BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, July 20, 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 2329 - Special Districts Board of Directors Compensation (Obernote R – Big Bear Lake) 2. AB 2470 – Invasive Species Fund (Grayson D – Concord) 3. ACR 248 – Parks Make Life Better! Month (Garcia D – Coachella) 4. SB 1072 - Regional Climate Collaborative Program Grants (Leyva D – Chino) 5. Other Matters
B. OTHER MATTERS 1. Update on SB 1316 – Carnegie State I Doyle/Pfuehler Vehicular Recreation Area Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area (Glazer D-Orinda) 2. Update on AB 2137 – Regional Parks and I Doyle/Pfuehler Open Space District General Manager Powers (Mayes R-Yucca Valley) 3. Legislative activities pertaining wildfire I Doyle/Pfuehler prevention and mitigation. 4. Update on SB 866 – Employment Law I Pfuehler/Sater
5. Prop. 68 Park Bond Results I Pfuehler/Baldinger 6. Other Matters
II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS R Pfuehler A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. S. 3001 and H.R. 6040 – Contra Costa Canal Transfer Act (Feinstein D-CA and DeSaulnier D-CA) 2. H. Res. 941 – July as Park and Recreation Month (Thompson R-PA) 3. S. 2831 and H.R. 5751 – Golden Spike 150th Anniversary Act (Hatch R-UT and Bishop R-UT) 4. Other Matters
B. OTHER MATTERS I Pfuehler 1. Other Matters
III. MEASURE CC EXTENSION UPDATE I Pfuehler/Baldinger
IV. ARTICLES
V. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT Individuals wishing to address the Committee on a topic not on the agenda may do so by completing a speaker’s form and submitting it to the recording secretary.
VII. BOARD COMMENTS
(R) Recommendation for Future Board Consideration (I) Information (D) Discussion Legislative Committee Members Future Meetings: 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, Alts. Colin Coffey and Ayn Wieskamp)
FROM: Robert E. Doyle, General Manager Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager
SUBJECT: Board Legislative Committee Meeting WHEN: Friday, July 20, 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 2329 – Special Districts Board of Directors Compensation (Obernote R-Big Bear Lake) Assembly Member Obernote’s bill creates an amendment to Section 5536 of the Public Resources Code to state if a Board Member participates in more than five meetings per month a written policy must be adopted by the Board starting January 1, 2019. More than five meetings will continue to be possible, it will just have to be justified and transparent in a public forum as to why they are needed. The District is permitted, in existing Public Resources Code, a max of 10 meetings. Originally, this bill was an expansion of the number of meetings Board Members of certain district types can be compensated for. While this bill, in most cases, still expands the number of meetings Board Members are eligible to be compensated for, the Legislature is asking there be additional transparency. There is no reduction in the number of meetings Board Members can attend, only an expansion. It will create more paperwork for the District, but not likely to fundamentally change meeting policy.
Staff Recommendation: Support
2. AB 2470 – Invasive Species Fund (Grayson D-Concord) Assembly Member Grayson’s bill establishes an Invasive Species Fund (ISF), to be appropriated by the legislature, to help (among other things): • Prevent the introduction of invasive species. • Detect, control and eradicate invasive species. • Develop statewide education, outreach and branding of invasive species.
Projects are recommended by the California Invasive Species Advisory Committee (CISAC) which the legislation codifies. The 19 CISAC members are largely selected from state agencies. The members are appointed by the Invasive Species Council of California (ISCC) which is also codified by this legislation. The ISCC is an interagency council that coordinates activities relating to invasive species. The ISCC is chaired by the secretary of the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) and vice-chaired by the secretary of the
1
California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) and includes the secretaries of the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), the California Health and Human Services Agency (CHHA) and the Office of Emergency Services.
The ISF monies are distributed to three categories: 1. 60% to eligible weed management areas or county agricultural commissions for the control and abatement of noxious and invasive weeds according to an approved integrated weed management plan. 2. 20% toward research on the biology, ecology or management of noxious and invasive weeds. These monies shall be made available to qualified research applicants through a grant program administered by the department. 3. 20% for developing new control strategies, biological control agents, public and private workshops and weed mapping.
The Author’s staff believes the District is eligible for funding under at least categories two and three.
The legislation is sponsored by the California Association of Nurseries and Garden Centers and the California Invasive Plant Council. It is supported by Friends of Alhambra Creek, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, and Sonoma County Agriculture Preservation and Open Space District, among others.
Staff Recommendation: Support
3. ACR 248 – Parks Make Life Better! Month (Garcia D-Coachella) Assembly Member Eduardo Garcia introduced legislation to declare July 2018, “Parks Make Life Better!” Month. The resolution recognizes the important role parks play in California’s communities, in reducing obesity and increasing physical activity, and the significance of the $92 billion outdoor industry. The resolution is supported by the California Park and Recreation Society.
Staff recommendation: Support
4. SB 1072 – Regional Climate Collaborative Program Grants (Leyva D-Chino) Assembly Member Leyva’s legislation establishes the Regional Climate Collaborative Program to be administered by the Strategic Growth Council (SGC) to assist disadvantaged and low- income communities to mitigate for and adapt to a changing climate. The program would authorize the SGC to award grants to collaboratives for a variety of local capacity building activities. It also requires state agencies or departments to target funds to under resourced communities. Local governments can be part of the collaborative.
The bill is sponsored by the Trust for Public Land and The Greenlining Institute. It is supported by the California League of Conservation Voters, California Park & Recreation Society, California State Parks Foundation and Richmond Trees, among others. The District has supported in concept, but is seeking formal support approval by the Board.
Staff recommendation: Support
2
B. OTHER MATTERS 1. Update on SB 1316 – Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area (Glazer D-Orinda) The District is supporting Senator Glazer’s effort to authorize the Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) to dispose of the “Alameda-Tesla Expansion Area” to permanently preserve the land for conservation purposes. The original language of the bill would authorize the Director of General Services to transfer the land to a local agency for less than fair market value if it is for the purpose of creating a park or open space. Assembly Member Susan Eggman D-Stockton is seeking to set the floor for the transfer of the property at $9 million. That is the number the OHV lobby claim they need to recoup all costs associated with the Alameda-Tesla property. There is some concern about whether the property has been properly appraised to justify the $9 million figure. The District has proposed to add a line after the $9 million figure which states, “provided that or subject to an independent appraisal of the property supports that value.”
2. Update on AB 2137 – Regional Parks and Open Space District General Manager Powers (Mayes R- Yucca Valley) AB 2137 has been amended to broaden the scope beyond just Riverside Park and Open Space District. It now makes $50,000 the limit by which the general manager of any park or open space district can authorize without needing direct board approval. It also allows a district, by board action, to increase the amount by which the general manager may bind the district above the $50,000 by up to 2% annually above the prior year’s limit. While the Park District supported the original intent of the bill, the 2% annual increase in the limit has a direct impact on the Park District.
3. Legislative Activities Pertaining to Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Advocate Houston and staff will discuss the various pieces of legislation which have been introduced to address wildfire prevention and mitigation. Included in this staff report is an attachment which illustrates the various fire recovery bills from 2018 and, through color coding, indicates whether the District has considered the specific legislation.
4. Update on SB 866 – Employment Law Assistant District Counsel Rachel Sater will discuss SB 866 which was included as a trailer bill in the final state budget as a direct response to the Supreme Court’s anticipated, and now adopted, holding in Janus v. AFSCME. SB 866 addresses the handling of dues reductions, mass communications to employees regarding union membership and the confidentiality of new employee orientations.
5. Prop. 68 Park Bond Results Government Affairs Manager Erich Pfuehler and Legislative Assistant Lisa Baldinger will provide a PowerPoint overview of the election results for Prop. 68. The findings demonstrate the significant role the Bay Area played in the passage of Prop, 68.
6. Other Matters
3
II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. S. 3001 and H.R. 6040 – Contra Costa Canal Transfer Act (Feinstein D-CA and DeSaulnier D-CA) This legislation would enable the transfer of administration, operation, maintenance and replacement of the Contra Costa Canal to the Contra Costa Water District (CCWD). The District has been able to include language that the transfer would be subject to “valid existing rights and existing recreation agreements between the Bureau of Reclamation and the East Bay Regional Park District for Contra Loma Regional Park.” CCWD is seeking the transfer to upgrade the canal system by enclosing it and making it safer. General Manager Robert E. Doyle and CCWD General Manager Jerry Brown have been working very closely on all aspects of the transfer. The District is supportive.
Staff Recommendation: Support
2. H. Res. 941 – July as Park and Recreation Month (Thompson R-PA) Representative Glenn Thompson has introduced this legislation for the designation of the month of July to be “Park and Recreation Month.” This legislation intends to recognize the importance of public park and recreation facilities and activities in federal, state and local parks. The legislation aligns with the Park District’s Master Plan goals as it endorses the physical and mental health, sense of community, economic benefits and natural disaster resiliency provided by parklands. It emphasizes the $154 billion in economic activity generated annually by public recreation areas and the 1.1 million jobs parks and recreation support. This legislation would serve as a means to recognize and honor the Park District’s 800 plus employees.
Staff Recommendation: Support
3. S. 2831 and H.R. 5751 – Golden Spike 150th Anniversary Act (Hatch R-UT and Bishop R-UT) This legislation re-designates the Golden Spike National Historic Site as a unit of the National Park Service (NPS) as a Historical Park. It also establishes within NPS the Transcontinental Railroad Network. Sites that have a verifiable connection to the history, construction and legacy of the Transcontinental Railroad are eligible to be considered as part of the Network. The Niles Canyon Railroad would likely be eligible for consideration, and potentially could become a unit of the National Park Service. The District has an interest in the Niles Canyon Railroad corridor, as most preferred trail alignments through the canyon would run adjacent to the Railroad at certain points.
Staff Recommendation: Watch
4. Other Matters
B. OTHER MATTERS 1. Other Matters
4
III. MEASURE CC EXTENSION UPDATE Government Affairs Manager Erich Pfuehler and Legislative Assistant Lisa Baldinger will present a PowerPoint to discuss key elements of the public education effort as the extension moves forward to the November ballot.
IV. ARTICLES
V. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT
VI. BOARD COMMENTS
5
Page Intentionally Left Blank B. 3. 2018 Fire Recovery Legislation Overview - East Bay Regional Park District Legislative Committee
Bill Number Author Title Summary AB-1342 Flora Greenhouse Gas The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 designates the State Air Resources Board as the Reduction Fund: healthy state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of greenhouse gases. The act forest programs, organic requires the state board to approve a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to the waste projects, and statewide greenhouse gas emissions level in 1990 to be achieved by 2020 and to ensure that statewide recycling projects. greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to at least 40% below the 1990 level by 2030. The act authorizes the state board to include the use of market-based compliance mechanisms. Existing law requires all moneys, except for fines and penalties, collected by the state board as part of a market-based compliance mechanism to be deposited in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and to be available upon appropriation. Existing law continuously appropriates 35% of the annual proceeds of the fund for transit, affordable housing, and sustainable communities programs and 25% of the annual proceeds of the fund for certain components of a specified high-speed rail project. This bill would make moneys from the fund, upon appropriation, available to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for healthy forest programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions caused by uncontrolled wildfires, as specified; to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery for instate organic waste recycling projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions, specified; and to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery for instate recycling projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and help achieve the state’s policy goal that not less than 75% of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020.
AB-1391 Patterson Forest resources: state Existing law requires the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to establish a fire prevention fee in responsibility area fire an amount not to exceed $150 to be charged on each habitable structure on a parcel that is within a state prevention: vegetation responsibility area. Existing law requires the fee moneys to be expended, upon appropriation, in specified management. ways, including to reimburse the State Board of Equalization’s expenses incurred in the collection of the fee and to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection and to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for administrative purposes, with excess moneys being expended only for specified fire prevention activities, as provided. Existing law requires a person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains a building or structure in, upon, or adjoining a land with various types of flammable material, including forest-covered lands, to maintain defensible space of 100 feet, as provided. This bill would authorize fee money to be expended to provide loans or grants to a person who is at or below 500% of the federal poverty level for purposes of complying with the above law.
July 20, 2018 B. 3. 2018 Fire Recovery Legislation Overview - East Bay Regional Park District Legislative Committee
Bill Number Author Title Summary AB-1954 Patterson Timber harvest plans: The Z’berg-Nejedly Forest Practices Act of 1973 prohibits a person from conducting timber operations, exemption: reducing as defined, unless a timber harvesting plan prepared by a registered professional forester has been flammable materials. submitted to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. The act authorizes the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to exempt from some or all of those provisions of the act a person engaging in specified forest management activities, including a person engaged in forest management whose activities are limited to the cutting or removal of trees on the person’s property in compliance with existing laws relating to defensible space, as provided, and requires the board to adopt regulations to implement this exemption no later than January 1, 2016. Existing law requires the department evaluate the effects of this above exemption and report its recommendations to the Legislature based on that evaluation, as provided. Existing law makes the above exemption inoperative 3 years after the effective date of regulations adopted by the board or no later than January 1, 2019. This bill would extend the inoperative date to January 1, 2022, and would delete the reporting requirement.
AB-1956 Limon D- Fire prevention activites: Assembly Member Limon’s bill would establish a fire prevention working group and a local assistance grant Santa local assistance grant program to improve fire prevention in California. A key goal is to ensure fire prevention activities happen Barbara program. 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.
