site school where employees can enroll their kids through second grade, one of the reasons that Patagonia has near gender parity among employees. Many of its CEOs have been female, including the current one, Rose Marcario. Chouinard writes in his memoir–cum– business bible, Let My People Go Surfing, “I was brought up surrounded by women. I have ever since preferred that accommodation.”
Chouinard was born in Maine but formed in California. The son of a hardworking French-Canadian carpenter, he moved with his family to Burbank, just north of Los Angeles, in 1946, when Chouinard was 8; it was his mother's idea, to improve his dad's asthma. In California, Chouinard stood out, not in a good way. He was short, spoke French, and had a name like a girl. He hated school. High school history class was for practicing holding his breath, so he could free-dive deeper to catch wild lobster off Malibu. “I learned a long time ago that if you want to be a winner,” he told me, “you invent your own games.” So he ran away, to Griffith Park to hunt rabbits, the Los Angeles River to catch crawdads. It was a funny wilderness in the Valley—his favorite swimming hole was fed by a movie studio's film-development lab. “Yeah, I used to swim in the outfall,” he said, cracking up.
Then he discovered climbing. In the 1950s, age 16, Chouinard drove to Wyoming and climbed Gannett Peak, the state's highest mountain. Soon he met other young climbers, like Royal Robbins and Tom Frost, and migrated to Yosemite, where he lived off scraps—at one point, tins of cat food— and made first ascents up the granite walls. “In the '60s, it was kind of the height of the fossil-fuel age,” he said. “You could get a part-time job anytime you felt like it. Gas was 25 cents a gallon. You could buy a used car for 20 bucks. Camping was free. It was pretty easygoing.”
Chouinard and his friends would transform rock climbing, helping to bring about the modern “clean” version, where you no longer hammer iron spikes into the cracks to aid your progress. This led to athletes like Caldwell, a Patagonia “climbing ambassador,” pulling off accomplishments no one thought possible—like the first free climb of Yosemite's Dawn Wall. Chouinard also met his wife of 47 years, Malinda, in Yosemite. At the time, she was a climber who worked as a weekend cabin maid. According to Chouinard, the moment that clinched it was a day they were hanging out and Malinda saw some women pull up and throw a beer can out the window. She told them to pick it up. They gave her the finger. Malinda went over, tore the license plate off their car with her bare hands, and turned it in to the rangers' office. Chouinard was in love.
Patagonia got its start as Chouinard Equipment, selling the climbing gear that Yvon was making for his friends. The first apparel was equally functional, designed to resist rock: sturdy corduroy trousers, stiff rugby shirts like the ones Yvon brought back from a climbing trip in Scotland. When the clothing started to take off, they decided to separate the garments from the gear; they just needed a good name. As Chouinard explained: “To most people, especially then, Patagonia was a name like Timbuktu or Shangri-la—far-off, interesting, not quite on the map.”
These days, that “far-off” land is thriving. With Marcario at the company, revenue and profits have quadrupled. In addition to clothing, the company produces films, runs a food business, even has a venture-capital fund to invest in eco-friendly start-ups; one, Bureo, makes skateboards and sunglasses from former fishing nets. Along the way, Patagonia began donating 1 percent of its sales to environmental groups—$89 million as of April 2017—and led the garment industry in cleaning up its supply chains, demanding better practices from factories overseas. (Chouinard, his wife, and their two adult children remain the sole owners of Patagonia.)
For all the success, an enduring thorn sticks in Chouinard's side: A clothing company can't help but pollute. This season's new puffy jacket is tomorrow's landfill. “The best thing you can do for the planet as far as clothing goes is to buy used clothes and wear them until you just can't wear them anymore,” Chouinard said. “It's like a car. If you get rid of your Chevy and buy a Prius, you're not doing anything for the planet—you just put one more car on the road. Someone else is going to be driving your Chevy.”
In 2011, on Black Friday, Patagonia ran a full-page ad in The New York Times, headlined “Don't Buy This Jacket.” The company vowed to repair or recycle old garments while also pleading for customers to stop buying crap they didn't need. Of course, Patagonia's ad made headlines—and the company sold a ton of jackets. “But it also forced us to put in the largest garment-repair center in North America,” Chouinard said. “I made a commitment to our customer that we were going to put as much quality as we could into the product. If it breaks down, we were going to fix it, and if you no longer want it, we're going to find another home for it, and then when it's finally completely finished, we were going to recycle it into more product.” He added, “It wasn't a way to sell more product, even though, of course, that jacket sold like crazy. It's kind of Zen. You do the right thing and good things happen.”