July 20, 2018 B. 3. 2018 Fire Recovery Legislation Overview - East Bay Regional Park District Legislative Committee
Bill Number Author Title Summary AB-2089 Mathis R Volunteer firefighters Current law provides for the organization of fire companies in unincorporated towns by filing a certificate background checks with the Fire and Rescue Operational Area Coordinator in the same county, or other county agency as designated by ordinance of the county board of supervisors. Under current law, a fire company is staffed by officers and volunteer firefighters. This bill would amend those provisions to authorize the chief of a fire protection district or a fire company to conduct background checks on applicants for volunteer firefighter status with the district or fire company, as prescribed, and, if such a background check is conducted, would require the chief to identify an applicant who is determined to be a registered sex offender or to have committed or been convicted of specific offenses.
AB-2091 Grayson D Fire prevention: Current law establishes in the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection the State Board of Forestry prescribed burns: and Fire Protection consisting of specified members who are selected and approved for appointment on insurance pool. the basis of their educational and professional qualifications and their general knowledge of, interest in, and experience with, among other things, forest management practices.This bill would rename the board the State Board of Forestry and Fire Prevention and Protection.
AB-2120 Quirk D Wildfires Would require the State Air Resources Board to annually report on the air pollutant emissions following an unplanned wildfire that has burned 10,000 acres or more, as specified. The bill would require the state board to post the annual report on its Internet Web site in a publicly accessible format.
July 20, 2018 B. 3. 2018 Fire Recovery Legislation Overview - East Bay Regional Park District Legislative Committee
Bill Number Author Title Summary AB-2380 Aguiar- Fire protection: privately Existing law provides that fire companies in unincorporated and incorporated towns may be organized, as Curry contracted private fire provided, and be subject to specified provisions and requirements. Existing law provides that the city prevention resources. council of an incorporated city may, by ordinance, regulate the formation and continued existence of fire companies providing service within its city. Existing law establishes in state government, within the office of the Governor, the Office of Emergency Services. Existing law requires the office to be responsible for the state’s emergency and disaster response services for natural, technological, or manmade disasters and emergencies, including responsibility for activities necessary to prevent, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of emergencies and disasters to people and property. This bill would require the office, in collaboration with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, to develop standards and regulations for any privately contracted private fire prevention resources operating during an active fire incident in the state, and to develop regulations to govern the use of equipment used by privately contracted private fire prevention resources during an active fire incident, as provided. The bill would authorize the office to levy a fine not to exceed $5,000 for any violation of the above provisions or regulations adopted thereto, as provided.
AB-2551 Wood D- Forest and Wildland Assembly Member Wood’s bill would authorize CAL FIRE to enter into an agreement with any public Santa Rosa Health Improvement and agency or natural resource management agency to conduct joint prescribed burning operations. The bill Fire Prevention Program also requires CAL FIRE to develop and implement training programs that 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.
AB-2585 Patterson R Prescribed burns: burn Would provide that a property owner and his or her agent conducting a prescribed burn, as defined, shall managers: liability not be liable for damage or injury caused by fire or smoke, unless negligence is proven, when the prescribed burn meets specified conditions, including that the prescribed burn in conducted under the supervision of a certified prescribed burn manager, as defined, and proper burn permits have been obtained from all appropriate state and local agencies.
July 20, 2018 B. 3. 2018 Fire Recovery Legislation Overview - East Bay Regional Park District Legislative Committee
Bill Number Author Title Summary AB-2585 Patterson Prescribed burns: burn Existing law authorizes a person, firm, or corporation, or a group or combination of persons, firms, managers: liability. corporations, or groups, that owns or controls brush-covered land, forest lands, woodland, grassland, shrubland, or any combination thereof within a state responsibility area, as defined, to apply to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for permission to utilize prescribed burning for specified public purposes. This bill would provide that a property owner and his or her agent conducting a prescribed burn, as defined, shall not be liable for damage or injury caused by fire or smoke, unless negligence is proven, when the prescribed burn meets specified conditions, including that the prescribed burn in conducted under the supervision of a certified prescribed burn manager, as defined, and proper burn permits have been obtained from all appropriate state and local agencies. The bill would require the department, on or before January 1, 2020, to develop a training and certification program for prescribed burn managers. The bill would require the department, on or before July 1, 2020, subject to the receipt of funding, to secure an insurance policy to provide compensation for any injuries or property damage resulting from a prescribed burn operation performed according to the above provisions. The bill would require prescribed burn managers, companies engaging in prescribed burn operations, small landowners, and fire safe councils to be covered under the liability insurance policy. The bill would provide that compliance with specified department burning contracts or with a specified burn permit shall constitute prima facie evidence of due diligence for purposes of determining liability under specified provisions of law and that any person or entity that has been issued the burn permit may use fire to abate a fire hazard. The bill would express intent of the Legislature that, among other things, the department (1) dedicate adequate numbers of staff solely to prescribed burning and vegetation management activities, and (2) make spot weather forecasting available to entities engaged in these burning contracts and to entities that have been issued the burn permit.
AB-2645 Patterson R Greenhouse Gas Would, beginning in the 2019–20 fiscal year, continuously appropriate $74,805,000 from the Greenhouse Reduction Fund: forestry Gas Reduction Fund annually to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for purposes of fire and fire prevention prevention activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
July 20, 2018 B. 3. 2018 Fire Recovery Legislation Overview - East Bay Regional Park District Legislative Committee
Bill Number Author Title Summary AB-2725 Acosta California Conservation Existing law establishes the California Conservation Corps in the Natural Resources Agency, administered Corps: job training: by the Director of the California Conservation Corps. Existing law requires that participants in the corps construction and related generally be engaged in certain kinds of projects, including projects that accomplish useful and needed fields. public works projects in urban and rural areas. This bill would specify that those projects include the construction of housing. The bill would require the director to establish a Construction Corps Program to provide corpsmembers with job training in construction-related fields, as specified. The bill would require the director, in developing and administering the program, to partner with local builders, apprenticeship programs, preapprenticeship programs, and community colleges to provide relevant training and experience to corpsmembers. The bill would authorize the director to determine the appropriate location or locations for the program based on factors the director determines are appropriate, including, among other things, the local need for housing or construction workers. Existing law authorizes the director to execute contracts with any person, natural or corporate, for the purpose of implementing the objectives of the corps, as specified. This bill would authorize the director to also execute agreements for the same purposes. AB-288 Obernolte State responsibility areas: The bill would establish the Fire Prevention Fee Amnesty Program. The bill would require the State Board fire prevention fees: of Equalization to develop and administer the amnesty program for a person subject to the fees described amnesty program. above. The bill would require the program to be conducted for a 6-month time period, as provided, and would apply to fire prevention fee liabilities due and payable for the fee reporting periods beginning before March 1, 2018. The bill would require the program to apply to a person who meets specified requirements, including the filing of a completed amnesty application under penalty of perjury. By requiring the application to be completed under penalty of perjury, the bill would create a crime, and thus impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the state board to waive all penalties and interest for the specified fee reporting period for which the fire prevention fee amnesty is allowed for the nonpayment or underpayment of fee liabilities for a person who meets the above requirements. The bill would require the state board to adequately publicize the program so as to maximize public awareness of and participation in the program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
July 20, 2018 B. 3. 2018 Fire Recovery Legislation Overview - East Bay Regional Park District Legislative Committee
Bill Number Author Title Summary AB-2896 Kiley R Fire prevention: state Would, until January 1, 2023, require the Department of Parks and Recreation, upon request by a private parks: fire hazard property owner or by an agency of local government or a local official, to reduce surface fuels or other reduction fire hazards on the department’s property that are within 300 feet of a structure on the land of the property owner or local government, as provided. The bill would require the department, in consultation with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, to determine the necessary amount of surface fuel or fire hazard reduction work, as prescribed. AB-2896 Kiley and Fire prevention: state Existing law requires a person who owns, leases, controls, operates, or maintains an occupied dwelling or Chen parks: fire hazard occupied structure in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area, forest-covered land, brush-covered land, reduction. grass-covered land, or land that is covered with flammable material within a very high fire hazard severity zone to at all times maintain defensible space of 100 feet from each side and from the front and rear of the structure, as provided. Existing law vests control of the state park system with the Department of Parks and Recreation. Existing law provides that the department has the right to remove and dispose of debris deposited on public beaches, waterways, or lands within the state park system when the deposits create a hazard or impediment to public safety, enjoyment, and use of the public beach, waterway, or land. This bill would, until January 1, 2023, require the department, upon request by a private property owner or by an agency of local government or a local official, to reduce surface fuels or other fire hazards on the department’s property that are within 300 feet of a structure on the land of the property owner or local government, as provided. The bill would require the department, in consultation with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, to determine the necessary amount of surface fuel or fire hazard reduction work, as prescribed.
AB-3020 Flora R California Environmental Would expressly exempt from CEQA projects undertaken, carried out, or approved by a public agency to Quality Act: exemption maintain, repair, restore, demolish, or replace properties or facilities damaged or destroyed as a result of fire or flood in a disaster-stricken area and would eliminate the requirement that a state of emergency has been declared for that area. The bill would exempt from CEQA specific actions necessary to reduce the threat or intensity of a wildfire. Because a lead agency would be required to determine whether a project falls within these exemptions, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
July 20, 2018 B. 3. 2018 Fire Recovery Legislation Overview - East Bay Regional Park District Legislative Committee
Bill Number Author Title Summary AB-771 Quirk D Burning of forest lands: Existing law authorizes any person, firm, or corporation, or any combination thereof, that owns or forest land owners. controls brush-covered land within a state responsibility area to apply to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for permission to burn the brush from the land. Existing law requires the department to provide advisory services to applicants for burn permits as to the precautions to be taken by the applicant to prevent damage to the property of others by reason of the prescribed burning, and to provide standby fire protection, as available. This bill would require the department, by July 1, 2018, in consultation with the State Air Resources Board, local air districts, and other relevant organizations and individuals, to develop an Internet Web site that provides the public certain information relating to prescribed burns, including information on the regulations that govern prescribed burns for forest fuel treatment, and to develop a uniform prescribed burn template for forest landowners that provides standardized procedures associated with planning and implementation of a prescribed burn and meets specified objectives. The bill would authorize the department to contract with an institution of the University of California to perform any of these requirements.
SB-1002 Nielsen R Safe Forests and Current law requires the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to implement and administer Grasslands Act of 2018 various programs designed to improve forests and grasslands and prevent and suppress fires in state responsibility areas, as defined.This bill would declare the intent of the Legislature to enact subsequent legislation to create the Safe Forests and Grasslands Act of 2018 to improve the health of the state’s forests and grasslands, reduce wildlife fuel, provide for bioenergy production, and reduce uncontrolled fires in state responsibility areas.
July 20, 2018 B. 3. 2018 Fire Recovery Legislation Overview - East Bay Regional Park District Legislative Committee
Bill Number Author Title Summary SB-1044 Berryhill State Responsibility Area Existing law provides that the state has the primary financial responsibility for preventing and suppressing Fire Prevention Fees. fires in areas that the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection has determined are state responsibility areas, as defined. Existing law until July 1, 2017, required that a fire prevention fee be charged on each habitable structure on a parcel that is within a state responsibility area, to be used for specified fire prevention activities, and prescribed procedures for the collection and processing of the fees by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. Existing law repeals those provisions requiring the payment of the fee on January 1, 2031. This bill would instead repeal those provisions on January 1, 2019. The bill would also require the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, no later than January 1, 2020, to develop and implement a process for providing for refunds of any fire prevention fees collected by the department, commencing in the 2011-2012 fiscal year until July 1, 2017, from each owner of a habitable structure located in a state responsibility area pursuant to those provisions. The bill would also require the department to adopt regulations setting forth requirements for the application, review, and refund of those fees paid by the owner of a habitable structure, as provided.
SB-1079 Monning D- Fire Protection Grants Assembly Member Monning’s legislation would allow the California Department of Forestry and Fire Carmel 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.
July 20, 2018 B. 3. 2018 Fire Recovery Legislation Overview - East Bay Regional Park District Legislative Committee
Bill Number Author Title Summary SB-1079 Monning Forest resources: fire Existing law authorizes the Director of Forestry and Fire Protection to provide grants to entities, prevention grants: including, but not limited to, private or nongovernmental entities, Native American tribes, or local, state, advance payments. and federal public agencies, for the implementation and administration of projects and programs to improve forest health and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Budget Act of 2017 appropriated moneys to the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for purposes of, among other things, providing local assistance grants, grants to fire safe councils, and grants to qualified nonprofit organizations with a demonstrated ability to satisfactorily plan, implement, and complete a fire prevention project for these same purposes, as provided. This bill would, until January 1, 2024, authorize the director to authorize advance payments to a nonprofit organization, a local agency, a special district, a private forest landowner, or a Native American tribe from the grant awards specified above. The bill would prohibit a single advance payment from exceeding 25% of the total grant award. The bill would place specified requirements on the grantee of the advance payment, including that the grantee file an accountability report with the department, as provided. The bill would require the department to provide a report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2023, on the outcome of the use of the advance payments. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
SB-1169 Anderson Violations: penalties and The Public Utilities Act provides for the assessment of criminal fines and civil penalties for violations of the fines: wildfire incidents. act or an order, decision, rule, direction, demand, or requirement of the commission. Existing law requires that fines and penalties imposed by the Public Utilities Commission pursuant to the act be paid to the General Fund. This bill would require 10% of any penalty or fine assessed by the commission related to wildfire incidents to be deposited into the Wildfire Incident Penalty and Fine Fund, which the bill would establish in the State Treasury. The bill would continuously appropriate those moneys to the commission for specified fire prevention purposes, including for equipment for regional fire and first responder agencies. The bill would require the commission to establish an application and approval process by which any person, private entity, or local agency from an area affected by a wildfire incident could apply to the commission for the money in the fund, as provided.
July 20, 2018 B. 3. 2018 Fire Recovery Legislation Overview - East Bay Regional Park District Legislative Committee
Bill Number Author Title Summary SB-1260 Jackson D Fire prevention and Current law requires a local agency to designate, by ordinance, very high fire hazard severity zones in its protection: prescribed jurisdiction, as provided in connection with a state program for fire prevention.This bill would require the burns local agency to transmit a copy of the adopted ordinance to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection within 30 days of adoption. By imposing a new duty on a local agency, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program. SB-9 Gaines State responsibility areas: Existing law requires the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection to adopt regulations to establish a fire prevention fees. fire prevention fee in an amount not to exceed $150 to be charged on each structure on a parcel that is within a state responsibility area, as defined, and requires that the fire prevention fee be adjusted annually using prescribed methods. Existing law requires the State Board of Equalization to collect the fire prevention fees, as prescribed. Existing law establishes the State Responsibility Area Fire Prevention Fund and prohibits the collection of fire prevention fees if there are sufficient amounts of moneys in the fund to finance specified fire prevention activities for a fiscal year. Existing law requires that the fire prevention fees collected, except as provided, be deposited into the fund and be made available to the board and the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection for certain fire provention activities that benefit the owners of structures in state responsibility areas who are required to pay the fee. Existing law further requires the board to submit an annual written report to the Legislature on specified topics - This bill would repeal the above provisions.
KEY: | EBRPD Support | Still Under Consideration | DEAD
July 20, 2018
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
OPINION // OPEN FORUM San Francisco Bay wetlands restoration takes off
By Dave Pine April 11, 2018 Updated: April 11, 2018 7:13 p.m.
Wetlands that are among those the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority wants restored near Point Isabel Regional Shoreline Jan. 13, 2015 in Richmond, Calif. A proposed ballot measure in all nine Bay Area counties would pay for major restoration in wetlands and coastal ecosystems of the San Francisco Bay, including the wetlands near Point Isabel Regional Shoreline in Richmond. Photo: Leah Millis, The Chronicle
Thanks to the wisdom and generosity of Bay Area voters, the restoration of San Francisco Bay for people and wildlife is about to accelerate. Earlier this week, the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority committed $17.9 million to restore tidal marshes along the shoreline from funds approved by Bay Area voters in 2016 under Measure AA, which is expected to raise $500 million over 20 years.
This month’s Restoration Authority grants will fund a diverse mix of restoration projects around the bay (see full list at www.SFBayRestore.org). Many of these projects will also provide trails and other public recreation amenities. Matching funds will be needed from the state and federal governments to create all the needed wetlands, especially because much of the area available for restoration is within the National Wildlife Refuge. Proposition 68 on the June ballot is the next opportunity to increase resources for the bay, with another $20 million dedicated to matching Measure AA funds.
Restored marshes help filter water pollution and nurture fish, birds and other wildlife. Scientists established in 1999 that the bay’s ecosystem needs 100,000 acres of healthy tidal marsh, but development has eliminated 80 percent of the bay’s historic marshes, leaving only 44,000 acres remaining.
Tidal marshes also make our region more resilient to climate change by protecting shoreline communities from extreme storm events and rising sea levels. In fact, through Measure AA, Bay Area residents are funding the largest urban climate adaptation effort in the country.
Many more projects applied for this first round of funding, and others are in the planning stages to be ready for potential grants in future years. Ultimately, the Restoration Authority will provide funding for restoration projects in every Bay Area county.
One of the most visible projects will grow tidal marsh in former salt ponds along Highway 84 at the western approach to the Dumbarton Bridge, where commuters will see a crusty brown and white landscape turn to lush green pickleweed and cordgrass over the next few years.
Years of effort prevented urban development on former salt evaporation ponds and hay fields diked off from the bay so that they could be reconnected to the tides, grow marsh plants, and become functioning marshes again. That renewal, which began over the past decade at sites near Novato, Vallejo, Oakland, Hayward, Alviso and Redwood City, is already showing spectacular results. With Measure AA funds now available, we will see new restoration projects for years to come.
The restoration of tidal marshes is great evidence of how much we love and value the bay as central to our quality of life and economy. We should all be proud of the leadership our region is taking to protect nature in our midst, make our environment healthier, and utilize green infrastructure to safeguard our communities in the face of climate change.
Dave Pine is president of the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and chair of the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Board.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
California Democrats stun Feinstein by endorsing election foe Kevin de León
Joe Garofoli July 15, 2018 Updated: July 15, 2018 3:03 p.m.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein at a “Fireside Chat” with Carl Guardino, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, on April 2. Photo: Jim Gensheimer / Special to The Chronicle
Top California Democratic Party officials jolted four-term incumbent Sen. Dianne Feinstein with a vote to endorse her November election opponent, fellow Democrat state Sen. Kevin de León. De León won 65 percent of the 333 ballots cast by members of the party’s executive board at an Oakland hotel Saturday, while 28 percent preferred “no endorsement,” which Feinstein requested last week. Feinstein won only 7 percent of the vote. The threshold for winning an endorsement was 60 percent
California Democratic Party ✔@CA_Dem
VOTING RESULTS — U.S. Senate:
Feinstein — 22 (7%) de León — 217 (65%) No Endorsement — 94 (28%) 8:26 PM - Jul 14, 2018
“Earning the endorsement of so many leaders and activists of the California Democratic Party isn’t just an honor and a privilege; today’s vote is a clear-eyed rejection of politics as usual in Washington, D.C.,” de León said.
Feinstein’s campaign manager, Jeff Millman, downplayed the result.
“While 217 delegates expressed their view today, Sen. Feinstein won by 2.1 million votes and earned 70 percent of the Democratic vote in the California primary election, carrying every county by double digits over her opponent,” Millman said. “We are confident that a large majority of California Democrats will vote to re-elect Sen. Feinstein in November.”
U.S. Senate race
The party’s surprising rebuke to one of the nation’s best-known politicians breathes life into de León’s flagging campaign.
Feinstein still has a commanding lead in the polls and far more money to spend. But winning the state party’s endorsement means de León will have his name and photo on door hangers, slate mailers and email blasts sent to voters along with other candidates the party is promoting, including gubernatorial hopeful Gavin Newsom. That outreach “will top 2 million people for sure,” party chair Eric Bauman said.
The win could also lead to a huge money boon for de León’s campaign,which had $693,689 cash on hand as of May 16, the date of the most recent campaign finance report. Now his campaign will be able to jointly raise money with the party.
De León nearly landed the party’s endorsement at its February conventionwhen he received the support of 54 percent of the delegates — just short of the 60 percent threshold. That was a vote of roughly 2,800 party activists, compared with the 333 executive board members who voted Saturday. Party leaders acknowledged that endorsing de León after Feinstein easily won the primary could send mixed signals to voters.
“It is a concern that it will be confusing,” Bauman said.
The activists who vote at party functions are generally more left-leaning than the larger universe of Democratic voters. Unlike Feinstein, de León supports single-payer health care and opposes extending permission for the National Security Agency to obtain Americans’ email and other personal records without obtaining a warrant. Both stances endear him to the party’s left wing.
Feinstein initially sought the party’s backing, then encouraged delegates to vote “no endorsement” in a minute- long video her campaign presented Saturday. Feinstein said she didn’t think winning the endorsement was crucial to her success in November.
“I don’t think it is, to be honest with you,” Feinstein said before the votes were counted. “This wasn’t a close primary.”
It wasn’t, as Feinstein received 70 percent of the votes cast for Democrats in the 32-candidate primary field in June and and carried every county in California. She won 44 percent of the overall vote, while de León squeaked into second place with 12 percent.
Plus, not only does Feinstein’s campaign have $7 million cash on hand, she is one of the wealthiest members of Congress with a minimum net worth of $58 million, according to a March analysis by Roll Call magazine.
Nevertheless, for the past several weeks, Feinstein tried to win the endorsement by telling delegates that her four terms in the Senate has enabled her to reach leadership positions.
Asked Saturday what it would mean if the party overlooked those accomplishments and endorsed de León, Feinstein said, “That thought has occurred to me, but I wiped it out of my mind quickly.”
On Saturday, she pointed out to attendees at the party’s Women’s Caucus meeting that she is the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee as the panel prepares for “one of the biggest moments this country has had” — the panel’s confirmation hearings for President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, appeals Judge Brett Kavanaugh.
For his part, de León tried to walk a line between honoring Feinstein’s service and suggesting that it was “time for a new generation” of leadership. Speaking after her at the Women’s Caucus, de Leon countered Feinstein’s seniority argument by urging Senate Democrats to take bolder action to derail Kavanaugh’s nomination.
Joe Garofoli is The San Francisco Chronicle’s senior political writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @joegarofoli
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
Politics California Democratic Party Endorses Dianne Feinstein Opponent Kevin de León De León took 65 percent of the delegate vote
Posted Jul 15, 2018 10:27 PM Bridget Bowman @bridgetbhc Republican John Chrin Launches Opening Ad in GOP Targeted DistrictAt the Races: The Unlikely Team Behind a 2018 StarOcasio-Cortez, Crowley Feud on Twitter Over November Ballot
The California Democratic Party has endorsed state Sen. Kevin de León over Sen. Dianne Feinstein, backing a challenger who is taking on a longtime incumbent.
The endorsement came after Feinstein had encouraged party leaders not to endorse either candidate for Senate in the name of party unity. But on Saturday, de León won 65 percent of the delegates’ votes, surpassing the 60 percent threshold necessary to secure the endorsement. “Earning the endorsement of so many leaders and activists of the @CA_Dem party isn’t just an honor and a privilege; today’s vote is a clear-eyed rejection of politics as usual in Washington, D.C.,” de León tweeted Saturday.
The intraparty battle has become a microcosm for the fight over the soul of the Democratic Party, with some pushing the party further to the left. De León has argued that he is more liberal and more willing to fight against President Donald Trump. Feinstein has countered that she is well-equipped to take on the Trump administration, thanks in part to her seniority in the Senate, which gives her significant influence over policymaking and oversight activities.
The all-Democratic general election is a product of the Golden State’s unique primary system. De León finished second to Feinstein in the state’s top-two primary on June 5, where candidates from all parties compete on one ballot and the top two vote-getters advance to November.
Neither candidate won the party’s endorsement before the primary, but candidates also compete for a post-primary endorsement. State leaders met over the weekend to weigh endorsing a number of candidates, which can be particularly contentious in races featuring two Democrats.
Sixty-five percent of delegates, or 217, voted to endorse de León compared to 7 percent, or 22, who backed Feinstein. Twenty-eight percent, or 94 delegates, opted not to endorse either candidate.
Feinstein’s team wasn’t sweating the party’s decision.
She handily won the June 5 primary, winning 44 percent, or 2.9 million votes, in a crowded field. De León trailed with 12 percent, or 804,000 votes. While the primary included voters from all parties, Feinstein’s campaign noted that she did particularly well among Democrats.
“While 217 delegates expressed their view on Saturday, Senator Feinstein won by 2.1 million votes and earned 70 percent of the Democratic vote in the California Primary election, carrying every county by double digits over her opponent,” her campaign manager Jeff Millman said in a statement. “We are confident that a large majority of California Democrats will vote to reelect Senator Feinstein in November.”
Still, Saturday’s endorsement could connect de León to party resources and help him stay competitive with Feinstein. The four-term senator had $7 million in her campaign at the end of the pre-primary reporting period on May 16, while de León had $694,00 in the bank.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
Lawsuit targets toll authority over $3 bridge toll increase
Laura A. Oda/Bay Area News Group Commuters slowly make their way through the traffic at the Bay Bridge toll plaza in Oakland, Calif., on Thursday, Dec. 7, 2017. (Laura A. Oda/Bay Area News Group Archives)
By ERIN BALDASSARI | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group PUBLISHED: July 9, 2018 at 3:32 pm | UPDATED: July 10, 2018 at 2:23 pm SAN FRANCISCO — A taxpayers association, on behalf of three plaintiffs from Vallejo, Vacaville and Lodi, is challenging a recently approved $3 bridge toll increase in state court — a move that could potentially delay or eliminate the measure.
The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association filed the suit Thursday in San Francisco Superior Court against the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA). It challenges the notion that Regional Measure 3, which voters approved last month, is a “fee” requiring only a simple majority to pass, rather than a “tax,” which requires two-thirds voter approval. The suit asks that the toll be invalidated.
The measure passed with 55 percent of the vote across all nine Bay Area counties, according to the most recent election results. It would increase bridge tolls by $1 on Jan. 1, followed by subsequent $1 increases in 2022 and 2025, raising an estimated $5.4 billion over the next decade to pay for nearly three-dozen transportation projects in the Bay Area. That’s not a fair increase for the drivers who will be footing the bill for public transit or bicycle and pedestrian projects, which together account for roughly two-thirds of the planned projects, said Timothy Bittle, a lawyer for the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. There’s no evidence those projects will result in fewer car trips, he said.
“I don’t think all that money can be quantified as a traffic reduction expense,” Bittle said.
But, proponents of the toll increase argue investing in mass transit and alternatives to driving is the only way to reduce traffic for drivers. More than two-thirds of Bay Area drivers commute alone in their cars to work, and as more people continue to take jobs in the Bay Area, traffic has only gotten worse, said Jim Wunderman, the president and CEO of the Bay Area Council, an organization that represents businesses in the region and one that helped campaign for the measure.