In the Trump era, Chouinard and his company feel galvanized. Following the election, a junior employee had the goofy idea to give away Patagonia's Black Friday profits to hundreds of grassroots environmental organizations, the kind that often work for changes the current administration hates. But not just a share of the day's revenue: all of it. The idea was kicked up the chain. Within days, the company had made a promise on social media. Sales started to pour in.
The previous year, Patagonia had done $2.5 million on Black Friday. In 2016 it was $10 million— and they gave it all away. “It cost us a bunch of money,” Chouinard said, “because it was total revenue. But 60 percent of the customers were new buyers. Sixty percent. It was one of the best business things we've ever done.”
In Ventura, weeks after the Thomas fire, the air still smelled of smoke. Patagonia's headquarters had been used to house evacuees until the fires got too near. Later, the Ventura store gave away long underwear to firefighters working nights in the mountains and fishing waders to crews trying to find people in the mud. I felt a little awkward, then, considering the context, when I told Chouinard that Patagonia's activism seemed pretty convenient when it did so well for the bottom line. What's “Zen” to his mind might sound to others like “good marketing.” He conceded the point, somewhat, but strongly disagreed: “What we say we're doing, we're actually doing. A lot of companies are just greenwashing, and young people can see right through it. Kids are smart, so we don't talk down to them. Our marketing philosophy is just: Tell people who we are. Which is, tell people what we do, and don't try to be anything more than that.”
I asked Chouinard about the lawsuit and his personal feelings about Trump. He thought for a moment, perhaps to contain himself. “What pisses me off about this administration is that they're all these ‘climate deniers’—well, that's bullshit. They know what's happening. What they're doing is purposely not doing anything about climate for the sake of making more money.” He paused, bowed his head, and scraped his fingernails on the table. He sat up again. “That is truly evil. That's why I call this administration evil. They know what they're doing, and they're doing it to make more money.”
Gradually, the conversation went even darker. About Trump, Chouinard added, “It's like a kid who's so frustrated he wants to break everything. That's what we've got.” I asked sarcastically if any part of him was an optimist. Marcario, sitting next to him, laughed loudly. “Did you just ask Yvon if he's an optimist?” Chouinard smiled and cocked his head. “I'm totally a pessimist. But you know, I'm a happy person. Because the cure for depression is action.”
Patagonia has always worn its pro-environment politics on its fleeced sleeve. The latest fight is no different.
COURTESY OF TIM DAVI S / PATAGONIA
In December, Chouinard was invited to Washington to testify before the House Committee on Natural Resources. He refused. In a response Patagonia made public, Chouinard wrote to the committee chairman: The American people made it clear in public comments that they want to keep the monuments intact, but they were ignored by Secretary Zinke, your committee, and the administration. We have little hope that you are working in good faith with this invitation. To me, he scoffed and shook his head; Washington's the kind of desert a man like him could get lost in. “You sit down in a little chair, and they're up on high chairs looking down at you, and they give you two and a half minutes to give your testimony,” he said. “I'm not going to play that game.”
It reminded me of how Chouinard had described his childhood, growing up in Burbank, facing off against teachers and bullies. When I asked him how it felt to be attacked by the administration, he laughed. “I'm stoked. If you're not getting attacked, you're not trying hard enough.”
Utah is currently feeling the effects of one of the company's political actions. The outdoor-retail industry gathers each winter at an enormous trade show to flaunt new gear. Traditionally, the event had been held in Salt Lake City, giving the city a roughly $20 million boost—until last February, when Patagonia led the charge to move the show. Along with companies like REI and The North Face, Patagonia had gotten fed up with Utah's Republican governor, Gary Herbert, who was determined to roll back protections on his state's public lands. Herbert was reportedly furious. Montana senator Jon Tester said the relocation had sent “a hell of a message.” At this year's show, in Colorado, it was a topic of conversation everywhere I went. An industry veteran pointed out to me how, for one example, REI has plenty more members than the NRA but no lobbying muscle to compare. Now maybe that could change. “That’s why I call this administration evil. They know what they’re doing, and they’re doing it to make more money.”