“Getting commuters and others out of their cars and into mass transit, including BART, Caltrain, local buses and ferries, provides a direct and powerful benefit to everyone who uses the region’s seven state- owned bridges,” he said in a statement. “Regional Measure 3 will effectively add greater capacity to our bridges by … improving and expanding critical regional mass transit systems and providing other good alternatives like bicycling and walking.”
Bittle also cited Prop 26, which voters approved in 2010, as another argument supporting the suit. It broadened the definition of a tax to include many payments previously considered to be fees, according to the Legislative Analyst’s Office. Fees that benefit the public broadly — rather than providing services directly to the fee payer, such as garbage fees or state park entrance fees — would be considered a tax under Prop 26, the analyst’s office said. So, while previous toll increases might have counted as a fee prior to Prop 26, Regional Measure 3 is a tax under the new law, Bittle argued. And, previous toll increases may have been more directly connected to bridge improvements and the highways connected to them than the most recent measure, he said.
“We didn’t have Prop 26 before,” he said. “And, this measure is almost entirely going to be spent on public transit that the toll payers aren’t using.”
Wunderman said he’s confident the suit will be dismissed or defeated in court. Regional Measure 3 was written with guidance from the state’s Office of Legislative Counsel, as well as the commission’s outside law firm, Orrick, said Randy Renschler, a spokesman for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, which oversees the toll authority. He noted that the taxpayers association also supports the repeal of SB1, the gas tax and registration fee increases the legislature approved last year. “We oppose their path of obstruction as our highways and transit systems must be maintained and improved in order to support the Bay Area’s high wage economy that benefits Bay Area families,” Rentschler said. “We have every intention to follow through with the direction the legislature and the voters have provided to gain congestion relief so badly needed to maintain the quality of life so valued by residents.”
Erin Baldassari Erin Baldassari covers transportation, the Bay Area's housing shortage and breaking news. She served on the East Bay Times' 2017 Pulitzer Prize winning team for its coverage of the Ghost Ship fire. But most of all, she cares deeply about local news and hopes you do, too. If you'd like to support local journalism, please subscribe today. Follow Erin Baldassari @e_baldi
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
Demonstrators protest EPA chief Scott Pruitt during S.F. visit
Erin Stone and Josh Koehn June 29, 2018 Updated: June 29, 2018 9:45 p.m.
President Trump’s environmental chief Scott Pruitt visited the Environmental Protection Agency’s San Francisco headquarters on Friday morning, attracting dozens of protesters who chanted for clean air and blasted the administrator’s policies in speeches outside the building.
Bradley Angel, executive director of Green Action, organized the rally of about 75 people after receiving a phone tip several days ago from a “high-level EPA whistleblower.”
“We don’t know the purpose of his visit here,” Angel said. “Pruitt has taken secrecy and lack of transparency to another level.”
Kelsi Daniell, an EPA spokeswoman, said that Pruitt was in San Francisco to meet with Region 9 staff and discuss air and water quality issues, toxic Superfund sites in the region and the agency’s response to extreme events, such as wildfires and volcanic eruptions.
The EPA’s Region 9 covers California, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii and the U.S. Pacific Islands.
Pruitt also met with Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, to talk about “cooperative federalism, car and truck greenhouse gas standards,” and the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Daniell said.
Good meeting today with CARB Chairwoman @MaryNicholsCA on LD Vehicle GHG standards. Cooperative federalism means engaging on issues important to states, even when we don’t always see eye to eye. Every states’ perspective is important. pic.twitter.com/l5dKsjGNrP
— Administrator Pruitt (@EPAScottPruitt) June 29, 2018
Clean air standards have become a contentious issue for Pruitt, who on Wednesday was sued by California and 10 other states, and the District of Columbia.
35 Demonstrators rally outside the Environmental Pro tection agency’s S.F. office during the chief’s visit. Photo: Erin Stone / The Chronicle
The lawsuit alleges Pruitt violated the Clean Air Act by issuing guidance that permitted companies to incorporate hydrofluorocarbons, a refrigerant that is a potent greenhouse gas, in their products.
“I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is not above the law. That is why we are taking him to court,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement. “He should be working to protect our environment, but instead he wants to unlawfully allow more companies to use these very potent climate pollutants.”
House Democrats have also requested that the Justice Department investigate Pruitt for criminal conduct for possible violations of federal anti-corruption laws.
Michael Stoker, an administrator Pruitt appointed last month to oversee Region 9, met with protesters outside EPA’s Hawthorne Street headquarters Friday, Angel said, but Stoker would only talk to them on the condition that they speak in private. Angel said he declined and preferred to have Stoker talk to the crowd.
Mary Sweeters, a climate campaigner with Green Peace, criticized Pruitt’s leadership of the EPA, which has been dogged by a series of reports of questionable spending and conflicts of interest amid numerous regulatory rollbacks.
EPA Chief Scott Pruitt Reportedly Ordered Media Attacks On Disloyal Former Aides
“There have been so many scandals in the news around Scott Pruitt,” Sweeters said. “The real scandal we want to highlight is that before he even came into office, he’s been fighting regulations that aim to protect clean air and clean water across the country.
“We’re out here to hold people like Pruitt accountable, because these decisions have repercussions for generations to come.”
On Thursday, Pruitt and Stoker were in Santa Barbara County to tour the Casmalia Superfund site, where they announced plans to finalize toxic clean-up operations over five years at a cost of $60 million.
Pruitt said in a statement that he added the contaminated soil and groundwater of Casmalia to his “emphasis list of sites requiring immediate, intense action,” and the EPA will carry out the operation “in a comprehensive and lasting manner.”
On Friday, Angel and other protesters stressed a similar sense of urgency in opposing Pruitt’s leadership of the EPA.
“I don’t think the stakes have ever been higher in my lifetime,” Angel said.
Erin Stone and Josh Koehn are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers. Email: [email protected], [email protected] Twitter: @Erstone7@Josh_Koehn
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
US & WORLD // SCIENCE Progress on environment could slow on Supreme Court without Kennedy
Kurtis Alexander June 29, 2018 Updated: June 29, 2018 9:49 p.m.4
FILE - JUNE 27, 2018: Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, first nominated to the high court by President Reagan and confirmed in 1988, will retire as associate justice effective July 31.
The retirement of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy next month is likely to reshape the high court to the detriment of the environment, legal experts say, potentially limiting progress on such issues as climate change and clean water, even in California, where leaders have long pursued an environmental agenda independent of Washington. While Kennedy was no green-minded jurist and usually sided with the court’s conservative wing, President Trump is expected to nominate a replacement further to the right, one who won’t break ranks, as the outgoing justice was famous for doing on issues such as gay and lesbian rights and abortion — and environmental protections.
In the vein of his conservative colleagues, Kennedy was an advocate of free markets and property rights, but he remained open to government intervention. The 81-year-old Sacramento native provided the swing vote needed by the court’s liberal bloc to uphold regulation in a handful of crucial environmental cases. Most significantly, he supported the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to manage greenhouse gases and take on the issue of global warming.
“A potential replacement, if confirmed, is likely to take a very different approach,” said Ethan Elkind, director of the climate program at UC Berkeley School of Law. “The retirement is not good news for those who care about environmental protection.”
Trump said Friday he has narrowed his list of candidates to be Kennedy’s potential successor to five people, three men and two women, and will announce his choice on July 9. His selection would need Senate approval.
Vehicles on the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge during rush hour in San Rafael, Calif., on March 29, 2018. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has announced he will retire July 31, 2018. His departure from the court, combined with whoever President Trump chooses as his successor, could spell trouble for environmental protections, including emissions caps, experts say. Photo: John Storey / Special to the Chronicle
Although a refashioned Supreme Court could theoretically undo the landmark 2007 Massachusetts vs. EPA decision, the case that gave federal regulators the power to curb greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act and for which Kennedy cast the key vote, many legal experts don’t see a repeal coming.
The court’s preference is to waver as little as possible on legal issues, and conservative Chief Justice John Roberts has already said he views the case as a precedent. But the nine-judge body could choose to limit just how much the EPA can flex its climate muscle. The ruling on greenhouse gases unleashed a number of Obama-era policies, including the Clean Power Plan to limit carbon pollution at energy plants, emissions standards for cars and trucks, and methane rules on the oil and gas industry. Any of these could end up before the Supreme Court.
“What you could expect is that the EPA will be on a very short leash in terms of interpreting the Clean Air Act,” said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School in New York.
Because California has climate regulations of its own, including renewable power targets for the energy sector and pollution controls on other industries, rollbacks of federal law would have limited impact on the state, experts say. California lawmakers can continue to enact stronger protections than the federal government if they so choose.
The problem, experts say, is that some of California’s policies sometimes involve other states and could fall short if federal environmental laws are weakened elsewhere.
Dan Farber, a law professor at UC Berkeley, said that California could find it harder to meet its goals of importing clean energy and expanding its cap-and-trade program. Cap and trade seeks to curb industrial emissions by charging businesses that pollute. Gov. Jerry Brown has sought to broaden the program to other states.
Weaker climate policy at the federal level could also affect California’s vehicle emission standards. Because the Clean Air Act encourages nationwide uniformity in regulating cars and trucks, California has had to maintain a waiver to implement stricter rules. Under Trump, federal officials have discussed revoking that waiver, a move that would likely lead to a court battle.
It’s too early to know whether the issue would end up in the Supreme Court, experts say, but if it does, having a new justice in place probably wouldn’t bode well for California. Myron Ebell, a climate skeptic who served as Trump’s transition chief for the EPA and now heads the energy program at the libertarian-leaning Competitive Enterprise Institute, said it depends on the specific legal question before the court.
“Whether Justice Kennedy’s replacement will be more likely to rule in favor of preemption is anyone’s guess,” Ebell said.
The issue that is perhaps most vulnerable to a Supreme Court reshuffling is regulation of water pollution. It’s something that looms large for California’s agriculture industry.
In the 2006 Rapanos vs. United States case, the justices split along ideological lines over the reach of the Clean Water Act. The four conservatives argued that protections of U.S. wetlands should be limited while the four liberals called for more sweeping safeguards. Kennedy, again the crucial swing vote, wrote his own opinion, somewhere in between.
The Obama administration tried to reconcile this verdict with a new water policy in 2015 called Waters of the United States. Farmers and private landowners have been rallying ever since to try to pare back what they see as a burdensome pollution program, one that, for example, necessitates discharge permits for agricultural runoff.
Trump has vowed to come up with new wetlands regulations, a move that legal experts say could very well bring the Clean Water Act back to the court. “With Kennedy gone and a new justice in place, I think that Trump has a much better chance of succeeding,” said UC Berkeley’s Farber.
At a more fundamental level, legal experts say a shift in the court could simply make it harder for people to pursue litigation in the environmental arena.
In the Massachusetts vs. EPA case, the justices were divided from the onset over whether the state of Massachusetts had standing to sue. Kennedy provided the tie-breaking vote to allow the challenge to move forward.
“It can be hard to show that you’re injured by the behavior that the defendant engaged in,” explained Ann Carlson, a law professor and co-director of the Emmett Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at UCLA. “It’s really hard to show that particular emissions injured you.”
With a change on the Supreme Court, Carlson said, waging an environmental fight is likely to only get tougher.
Kurtis Alexander is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @kurtisalexander
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
LOCAL // POLITICS Politicians rip Facebook, but they’re not deleting their accounts
Politicians love having a villain to target — it’s an easy way to score points. But only when it serves their purposes.
Today’s villain: Facebook. The advantage to politicians in flogging Facebook: By ranting about how the social media platform violated the privacy of potentially 50 million users through the Cambridge Analytica scandal, it shows that they are sticking up for their constituents and keeping powerful corporate institutions under control.
But when it comes to Facebook, the villain is also the politician’s best friend.
So while some elected leaders are encouraging the Federal Trade Commission to demand that Facebook pay damages to users whose privacy was violated, none is ditching it when it comes to their own campaigns. There’s no rush to pull down their Facebook campaign websites to protest the company’s sloppy oversight of the personal information of millions of voters. Deleting the Facebook app? That’s for activists and certain billionaires who can live without it.
Politicians feel they can’t cut ties with Facebook for a simple, practical reason — it’s too big to quit.
“Facebook is so integrated into campaigns,” said Kate Maeder, a Democratic strategist who runs state and local campaigns in California. “Do you need FB to win? No. But this is the new frontier of modern campaigning.”
Republican gubernatorial candidate Travis Allen has far less money in his campaign bank account than his opponents. Instead, he routinely brags on the campaign trail about the breadth of his campaign’s social media reach. The three-term assemblyman from Huntington Beach (Orange County) calls Facebook “a great equalizer in today’s media” and “a great democratizer.”
“No longer are public leaders constrained by the traditional media. Now, with social media, I can talk directly to the voters of California with no filter,” Allen said in an interview this week after an appearance at the University of San Francisco.
While Allen may have concerns about privacy breaches, he has no intention of getting off Facebook. The reason is that he can’t find another social media platform that performs all the campaign functions Facebook does.
“It speaks to the monopolistic nature of the current social media environment. There are only so many options to use,” Allen said. “New platforms are springing up, but they’re not seeing the same sort of widespread acceptance that Facebook does.”
Others find Facebook virtually indispensable. On a basic, public level, Facebook serves as an online bulletin board for campaign events and a way for supporters — and potential supporters — to weigh in on issues. It helps campaigns recruit volunteers and get voters to the polls on election day.
More important to campaigns: Facebook helps them stitch together thousands of tiny pieces of personal data to help them find future supporters and donors. Just ask Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., whose campaign’s masterful use of social media transformed a little known septuagenarian politician from a small state into a national force.
“We would do a posting and get a ton of reach and engagement,” said Hector Sigala, who was the director of social media for Sanders’ 2016 presidential campaign. “And that was important to us, because the corporate media wasn’t covering our campaign.”
So while billionaire Elon Musk deleted the official Facebook pages for his SpaceX and Tesla companies, don’t look for a stampede of politicians to follow. “I think it would be really difficult for a politician to run without Facebook — they’d be at inherent disadvantage,” said Jillian C. York, the director for International Freedom of Expression for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who has written about leaving Facebook.
“The whole trouble with leaving Facebook is that it doesn’t make much of a difference if you’re the only one to do it, whether it’s me we’re talking about or a politician,” York said in an email interview. “So, if one ethical politician decides to go but the others stay, the ethical one is probably going to lose.”
Ann Ravel, former head of the Federal Election Commission, is working to increase transparency on technology platforms. Photo: James Tensuan / Special to The Chronicle 2017
Plus, York added, the current situation “says a lot about the media ecosystem as well. In recent history, at least, it was television and newspapers that allowed politicians to reach their constituents — and television, at least, is better governed than Facebook in regards to political advertisements.”
But some people are trying to make sure that those same standards that apply to TV and print ads apply to digital media as well.
Los Gatos resident Ann Ravel, the former chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission, is working on a project to enshrine some of those standards into what she calls the “Voters Right to Know.”
It is designed to be a state constitutional amendment that would increase transparency on technology platforms, no matter what they look like in the future. Enshrining those requirements in a state constitutional amendment would make them more durable, she said. Winning voter approval for those standards state-by-state might be politically easier than going through Congress or federal regulators.
“What the public needs on social media is no different than what the public needs in other media,” Ravel said. “They need to know who is behind these campaign ads they see all the time.”
For now, though, few political insiders expect candidates to leave Facebook. It’s more likely that their audience might ditch the platform before they do. “I think Facebook is losing its influence,” Maeder said. Millennials “are abandoning Facebook for Instagram (which is owned by Facebook) and Snapchat. They see Facebook as something their parents use. With campaigns, tools come and go. Facebook might not be as powerful in a decade.”
Joe Garofoli Follow Joe on: https://www.facebook.com/SFChronicle/joegarofoli
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
LOCAL // POLITICS Barbara Lee may run for Democratic leadership position in House
Joe Garofoli June 28, 2018 Updated: June 28, 2018 4:27 p.m.
Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Oakland, speaks with the Chronicle editorial board in January. Photo: Stephen Lam / Special to The Chronicle
East Bay Rep. Barbara Lee said Thursday that she is considering running for a Democratic leadership position in the House after its current occupant was defeated in a primary challenge this week.
If Lee won the party’s fourth-highest position, chair of the House Democratic Caucus, she would be the first African American woman to serve in the leadership of either party. The caucus chair’s job is to communicate the party’s message to members. “It’s time,” Lee, D-Oakland, told The Chronicle on Thursday. “African American women have been the smartest and most loyal voters for the Democratic Party, and often we don’t get the recognition or the involvement at the highest levels.
“We have ideas, and we know how to win elections,” Lee said. “You’ve got to have diversity at the table.”
Lee, 72, was first elected to the House in 1998 after serving in the Legislature from 1990 to ’96. She is best known nationally for being the only member of Congress to vote against authorizing the use of force after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. She explained in a Chronicle opinion article that it was “a blank check to the president to attack anyone involved in the Sept. 11 events — anywhere, in any country, without regard to our nation’s long-term foreign policy, economic and national security interests, and without time limit.”
Lee has also long been a leader in obtaining funding for HIV/AIDS programs and is past chair of the Congressional Black Caucus.
She said she began thinking about running for the leadership job after New York Democratic Rep. Joe Crowley, the current caucus chair, lost in Tuesday’s primary to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old first-time candidate who calls herself a democratic socialist. Lee has spent the past two days reaching out to colleagues, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, to gauge if she has enough support to win. House Democrats won’t elect new leaders until after the Nov. 6 midterm elections.
“It seems like it’s too early, but I can’t wait too long,” Lee said. “I’m letting people know that I’m interested and why I would want their support.”
Some Republicans say they would relish having her in the national spotlight, to highlight views that they believe will be too liberal for swing voters.
Jack Pandol, a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Campaign Committee, tweeted Thursday: “Lee as Chairwoman might surpass @NancyPelosi or @KeithEllison as the most gaffe-prone member of Dem leadership — and that’s a high bar.”
Republicans would be likely to zero in on Lee’s longtime efforts to normalize U.S. relations with Cuba. She has visited Cuba more than two dozen times and called for mourning the death of Cuban leader Fidel Castro in 2016. They could also criticize her for asking for clemency two decades ago for Stanley Tookie Williams, founder of the Crips street gang, who was convicted of murdering four people and was executed in 2005.
Although some Democrats have come around to her position on the Sept. 11 use-of-force resolution, saying presidents have since used it to justify military action against targets having little to do with the attacks, Republicans would be likely to use that vote against her and the party as well.
“I am who I am. I don’t hide behind my record,” Lee said.
She noted that her father served in the military for 25 years and said, “I’m as patriotic as they are. But I’ve learned that they’re going to say what they’re going to say. It’s not the first time I’ve been demonized. But I’m going to keep working for the people.” Joe Garofoli is The San Francisco Chronicle’s senior political writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @joegarofoli
More CommentsPrint
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
In fighting California gas tax, national Republicans see rallying point
Rachel Swan June 27, 2018 Updated: June 27, 2018 6:13 p.m.
A California ballot measure would repeal a 12-cents-per-gallon gas excise tax increase and a 20-cents-per-gallon diesel fuel tax hike. / The Chronicle
Out-of-state money is pouring into a campaign to overturn California’s newly enacted gas taxes and vehicle registration fees as Republican donors see a rallying point to drive conservative voters to the polls in November.
The ballot initiative, which takes aim at a $5 billion-a-year funding stream that would fix potholed highways, aging bridges and AC Transit buses, among other things, qualified Monday for the Nov. 6 ballot.
Donors have given more than $2.3 million to Give Voters a Voice, the political group that gathered the signatures. That includes about $400,000 from federal political action committees and individuals outside California. Among them are prominent Republicans, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, who chipped in $50,000 from his congressional campaign committee. House Majority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana donated $25,000. A real estate developer in Michigan sent $100,000.
The far-flung donations show how the ballot measure fits into a broader GOP strategy. Inspired by this month’s successful recall in Orange County of state Sen. Josh Newman, a gas tax proponent, Republican activists are seizing on what they see as an opportunity to energize voters who might also support California gubernatorial candidate John Cox and Republicans in key House races.
“This is their turnout idea,” said Republican political consultant Rob Stutzman, who is skeptical that the strategy will work.
He said there is no evidence that ballot measures drive voters to the polls. And he predicted gas-tax supporters would counter with their own message about decaying infrastructure and their own fundraising.
Give Voters a Voice and other groups have raised about $5 million. But they are being outspent by construction companies, labor unions and others who want to keep the tax intact.
Even so, recent polls show popular support for the repeal effort, and Cox has made it a central theme of his campaign. He and Rep. Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, who is up for re-election, are among the donors.
Carl DeMaio, a conservative talk radio host and chairman of Reform California, which launched the campaign to recall Newman, said the ballot initiative had drummed up enthusiasm among Democrats and Republicans alike.
“I want to get as many voters as possible out to the polls in November,” DeMaio said.
Supporters of the new taxes and fees have a more cynical view. To them, the attempted repeal is a carrot to lure voters to the midterm elections, even if its passage would lay waste to mass transit in California.
“That goes to show you what the real motivation is behind this,” said Michael Quigley, executive director of the California Alliance for Jobs, a coalition of trade groups and labor unions that is defending the tax.
Speaking at a Commonwealth Club forum in San Francisco on state transportation issues, Quigley said the repeal movement “has nothing to do with supporting California’s future. It has everything to do with protecting a handful of Republican congressional seats.”
The measure would strike down a 12-cents-per-gallon gas excise tax increase and a 20-cents-per-gallon diesel fuel tax hike that the Legislature approved last year under S enate Bill 1 . If it survives, it is expected to raise $5.2 billion annually for roads, bridges and transit systems.
Many transportation planners view SB1 as a form of life support. Over the next 10 years, it is slated to provide $15 billion for highway repairs, $4 billion to mend bridges and culverts, and $2.5 billion to reduce traffic congestion. The money would buy zero-emission electric buses for AC Transit’s fleet, reducing pollution along bus routes in the East Bay.
SB1 will add about 68,000 construction and engineering jobs per year, said Quigley, noting that benefits would ripple to other economic sectors. If the gas tax were wiped out, 5,000 projects would be immediately at risk, said Roger Dickinson, executive director of Transportation California, a nonprofit coalition of businesses and local agencies.
At the Commonwealth Club forum, he called the repeal initiative a partisan maneuver “that poses a severe threat to this vital funding stream.”
Reform California spokesman Dave McCulloch, though, blamed Sacramento politicians for the state’s transportation woes.
He rejected the notion that Republicans were driving the initiative, saying the “excitement behind it” comes from ordinary people who are tired of paying at the pump and fearing their money will be mismanaged.
“Absolutely this is a bipartisan issue,” McCulloch said.
But the crusade to quash gas taxes and fees has already helped Republicans. Anger over high gas prices felled Newman, the Orange County senator, after he cast a key vote to approve SB1. By flipping the seat to Republican Assemblywoman Ling Ling Chang, the GOP prevented Democrats from re-establishing a two- thirds supermajority in the Senate this year.
Fifteen years ago, Democratic Gov. Gray Davis was voted out of office in part because he infuriated constituents by raising vehicle licensing fees.
Republican strategist David Gilliard said he has taken polls on the gas-tax issue and found that the people who are most outraged are those with long commutes to work.
That demographic “can barely afford to live in California,” Gilliard said. For them, he said, the added cost of about $1 for every gallon of gas is crippling.
DeMaio pointed out that the committee formed to defend the gas tax, called the Coalition to Protect Local Transportation Improvements, has received money from construction companies that are based out of state, along with $500,000 from the Washington, D.C.-based International Union of Operating Engineers.
To date, the coalition has raised more than $8 million.
“We have more at stake,” Quigley said. “The other side is trying to help themselves stay in power. We’re doing this to have a stronger future for California.”
Rachel Swan is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected]
Twitter: @rachelswan
Rachel Swan
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
LOCAL // NEWS For all its flaws, there’s something special about San Francisco
Heather Knight July 17, 2018 Updated: July 17, 2018 6 a.m.
1 Sebastian Poncin, 10, plays one of the pianos set up this month at the San Francisco Botanical Garden’s Flower Piano event, which places the instruments among the plants. Photo: Yalonda M. James / The Chronicle
It’s easy to feel blue about life in San Francisco. The homeless tent encampments, the needles, the filth, the frustrating traffic, the outrageous cost of living that’s driving out much of the middle class.
Just 22 percent of the city’s voters said San Francisco is headed in the right direction in a recent poll commissioned by the Committee on Jobs, which advocates for the local business community. I’ve got to say, I am not in that 22 percent.
But despite the well-deserved gripes, there’s still a lot to love about San Francisco. After all, if our city weren’t so desirable, the streets, BART trains and housing waiting lists wouldn’t be so packed, right?
I always find that going on vacation serves as a good reminder of why I love my homebase. Maybe it’s just rose-colored glasses. Or the fact that I’m not spending my days writing about everything that’s wrong with life here. But there’s something about a break that renews my faith in our beloved city. A couple of weeks ago, the extended Knight crew took a cruise to Alaska to celebrate my dad’s 70th birthday. A quick BART ride and an easy stroll up the Embarcadero was all it took to reach the ship. Soon, we were sailing underneath the Golden Gate Bridge, the wind whipping our hair so we looked like Cousin Itt from “The Addams Family” in all our photos.
Tourists on the ship waved to tourists leaning over the railing of the bridge, and I could take smug satisfaction in knowing this stunningly beautiful setting — the bridge, the bay, the hills, the wisps of fog — is my own backyard, reachable any old time.
Admittedly, the smugness disappeared somewhat on our adventures around Alaska, where that state’s stunning beauty wasn’t dotted with heaps of trash or the stench of urine. But, still, I was glad to return — as I always am — to San Francisco, back under the bridge, this time at sunrise.
There aren’t many cities that could lure people on vacation out of their beds at 5 a.m. just to take in the views. But scores of bleary-eyed, shivering people on the ship snapped photos as San Francisco emerged. As we sailed into the bay, the city unfolded like a gorgeous flip-book, each new page showing an iconic site prettier than the one before.
The bridge’s lights, still on, the Palace of Fine Arts, Ghirardelli Square, the Marina, the TransAmerica Pyramid, Coit Tower, Salesforce Tower — thankfully half-gobbled up by the fog — birds squawking and swooping amid it all.
These breath-catching moments happen to many of us, sometimes when we least expect it. A co-worker said it happened to her over the weekend as she went on a run through Golden Gate Park, Sea Cliff, Land’s End and the Marina.
“It’s just such a crazy beautiful place,” she said. Crazy beautiful, yes. Crazy and beautiful? Also yes.
Another co-worker said he felt that jolt of love for San Francisco when his sister visited from the Midwest and lamented life in Trump country. She joyously took in the Mission District murals and musicians playing in the plaza at the 24th Street BART Station, facets of life that blend into the background when you live here.
“To realize that all around you is this progressive, idealistic place is inspiring,” he said.
I wandered the halls of City Hall on Monday morning and popped in to say hello to some of those charged with improving San Francisco. New Supervisor Rafael Mandelman and his staff were in a meeting but gamely took a break to answer — like in the world’s easiest game show — what they love about life in San Francisco.