I wandered the trade show for two days. Among the tens of thousands of attendees, Patagonia was easily the unofficial clothier of the convention, if not the city of Denver. Backpacks, jackets, trucker hats. On the street, outside the convention center, a man selling a newspaper that benefits the homeless, the Denver Voice, was wearing a Patagonia hat and top-of-the-line down jacket.
At one point, I caught a panel of executives discussing access to public lands. Corley Kenna, Patagonia's director of global communications, mentioned that, in addition to what had happened in Utah, numerous other monuments were on the chopping block—not to mention the Arctic Refuge, which Trump had just opened for oil drilling, or U.S. coastlines, which he'd vowed to exploit for drilling, despite resistance from the vast majority of the states themselves. Kenna pledged that the company, with its partners, would maintain its resolve: “We're fighting an administration that lies, that flat-out lies.”
Building off the momentum around public lands, Patagonia is doubling down on its activist streak. In February, it launched a new online platform to connect customers with environmental groups. This spring it will announce a certification it's spearheading for “regenerative organic agriculture,” Chouinard's latest obsession. That's the practice where farmers, through topsoil management, absorb carbon from the climate. As Chouinard sees it, it's possibly our best shot against climate change—and likely good for Patagonia's bottom line. “In business, this is what we do here—we just break the rules,” he said. “Life is so much easier by breaking the rules than trying to conform to the rules. It's so much easier.”
For a doomsayer on the verge of becoming an octogenarian, Chouinard stays awfully busy: writing op-eds, developing new products, stoking outrage. Assuming he doesn't get cancer from those childhood swims in photo-processing chemicals, I don't just think he'll outlast Trump, who's eight years his junior; he'll probably outlast me, and I'm only staring down 41. The solution, Yvon-style, would appear to be to remain active, to remain engaged. In a 1992 letter to employees titled “The next hundred years,” Chouinard wrote, “I have a little different definition of evil than most people. When you have the opportunity and the ability to do good and you do nothing, that's evil. Evil doesn't always have to be an overt act. It can be merely the absence of good.” The cure is action.
Rosecrans Baldwin's latest novel, The Last Kid Left, was one of NPR's Best Books of 2017.
This story originally appeared in the April 2018 issue with the title "Patagonia vs. Evil."
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV May 18, 2018
SF to consider banning plastic straws
By Dominic Fracassa May 14, 2018 Updated: May 15, 2018 10:34am
Photo: Scott Strazzante / The Chronicle Eco-friendly straws at Outerlands in San Francisco on Friday, May 11, 2018. Legislation to ban plastic straws in San Francisco will be introuduced by Supervisors Katy Tang and Ahsha Safai.
In San Francisco, plastic drinking straws could soon be going the way of non- reusable shopping bags and Styrofoam containers — that is to say, strictly prohibited within city limits.
On Tuesday, Supervisor Katy Tang is expected to roll out legislation that would count San Francisco among the growing list of cities seeking to cut down on environmentally noxious litter by prohibiting restaurants, bars and coffee shops from stuffing plastic straws, stirrers or cocktail sticks into the drinks they serve. The ubiquitous plastic straw has become the focus in recent years of increasingly intense scrutiny from environmental advocates and policymakers, who have raised concerns about the huge amounts of plastic, single-use food-ware products ending up in landfills and the oceans.
“It’s sort of this moment where everyone is realizing just how many straws people are using on a daily basis, and that we really need to get a handle on this, or else our environment is going to suffer,” Tang said.
Both San Luis Obispo and Davis enacted similar ordinances last year that require restaurants to ask dine-in customers if they want a single-use straw before providing one. A ban similar to Tang’s will go into effect in Malibu on June 1, and a planned prohibition of plastic straws and utensils will kick in this July in Seattle. British Prime Minister Theresa May called for a nationwide prohibition on plastic straws last month.
Berkeley officials are considering a broader waste-reduction ordinance that would put a 25-cent surcharge on disposable cups and containers, and make paper straws free upon request. A proposed statewide law introduced by Assemblyman Ian Calderon, D-Whittier (Los Angeles County), would make single-use plastic straws available by request only.
Banning plastic straws and replacing them with compostable paper ones or reusable alternatives represents a straightforward way to change consumer behavior with a minimal impact on the city’s food-service industry, Tang said.
“Why do we have straws all the time?” said Supervisor Ahsha Safaí, who is co-sponsoring the bill with Tang. “And if we’re going to have straws, it’s easy to have an alternative that’s much more recyclable or reusable or washable.”