Mandelman said he recently returned from Mexico City and while he loved it there nothing compares to the sheer beauty of San Francisco.
“You get to the top of one of these hills and you look down, and there’s nowhere else like it,” he said.
One at a time, his staff members answered. Driving west on the Bay Bridge as the sun glistens on the bay and the city skyline comes into view. The distinct neighborhoods that feel like small towns in a big city.
The temperate weather, especially this summer as the rest of the country bakes. “God turned on the fan,” one staffer said. (That can be a curse when raising kids here, since they develop the world’s narrowest comfort zone and are shivering or sweating just about anywhere else.)
“I would describe it as indescribable,” said Erin Mundy, a legislative aide to Mandelman, of San Francisco. “It’s magic!”
Lucky me, I had one more week off after the Alaska trip, and my boys and I went in search of that San Francisco magic. We found it at Flower Piano at the San Francisco Botanical Garden, the annual installation of pianos that anyone can play among the plants and flowers.
A boy who looked to be in middle school played Chopin’s “Raindrop” prelude on the piano near the pond, where turtles and fish swam. The sun shone through the treetops, casting an almost church-like glow. At one point, wind blew the boy’s sheet music off the piano, and a crowd rushed to pick up the pages for him, even the one that had gotten stuck under his foot. He just kept playing.
We found magic, too, at the Museum of Ice Cream, and we’re still finding stray sprinkles from the sprinkle pool days later. One of the most memorable installations at the Grant Avenue pop-up celebration of all things sugary sweet was the Rainbow Room, designed especially for liberal, inclusive San Francisco.
There were two unicorns, one named Harvey, as in Milk, and one named Gloria, as in Steinem. To receive a Popsicle, visitors were asked to name something that’s worth fighting for. The museum staffer said it could be something as simple as “pineapple belongs on pizza” or something as weighty as prison reform. (For the record, prison reform is certainly worth fighting for. Pineapple on pizza is just gross.)
We ended our vacation in just about the most touristy way possible: riding a ferry to Alcatraz. The boys were amazed to hear that three prisoners had escaped their cells using just spoons to dig their way out. I was amazed by the great combination of history and natural beauty. And by how fortunate we are to be surrounded by so much of both.
What makes you remember why you love living in San Francisco, presuming you do still love it? From a favorite Muni line to a particular dish at your favorite restaurant to your favorite view or museum, I want to hear about it. Email your own tribute to the city for possible inclusion in a future column.
And remember that when living in San Francisco, you’ve got to sometimes stop and smell the roses. In the rare instances, that is, when that’s the dominant smell.
San Francisco Chronicle columnist Heather Knight appears Sundays and Tuesdays. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @hknightsf
Heather Knight
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
LOCAL // POLITICS Initiative to repeal Calif. gas tax qualifies for November ballot
Melody Gutierrez June 25, 2018 Updated: June 25, 2018 7:17 p.m.
Republican gubernatorial candidate John Cox, center, blasts a recent gas tax increase during a news conference Monday, June 18, 2018, in Sacramento, Calif. Cox is the chairman of a campaign to repeal the gas tax increase and faces Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom in November. Cox is flanked by Carl DeMaio, left, chairman of Reform California, and Jon Coupal, right, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli) Photo: Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press
SACRAMENTO — California voters will decide whether to repeal newly enacted gas taxes and vehicle registration fees that fund road repairs under an initiative that will appear on the November ballot.
Proponents of the repeal turned in more than the 585,407 valid signatures needed to qualify for the Nov. 6 ballot. The measure would remove transportation taxes and fees approved by the Legislature last year under SB1, which is expected to raise $5 billion per year to pay for the state’s roads and bridges.
The ballot measure would remove the 12 cent per gallon increase in the state’s gas excise tax and the 20 cent per gallon increase in the excise tax on diesel fuel, which is used by the trucking industry. Vehicle registration fee increases that began in January would also be repealed; they raised registration costs by $25 to $175 depending on the value of the vehicle.
The measure would also require voters to approve any future gas taxes or road fees. “This measure sends a message to millions of forgotten Californians that are forced to decide each day between buying groceries or filling up their gas tank — help is on the way,” said Republican gubernatorial candidate John Cox on Twitter.
The taxes and fees were used by Republicans to oust state Sen. Josh Newman, D-Fullerton, this month, costing the Senate Democrats their supermajority. Gov. Jerry Brown has pledged to fight for the taxes and fees, saying they are critical to meeting the state’s transportation needs.
“This flawed and dangerous measure pushed by Trump’s Washington allies jeopardizes the safety of millions of Californians by stopping local communities from fixing their crumbling roads and bridges,” Brown tweeted Monday. “Just say no.”
Melody Gutierrez is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @MelodyGutierrez
Melody Gutierrez
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
LOCAL // NEWS Oakland Councilwoman Kaplan says Mayor Schaaf vulnerable to challenge
Otis R. Taylor Jr. June 17, 2018 Updated: June 17, 2018 11:05 a.m.
Oakland Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan is supporting mayoral candidate Cat Brooks. Photo: Paul Kuroda / Special to The Chronicle
Rebecca Kaplan was furious.
The Oakland councilwoman wanted to talk about the city Department of Transportation’s June 7 decision to close more than 1,000 citizen requests for service that were more than 30 days old.
“It’s such an insult to the public,” Kaplan told me Thursday morning, as she revved up. The city has a complaint-driven strategy for clearing garbage and responding to other problems. Kaplan has called for the city to dump its current system, which she believes is inequitable. She’s pushed for a system to address repairs and cleanup that assigns workers to zones.
“When you fix things based on complaint rather than need, you tend to default to the wealthier neighborhoods,” she said. “So then to say we’re just deleting over a thousand complaints from the system, I want to know who authorized that.
“Is this this administration’s policy that after you tell people to file their complaints by these various methods, the department heads are just allowed to delete them?”
Kaplan’s fury was short-lived. On Thursday afternoon, the transportation department announced on social media it will reopen the closed cases.
Regardless, Kaplan sounds, at times, like she’s on the campaign trail. That’s where she was expected to be this fall — on a third campaign for mayor.
But to the surprise of many, Kaplan announced at the Joyce Gordon Gallery in downtown Oakland this month that she will not mount a third campaign for mayor.
Instead, she endorsed the nascent campaign of Cat Brooks, the former co-host of KPFA’s “UpFront” morning news show. Brooks is a co-founder of the Anti Police-Terror Project, a community activist group that can often be found on the front lines of protests against police brutality.
Like Kaplan, Brooks has a powerful voice, which is often amplified by a megaphone or speakers anchored on a flatbed truck.
Like Kaplan, when Brooks is inspired by an issue like displacement and homelessness, her exuberance can be captivating.
And, like Kaplan, Brooks isn’t shy about criticizing Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf.
Brooks announced her candidacy in May, and it seems to me that she’s putting together a grassroots campaign to attract disenfranchised voters who aren’t plugged into the city’s economic boom, the people who can’t afford to pay market rate for the housing units being built around the city.
From what I’ve seen, her campaign will be a referendum on what Schaaf hasn’t accomplished in Oakland.
That made me wonder: Why isn’t Kaplan running when the person she’s endorsed is using her blueprint to thwart Schaaf?
Kaplan said she saw the turnout and excitement at Brooks’ campaign events.
“I came over that period of time to be convinced that her campaign ... as a manifestation of activism and community engagement, was one that I felt I should be supporting and that I feel can win,” Kaplan said. Kaplan said she also looked at the performance of Pamela Price in the Alameda County district attorney race this month. Sure, Price lost to Nancy O’Malley, but she also dominated in Oakland, which suggests to Kaplan that a black progressive candidate could have a strong showing in the mayoral election.
Price’s “grassroots, people-movement campaign very much focused on issues of police accountability, and kicked butt in Oakland,” Kaplan said. “That also strengthens my feeling about the power of the Cat Brooks campaign.”
In November 2010, Kaplan placed third in ranked-choice voting for mayor, behind Jean Quan and runner-up Don Perata. In 2014, she finished second in a field of 15 candidates, but well behind Schaaf.
Schaaf will be campaigning with momentum. In February, she used her office to alert the public to a federal immigration sweep, which immediately made her a target of the president’s supporters. Rep. Steve King, R- Iowa, introduced the Mayor Libby Schaaf Act of 2018, which proposes prison terms for officials who disclose Immigration and Customs Enforcement sweeps.
These days, getting hated on by the president and his supporters is a stamp of approval for Democrats.
Schaaf has gained a national profile, emerging as a critic of the administration’s anti-immigration policies, while cementing her status as a fierce defender of a sanctuary city with a large immigrant population.
In a column my colleagues Matier & Ross published before Kaplan announced her decision not to run, Doug Linney, an East Bay political consultant who ran two of Kaplan’s campaigns for City Council, said Schaaf was made “a hero to a lot of people who may not have paid attention to what she was doing.”
Still, Kaplan is not buying that Schaaf’s popularity is insurmountable, especially with the growing number of homeless people crowding sidewalks and streets in Oakland. Kaplan pointed out that data released by Schaaf’s campaign showed that 49 percent of voters would vote for the mayor, which she thinks proves Schaaf is vulnerable.
“It’s interesting that a majority of voters are not with her for a sitting incumbent who’s not yet in the heat of the campaign,” Kaplan said. “I certainly think the signs are not actually particularly favorable for her, as well as the actual tangible results of the failures on police accountability and homelessness and anti-displacement funding.”
In response, Ace Smith, Schaaf’s campaign spokesman, said: “Being at or (near) 50 percent for an urban mayor in America today is pretty damn spectacular.”
You know what would really be spectacular? If Oakland made significant strides toward solving its displacement and homelessness crisis.
That, of course, will take much, much more than words.
San Francisco Chronicle columnist Otis R. Taylor Jr. appears Mondays and Thursdays. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @otisrtaylorjr
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
LOCAL // BAY AREA & STATE Pittsburg residents fear city dump tainted with radioactive waste from SF shipyard
Kimberly Veklerov June 22, 2018 Updated: June 22, 2018 8:23 p.m.
A security vehicle cruises by the closed gates at Keller Canyon Landfill before a community forum gets under way in Bay Point. Photo: Photos by Carlos Avila Gonzalez / The Chronicle
The Keller Canyon Landfill in the East Bay city of Pittsburg got more dirt from the botched Hunters Point Shipyard cleanup than any other dump site, a Navy official told The Chronicle. The official, Scott Anderson, a deputy naval base closure manager, said that all of the substances brought to Keller Canyon were non-radiological and do not pose a threat to public health — with one exception from 2015 that he said was promptly corrected. He said the agency is working on an exact breakdown of what material from the San Francisco Superfund site went where. But he said Keller Canyon got the lion’s share of Hunters Point waste.
“To date we have not found any issues with the data or anything that left the base and came onto Keller Canyon,” he said, referring to reviews of records and statistical analyses. The Navy has not actually done tests at the landfill.
Residents who live around the dump, however, are not convinced. They crowded into a community meeting Thursday night in nearby Bay Point, where representatives from the Navy, California Department of Public Health, Keller Canyon Landfill, Pittsburg and Contra Costa County tried to reassure them that they were in no danger.
“We want to be heard, not lectured to,” longtime Pittsburg resident Lisa Della Rocca said Friday. “Yesterday I felt like I was in kindergarten. We need transparency. We have every right to know what we’re breathing and what we’re up against.”
After The Chronicle in April reported that former Hunters Point workers saw soil with potentially dangerous levels of radiation leaving the shipyard bound for conventional landfills around the state — ones that aren’t equipped to handle the hazardous material — Rick King, the general manager of Keller Canyon, said he stopped accepting shipments from the San Francisco site.
He went through old truck manifests and found that his landfill had received between 220,000 and 225,000 tons of Hunters Point material from 2009 to 2017. Most of it was dirt, but there were some timber and asphalt pieces as well, he said.
Keller Canyon is run by Republic Services, a Fortune 500 company and the country’s second-largest hauler of nonhazardous waste. The landfill is allowed to receive up to 3,500 tons of trash per day.
King said Keller Canyon used the Hunters Point soil as a cover layer over garbage — meant to keep rodents and pests out and odors in. Subsequent layers of garbage and other material have been piled on top of that dirt.
Tetra Tech, the environmental engineering company responsible for ridding Hunters Point of toxic substances, said in a statement that it wasn’t responsible for transport or disposal of material to off-site landfills.
Two former Tetra Tech supervisors admitted last year they swapped potentially toxic soil samples for clean ones at the shipyard. Each was sentenced to eight months in prison.
The Navy contractor that transported material from Hunters Point to Keller Canyon was Gilbane from 2008 to 2011, and has been Arcadis since 2012, according to naval spokesman Bill Franklin.
Anderson said the cargo leaving Hunters Point had to pass through layers of oversight, including monitors that could have detected radiation. The shipyard whistle-blowers, however, said those scanners were reset to be less sensitive and that trucks left at night when they weren’t active. Keller Canyon has its own detection system, too, King said. It was operating when all the Hunters Point shipments arrived and did not pick up radiation, he said.
But health officials at the Thursday forum acknowledged that radioactive material buried deep within a mass of dirt might not have been caught by the landfill’s sensors as trucks entered the facility. Then, atop a mountain of garbage in the windy delta city, strong gusts could have blown particles of the soil, meant as a protective layer, into surrounding neighborhoods, said Marilyn Underwood, the environmental health director of Contra Costa County.
“As it sits there now, it’s not a hazard to people nearby,” Underwood said. “There is an outstanding question of what happened before it was buried when it was being used as a soil cover.”
Another unresolved concern for landfill neighbors: Are nearby water systems safe?
John Fassell, chief of the inspection, compliance and enforcement program in the state public health agency, said the drinking water appears to have “natural background levels” of radiation, but that it’s “still being investigated.”
If there were a problem with the dirt transports from Hunters Point to Keller Canyon, it wouldn’t be the first time.
In June 2014, the shipyard sent 42 trucks carrying 987 tons of dirt to the dump, even though the material had higher levels of lead than what was acceptable for such a landfill, according to Anderson. The Navy caught the error a few days later, removed the material and did confirmation sampling at Keller Canyon, he said.
Then, in February 2015, nine trucks carrying 218 tons of asphalt from Hunters Point that hadn’t been properly screened for radiation got to the Keller Canyon dump. Fassell said the Navy found out about the lapse the same day, from a whistle-blower. The entire load had to be excavated and retested. It turned out six or seven hand- size pieces had the radioactive isotope Cesium-137 on them.
“We believe it was less than a day that it was there,” Fassell said.
Debbie Davis grew up in Hunters Point in the 1950s and now lives a block away from the Keller Canyon dump. She said her mother died of breast and ovarian cancer. Davis herself was recently diagnosed with thyroid cancer and had to undergo surgery for the gland to be removed.
“I thought the Navy was supposed to clean up all that stuff,” she said. “It messes with your health.”
Like other residents, Davis said her house gets the dust and odors from the landfill. Sometimes at night, she said, “You feel like the roof is going to blow off.”
There are 2,061 homes within a half-mile radius of Keller Canyon, according to Underwood.
One of those residents, Navy veteran Juanito Dumlao, 76, has taken to wearing a surgical mask when he goes out. “I don’t know what I’m getting from the wind,” he said. “I have four children, nine grandchildren. What will be the future of these kids with this landfill here?”
Kimberly Veklerov is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @kveklerov
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
LOCAL // NEWS Trump’s shift: For California congressional Republicans, it’s still a crisis
John Wildermuth June 20, 2018 Updated: June 20, 2018 7:52 p.m.
President Trump holds up an executive order he signed to end family separations at the border. Behind him are Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen Vice President Mike Pence. Photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais / Associated Press
The dispute over what to do with the children of immigrants arrested at the border isn’t going away for California’s congressional Republicans, despite President Trump’s surprise decision Wednesday to confine children with their parents in federal detention centers rather than splitting families apart.
While the president’s executive order may give GOP lawmakers temporary breathing room on the family separation issue, Democrats who are targeting GOP-held seats in California to try to retake the House will not slow their attacks. Some noted that administration officials said Trump’s order will not result in a prompt reunification of the 2,342 children who have been separated from their parents under the administration’s policy of prosecuting all immigrants who try to cross the border without documentation. “Trump’s executive order does not fix this crisis,” Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., said in a tweet Wednesday. “It gives no solution for the thousands of children who have been torn away from their families and remain separated.”
The pictures of youths being held in chain-link pens and audiotapes of children wailing and calling for their parents have made the dispute an issue that crosses party lines, something that’s nearly impossible for GOP politicians to avoid.
“Can’t sleep tonight. I know I shouldn’t tweet. But I’m angry. And sad,” Spencer Cox, Utah’s Republican lieutenant governor, said on Twitter. “I hate what we’ve become, wife wants to go & hold babies & read to lonely/scared/sad kids. I want to punch someone. Political tribalism is stupid. It sucks & it’s dangerous. We are all part of the problem.”
“Clearly Republicans are looking at the issue with great fear,” said Barbara O’Connor, an emeritus professor of political communications at Sacramento State University. “You have to do something. It can’t be ignored.”
A boy and father from Honduras are taken into custody by U.S. Border Patrol agents near the U.S.-Mexico Border last week near Mission, Texas. Photo: John Moore / Getty Images
For many of those Republicans, what they say about Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy that brought the crisis on the party can depend on where they sit. GOP Rep. Tom McClintock of Elk Grove (Sacramento County) represents a conservative, heavily rural district where Trump thrashed Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential race, 54 percent to 39 percent.
“There is a simple protection from being separated from one’s family: don’t break the law,” McClintock said in a statement. “Family separation is not the president’s fault for arresting and prosecuting lawbreakers. It is the lawbreakers’ fault for breaking the laws in the first place.”
McClintock’s seat, however, is not a prime Democratic target in November. GOP Rep. Mimi Walters’ Orange County district is, and her reaction to the Trump administration’s separation of immigrant children from their families was quite different. She argued that the country needs “to secure our border to end illegal immigration,” but also said she has strong concerns about effect of Trump’s policy on families.
“As a mother, I strongly oppose the separation of children from their parents at the border,” she said in a tweet Tuesday. “This action does not reflect our Nation’s values and I will support efforts to stop this practice. We can strengthen our borders while keeping families together.”
Another Orange County Republican facing a tough race this fall, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher of Costa Mesa, has said almost nothing about the family separation question. But he’s made it clear in the past that he stands with Trump on immigration issues.
On his campaign website, Rohrabacher says he “opposes all efforts to legalize the status of those currently in the United States illegally” and wants to secure the country’s borders and keep anyone in the country illegally from getting a job or any government benefits.
Going against the president’s policy — or at least what was the policy before he reversed course Wednesday — is a tough call for Republicans.
“It’s an extremely narrow line to walk,” because Trump has shown that he can destroy a Republican like South Carolina Rep. Mark Sanford with a single tweet, said Joseph Tuman, a professor of political and legal communication at San Francisco State. Sanford faced a primary challenge from a Republican who pledged greater loyalty to the president. On election day, Trump endorsed the challenger, and Sanford lost.
Few Republicans know the danger better than Reps. Jeff Denham of Turlock (Stanislaus County) and David Valadao of Hanford (Kings County), who represent Central Valley districts with large numbers of Democratic and Latino voters. Both decided to oppose Trump’s family separation policy.
“While we must work to reduce the occurrence of illegal border crossings, it is unacceptable to separate young children from their parents,” Valadao tweeted Monday. “This is exactly why passage of a compromise solution is absolutely necessary.”
Denham, one of the state’s most endangered GOP lawmakers, already has gone against his party on immigration, pushing unsuccessfully for a maneuver that would have forced a House vote on a number of immigration bills.
“Not only is this current policy unacceptable, but the optics of pulling kids away from their parents is horrible for any party,” he said in a CNN interview Monday.
Democrats were quick to hit back.
“President Trump’s policy of ripping children away from their parents is a stain on our national conscience,” Drew Godinich, a spokesman for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said in a statement. “But for Congressman Jeff Denham, it’s more about the PR ‘optics’ disaster than demanding Trump end this heartless policy. It’s shameful.”
But in politics, “optics” are often what powers an issue like the family separation, Tuman said. “The voice of a crying child is something every parent recognizes, and they feel they need to respond. That’s one reason this issue just blew up with the public.” With a recent CNN poll showing that two-thirds of Americans disapprove of the policy of splitting children from their families, the safest place for Republican politicians, especially in heavily Democratic California, may be on the other side of Trump’s policy, Tuman said.
But Democrats aren’t likely to let the issue go, even when Republicans appear to be moving across the aisle.
“Our country has a responsibility to protect our borders and uphold the law; this includes moral law,” said Democrat T.J. Cox, who is running against Valadao. “David Valadao and House Republicans have forgotten about our ethical obligations. They are sitting on the sidelines.”
Democrats also don’t plan to let Trump’s executive order end their attacks.
“This executive order does nothing to fix the crisis Trump created,” Tom Perez, chair of the Democratic National Committee, said in a statement. “Children can still be separated from their parents and locked away in cages. Families seeking asylum still face the horror of indefinite detention.”
For Republican politicians, there aren’t a lot of good options, said O’Connor, the Sacramento State emeritus professor.
“You need to be honest and not mention the president,” she said. “Acknowledge the concerns and then just say what you believe. That’s something that’s been missing in politics, from both parties.”
John Wildermuth is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @jfwildermuth
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
Editorial: Clean water left unfunded in California budget Chronicle Editorial Board June 21, 2018 Updated: June 21, 2018 7:13 p.m.
Rozen Santos, 6, enjoys a bottle of water during a field day at Citrus South Tule School in Porterville. Students drink bottled water at the school because the groundwater basin under the school is loaded with nitrates. Photo: Tomas Ovalle
When more than 300,000 residents of tiny farm towns in the San Joaquin Valley open the faucet, they don’t get the same pure water as Bay Area residents. What flows out is cloudy, brown and laced with unsafe levels of arsenic and nitrates.
It’s a shameful problem that California has promised but failed to fix. In a wealthy, booming state, poor communities still face a harmful brew when they turn the tap. It’s an issue well past the study-and-report stage, and it needs a substantial response.
Efforts such as Proposition 68, a $4.1 billion bond measure passed this month, have poured funds into upgrading water treatment systems in low-income communities. But the money can’t go to subsidies to keep the pumps and pipes running. While the state’s urban and coastal areas tend to enjoy clean water, many rural hamlets get by with bottled water or kitchen-sink filters.
Legislators saw this problem and laid out an all-hands financial package including fees on fertilizer, dairies and livestock and a levy on statewide water bills amounting to less than a dollar per month. But that consensus approach — rare in the water world — has fallen apart, a victim of politics and fear of any mention of a tax hike.
In the final rounds of a nearly complete state budget, the clean-water package was dropped. The recall of a state senator for supporting a gas tax hike has made lawmakers gun shy. So has a November ballot measure seeking a repeal of the fuel levy increase. Environmental justice lost out to politics.
But that may not be the final word. Budget writers also included $23.5 million for clean-water programs. And legislators and Gov. Jerry Brown indicate that they want to go beyond that one-year sum.
There are plenty of problem areas, but there are solutions too. There are hundreds of substandard water districts, many of them serving just hundreds of customers, and septic systems that leak into underground and river sources. But some communities with tainted supplies are within a pipeline’s reach of clean water, and updated sewer systems can limit the harm of spilled chemicals and waste.
What’s missing is the political will to fit the puzzle pieces together and pay the bill. California has long recognized the problem. Now it needs to take serious steps to solve it.
This commentary is from The Chronicle’s editorial board. We invite you to express your views in a letter to the editor. Please submit your letter via our online form: SFChronicle.com/letters.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
Report: Huge tent city to detain immigrants proposed in Concord
By Hamed Aleaziz and J.K. Dineen Updated 8:21 pm PDT, Friday, June 22, 2018
Photo: Evan Vucci / Associated Press President Donald Trump speaks about immigration alongside family members affected by crime committed by undocumented immigrants, at the South Court Auditorium on the White House complex, Friday, June 22, 2018, ... more
An East Bay congressman reacted angrily Friday to a report that the U.S. Navy is reviewing plans to potentially build large-scale detention centers for undocumented immigrants in various parts of the country, including Concord. Time magazine detailed what was described as a draft memo that was submitted for approval by Secretary of the Navy Richard Spencer, outlining plans to build temporary tent cities to house thousands of immigrants in the south as well as up to 47,000 people at the former Naval Weapons Station in Concord. Time did not publish the memo, and Navy officials would not comment. “It would be inappropriate to discuss internal deliberative planning documents,” said Capt. Gregory Hicks, an agency spokesman. The Trump administration in early May instituted a “zero-tolerance” policy for those who illegally cross the border to the U.S., leading to an influx of immigrants charged in criminal court and, as a result, more than 2,300 children separated from their parents. President Trump signed an executive order this week calling for detaining families together, though a judge must decide whether that squares with a legal case that ensures children are not held indefinitely.
Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu of California has aired audio on the House floor of sobbing children in a detention center crying out for their parents. Lieu said Americans need to hear their cries. (June 21) Media: Associated Press
According to the Time report, the planning document “suggests these tent cities be built to last between six months and one year.” Johnny Michael, a spokesman for the Department of Defense, said agency officials are “conducting prudent planning and are looking at all available regions should DHS ask for assistance in housing adult illegal immigrants. At this time there has been no request” from the Department of Homeland Security. In response to the report, Rep. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, said the Trump administration “needs to take a time out.” “This is no way to effectuate intelligent immigration policy, including for those seeking asylum. This is absolute madness and I oppose it wholeheartedly,” DeSaulnier said in a statement. “If the Administration wants to have a rational dialogue about fixing our immigration system, I am happy to do that, but making up immigration policy on the fly is just wrong. We will fight this in every way we can.” A news release from the city of Concord said the city is concerned to hear the reports, but that it had not heard directly from the Navy about the issue. The release said the city does not have jurisdiction over the site. The Concord Naval Weapons Station is home to one of the largest redevelopment projects in the Bay Area, a scheme that rivals San Francisco’s Hunters Point Shipyard project in size and ambition. The current proposal calls for building up to 12,200 housing units and 6.1 million square feet of commercial space on about 2,300 acres of the former military base. In addition, the East Bay Regional Park District will receive 2,600 acres for what will become the Concord Hills Regional Park. The Navy is scheduled to begin transferring land to the city in late 2018. The developer of the project is Lennar. FivePoint, a spin-off of Lennar, is managing the development process. The same team is redeveloping the former shipyard in San Francisco. Negotiations between Concord and the developer are ongoing. The current plan calls for a 500-acre phase one, which would include 4,392 housing units, 1.7 million square feet of commercial space, two community centers, a new school and 79 acres of parks and open space. Hamed Aleaziz and J.K. Dineen are San Francisco Chronicle staff writers. Email: [email protected], [email protected] Twitter: @haleaziz @sfjkdineen
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
Global warming warning turns out to be prophetic
By Seth Borenstein and Nicky Forster Published 11:42 am PDT, Monday, June 18, 2018
hoto: Jane Hahn / Associated Press 2015 A girl wades in 2015 outside of a home inundated by rising waters in the Saloum Delta in Senegal.