The proposed ordinance would also mandate that a number of other products — including beverage lids, condiment packets and napkins — be made available only upon request or at self-serve stations. The bill, which would take effect in July 2019, also requires that events for 100 or more people on city property provide reusable cups as an option for at least 10 percent of attendees.
Photo: Photos By Scott Strazzante / The Chronicle Supervisors Katy Tang (left) and Ahsha Safaí are co-sponsoring legislation that would impose strict limits on the use of plastic straws in San Francisco.
A 2011 study by Clean Water Action found that takeout food and beverage packaging “comprises the most significant type of trash on Bay Area streets,” accounting for 67 percent of all street trash by volume. Eliminating plastic straws in San Francisco would also inch the city closer to its ambitious goal of becoming a “zero-waste” city by 2020, meaning no trash would be sent to landfills or incinerators.
The push to purge plastic straws has received a big boost from recent reportsthat the enormous accumulation of plastic and other trash floating in the ocean between San Francisco and Hawaii has grown to cover an area nearly four times the size of California.
Critics of plastic straws also frequently site a widely circulated and graphic video showing marine biologists struggling to remove one from a sea turtle’s nostril for nearly eight minutes. The video has more than 24 million views on YouTube.
Discarded plastic straws can easily find their way to the ocean via storm drains. And even when they’re made out of recyclable materials, the slim, flimsy tubes frequently slip past sorting and recycling machines, often ending up in landfills anyway. “It’s not feasible to recycle it. We have an amazing system, but it’s not feasible to recycle all these little, tiny things,” said Debbie Raphael, director of San Francisco’s Department of the Environment, which would implement the plastic-straw ban.
“These are little items that so easily become litter,” Raphael said. “If you ask any coastal cleanup person about what they’re finding, they’re finding cigarette butts and small plastic items, because these things get out of our hands so quickly.”
Should the ordinance pass, the Department of the Environment would help businesses comply with the new rules by providing restaurants with lists of suppliers carrying approved products.
“We care very deeply that our businesses ... can comply with these rules,” Raphael said.
But some restaurants have already moved away from plastic straws. In what they say reflects a desire to have a more positive impact on the environment, some San Francisco restaurant owners have switched to paper straws, and, in some cases, provide them only upon request.
“Restaurants are really focusing on how they can support the ecosystem,” said Gwyneth Borden, executive director of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association. In January, the association partnered with the San Francisco chapter of the Surfrider Foundation to start a “straws suck” campaign, encouraging restaurants to switch to compostable straws and offer them by request only.
Photo: Scott Strazzante / The Chronicle Outerlands' owner Dave Muller supplies eco-friendly straws to his customers who request straws at his restaurant in San Francisco, CA on Friday, May 11, 2018. Legislation to ban plastic straws in San Francisco will be introuduced by Supervisors Katy Tang and Ahsha Safai.
“Generally, we can live with planning plastic straws. It will cost some businesses more, but ultimately that’s a small price to pay for helping the environment,” Borden said.
Dave Muller, co-owner of Outerlands, said his Outer Sunset restaurant replaced plastic straws with compostable paper ones about six months ago. His initial reservations about whether paper straws would disintegrate in drinks or whether customers might be put off by an unfamiliar product were quickly put to rest. Prior to that, Outerlands had offered straws upon request, which, Muller said, helped to cut down on the amount of straws they had to purchase by 90 percent.
“Anything we can do to encourage the health of the ocean, which is a major topic for food as well, is something we’re enthusiastic about,” Muller said. “There’s a possibility that someone might get upset about having to pay more for straws, or that customers are used to this or that, but people were used to smoking cigarettes inside of restaurants not that long ago, so we have to adjust.”
Borden said paper straws can cost as much as seven times what plastic ones do, which could impact small cafes or bubble tea shops. But when it comes to questions of cost, Doug Marschke, owner of the Taco Shop at Underdogs on Irving Street, said, “We’re in business to make profits, but we’re also contributing to a lot of the degradation of the Earth.
“For the places where (buying compostable straws) is such a large economic impact, they probably don’t have a great business model,” said Marschke, whose taco shop stopped using plastic straws about two years ago.
“You should be able to change your business model and absorb that cost,” he said. “We have to be conscious of what we’re doing to the society as a whole.”
Dominic Fracassa is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @dominicfracassa
Dominic Fracassa City Hall Reporter