SALIDA, Colo. — We were warned. On June 23, 1988, a sultry day in Washington, James Hansen told Congress and the world that global warming wasn’t approaching — it already had arrived. The testimony of the top NASA scientist, said Rice University historian Douglas Brinkley, was “the opening salvo of the age of climate change.” Thirty years later, it’s clear that Hansen and other doomsayers were right. But the change has been so sweeping that it is easy to lose sight of effects large and small — some obvious, others less conspicuous. Earth is noticeably hotter, the weather stormier and more extreme. Polar regions have lost billions of tons of ice; sea levels have been raised by trillions of gallons of water. Far more wildfires rage. Over 30 years — the time period climate scientists often use in their studies in order to minimize natural weather variations — the world’s annual temperature has warmed nearly 1 degree (0.54 degrees Celsius), according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. And the temperature in the United States has gone up even more — nearly 1.6 degrees. “The biggest change over the last 30 years, which is most of my life, is that we’re no longer thinking just about the future,” said Kathie Dello, a climate scientist at Oregon State University. “Climate change is here, it’s now, and it’s hitting us hard from all sides.” Warming hasn’t been just global, it’s been all too local. According to an Associated Press statistical analysis of 30 years of weather, ice, fire, ocean, biological and other data, every single one of the 344 climate divisions in the Lower 48 states — NOAA groupings of counties with similar weather — has warmed significantly, as has each of 188 cities examined. South central Colorado, the climate division just outside Salida, has warmed 2.3 degrees on average since 1988, among the warmest divisions in the contiguous United States. When she was a little girl 30 years ago, winery marketing chief Jessica Shook used to cross country ski from her Salida doorstep in winter. It was that cold and there was that much snow. Now, she has to drive about 50 miles for snow that’s not on mountain tops, she said. “T-shirt weather in January, that never used to happen when I was a child,” Shook said. When Buel Mattix bought his heating and cooling system company 15 years ago in Salida, he had maybe four air conditioning jobs a year. Now he’s got a waiting list of 10 to 15 air conditioning jobs long and may not get to all of them. And then there’s the effect on wildfires, which now consume more than twice the acreage in the United States than they did 30 years ago. The AP interviewed more than 50 scientists who confirmed the depth and spread of warming. Since the 1800s scientists have demonstrated that certain gases in Earth’s atmosphere trap heat from the sun like a blanket. Human activities such as burning of coal, oil and gasoline are releasing more of those gases into the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide. U.S. and international science reports say more than 90 percent of the warming that has happened since 1950 is man-made. Overall, NASA satellites have shown three inches of sea level rise in just the past 25 years. With more than 70 percent of the Earth covered by oceans, a 3-inch increase means about 6,500 cubic miles of extra water. That’s enough to cover the entire United States with water about 9 feet deep. It’s a fitting metaphor for climate change, say scientists: We’re in deep, and getting deeper. “Thirty years ago, we may have seen this coming as a train in the distance,” NOAA’s Arndt said. “The train is in our living room now.”
Seth Borenstein and Nicky Forster are Associated Press writers.
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
Desaulnier, Harris, Feinstein introduce bill to give Contra Costa Canal to water district
Dan Rosenstrauch/BANG Archives A bicyclist rides along the Contra Costa Canal trail in Contra Costa County. Contra Costa Water District officials want to upgrade the 48-mile aqueduct that serves half a million county residents but want to first take ownership of it before investing hundreds of millions of dollars in the aging system. By AARON DAVIS | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group PUBLISHED: June 15, 2018 at 5:10 pm | UPDATED: June 15, 2018 at 7:24 pm
MARTINEZ — The Contra Costa Water District is looking to upgrade the 48-mile aqueduct that serves half a million county residents, but to invest millions in the aging system, it first wants to own it.
Last week the state’s U.S. Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Kamala Harris introduced SB 3001 to Congress alongside parallel legislation in the House — HR 6040 — by U.S. Reps. Mark Desaulnier, Mike Thompson and Jerry McNerney. Both bills would transfer ownership of the 80-year-old canal system to the water district.
The water district has operated the system since 1972 and fully paid off the canal, the Shortcut Pipeline, two reservoirs and other facilities in 2010, a district news release said. Now it’s looking to get started on its next-generation project: the Main Canal Modernization, which would replace a 26-mile stretch of the canal from the district’s Rock Slough intake in Oakley to Clyde with a metal pipeline.
“For those investments to be made, CCWD is awaiting ownership of the canal system,” CCWD Board President Lisa Borba said in a news release.
The canal was built between 1937 and 1948 as part of the Central Valley Project and conveys Delta water from its intake in eastern Oakley through the four East County cities over to Clyde as part of the Main Canal. Then the Loop Canal runs down Central County to Walnut Creek and back up to the Martinez Reservoir.
Its original intention was for irrigation for the farms and orchards that dotted the landscape in the 1930s. After World War II, developments replaced the farms. The open canal was great for farming, but the urbanization of the area has created problems. In its 80-year-history, 81 people have drowned in the canal after misjudging the aqueduct’s fast current and slick walls. Storm runoff spills silt and pollutants from the increasing amount of pavement and roofs.
Landslides and earthquakes damage the canal and evaporation takes 6 percent of the water along the way, officials estimate. In July of 2017, officials estimated that the project could cost up to $480 million and that $1.8 million had already been spent. Canal replacement work has been ongoing at the district for the past nine years. In 2009, the district replaced 1,900 feet of canal from the Pumping Plant No. 1 in Oakley to Marsh Creek in the east for a price of $19.3 million, with $14 million of that coming from grants. The second segment replaced 6,000 feet of canal from Marsh Creek to Sellers Avenue for $20.7 million, of which $9.9 million was from grants. Work on the third and fourth segments, which run from Sellers Avenue and East Cypress Road in Oakley, will finish up in December and will have replaced 5,500 feet of canal with a 10-foot diameter reinforced pipe. The total cost of the third and fourth segments will be $19.4 million, with $14 million coming from Proposition 84 funding. Though some work has begun, the district is still wary of investing $480 million in a canal system that would be owned by the federal government.
“When you’re talking in the hundreds of millions, especially when you’ve paid off the facility, we would feel more comfortable investing in it, and hopefully customers will too if we had ownership,” said Jennifer Allen, public affairs director for CCWD.
The two bills also have support from the East Bay Regional Park District and local recreation managers, since transferring it to local owners would assure local maintenance work is done. The canal system has recreational trails, including the Contra Costa Canal Regional Trail in Concord and Contra Loma Reservoir and Regional Park in Antioch.
Aaron Davis Aaron Davis reports on East Contra Costa County for the East Bay Times. He has worked for papers throughout the Seacoast of New Hampshire, as well as in Queens, New York and in Amarillo, Texas. Send tips to 408-859-5105 or to [email protected].
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
Environment & Science 1 Election 2018: Environmental measures were big winners in California, Bay Area races
State parks across California, like Garrapata State Park in Big Sur, will receive increased funding following the passage Tuesday of Proposition 68, a $4.1 billion statewide parks and bond. (Courtesy of Save the Redwoods League) By PAUL ROGERS | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group
PUBLISHED: June 8, 2018 at 1:58 pm | UPDATED: June 9, 2018 at 4:11 pm
Most voters already know that Gavin Newsom and Dianne Feinstein — who easily advanced to the November general election in their races for governor and U.S. senator — were among the big winners in Tuesday’s California primary election.
But there’s another group also popping the champagne this week: environmentalists.
Across California and the Bay Area, environmental groups had one of their best elections ever. They won nearly every major race they contested, securing billions of dollars for parks, beaches, water projects and public transportation, and at the same time helped kill plans to develop Silicon Valley hillsides and a proposal to change the way the state spends money from its greenhouse gas auctions.
“People want open space and parks, they want clean air and clean water,” said Deb Callahan, executive director of the Bay Area Open Space Council, a coalition of more than 50 parks agencies and land trusts. “And clearly people are willing to pay for it. There’s an understanding that you need to invest in priorities.”
The biggest victory statewide for conservation groups was the passage of Proposition 68, a $4.1 billion parks and water bond that voters easily approved 56-44 percent.
The measure only passed in 27 of California’s 58 counties, but it won by huge margins of 65 percent or more in most Bay Area counties and 61 percent in Los Angeles County, which easily offset “no” votes from the Central Valley and counties such as Riverside and San Bernardino, where it narrowly failed.
Proposition 68, a $4.1 billion parks and water bond on California’s June 2018 ballot, passed in 27 of 58 counties.
Proposition 68 is the first statewide funding measure for parks approved by California voters in 12 years, with about $2.8 billion headed to parks and wildlife, and $1.3 billion going to water and flood control projects, much of it to be handed out by the Legislature and state agencies through competitive grants.
Environmental groups donated $6.4 million on the Yes on 68 campaign, with major funding coming from the Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Land, Save the Redwoods League and the Peninsula Open Space Trust.
Green groups faced opposition from taxpayer groups but no organized campaign against them. They spent heavily on social media, blanketed farmers markets, ran volunteer-driven phone banks and cultivated events with high-profile supporters such as Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti.
They also secured endorsements from business groups, including the California Chamber of Commerce, Silicon Valley Leadership Group and Orange County Business Council.
The measure will mean millions for urban parks, soccer fields, baseball fields, basketball courts, bike paths and public swimming pools — with a special emphasis on low-income urban areas. Also slated for funding are trails, beaches, forests, visitor centers and campgrounds at state and regional parks, and new funding for groundwater cleanup, flood control and drinking water treatment plants. Although business groups regularly battle with environmentalists in other states, many in the Bay Area and Southern California are increasingly finding common ground, said Larry Gerston, a professor emeritus of political science at San Jose State University. That’s because they see parks, recreation, clean air and clean water as a “quality of life” selling point to lure and keep talented workers, particularly in the face of high housing costs and traffic.
“There’s a package,” Gerston said. “It’s salary, it’s benefits, but it’s also the weather and a better environment, and the ocean and parks.”
Among the other big wins by environmental groups Tuesday:
• Proposition 72, a tax break for people who install rain barrels or other systems on their rooftops to conserve water, passed 84-16 percent. • Proposition 70 went down in a landslide defeat, 64-36 percent. It would have allowed Republicans in Sacramento more of a say in how the state spends the money it generates from the “cap and trade” permits it auctions to oil refineries, factories and other large emitters of greenhouse gases. Environmentalists worried it would mean less money for public transit, solar rebates and other conservation measures. • Measure B and C in San Jose. An attempt by developers to allow the construction of 910 senior housing units on vacant land in the city’s Evergreen area, failed 58-42 percent. The measure was opposed by environmental groups who said it would transform 200 acres of hillsides into a wealthy gated community without environmental review. San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo, who also opposed Measure B, led efforts to qualify Measure C, which makes it more difficult to develop open areas in Evergreen, Almaden Valley and Coyote Valley. It passed 60-40 percent. • Regional Measure 3. A $3 toll increase over the next six years at seven bridges that cross San Francisco Bay, but not the Golden Gate Bridge, to raise $4.5 billion for transportation projects, won 54-46 percent. The measure was backed by business groups but also had the support of Save the Bay, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Greenbelt Alliance and the League of Conservation Voters. Although it funds freeway improvements, it also will expand BART, Caltrain, ferry service, buses and bike lanes. “We’ve got to reduce our reliance on cars to cut greenhouse emissions and roadway runoff pollution to the bay,” said David Lewis, executive director of Save the Bay. • Measure C in Napa County, which would limit the number of oak trees that vineyard owners can cut down on hillsides, narrowly led Friday night 50.1 percent to 49.9 percent, despite farmers and the wine industry heavily outspending conservation groups. • In Davis, Measure H, which renewed a $49 annual parcel tax for parks, bike paths, swimming pools and street trees for another 20 years, was approved 73-28 percent percent. • In Santa Cruz, 76 percent of voters approved Measure U, an advisory measure that opposes recently announced plans by UC-Santa Cruz to expand campus enrollment by 10,000 students to 28,000 by 2040. • In Martinez, Measure I, which requires voter approval to develop areas zoned for open space or parks, led late Friday, but by tiny margin more than Measure F, which requires voter approval for such changes but only on publicly owned land. Measure I had 51.37 percent and Measure F had 50.87 percent of the vote, yet thousands of mail-in ballots in Contra Costa County remain to be counted, so the results could change. The measure with the most votes will prevail if both pass.
Paul Rogers Paul Rogers has covered a wide range of issues for The Mercury News since 1989, including water, oceans, energy, logging, parks, endangered species, toxics and climate change. He also works as managing editor of the Science team at KQED, the PBS and NPR station in San Francisco, and has taught science writing at UC Berkeley and UC Santa Cruz.
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
Desire to Protect Coyote Valley Helps Sink Measure B, Pass Measure C in San Jose It was a battle of dollars versus democracy, and democracy won. That means San Jose’s environment, infrastructure, seniors, and veterans all won as well. Greenbelt Alliance and a broad coalition of environmental and housing organizations worked together to show that sprawl development is not a solution to the housing crisis.
Despite being out-spent at least 10-to-1 by Measure B’s billionaire backers, our team of organizations stopped this destructive measure which would have rewritten local rules to facilitate sprawl development across the city. It threatened thousands of acres of open space across San Jose, including the majestic Coyote Valley. It also included development plans for the Evergreen area, paving over greenbelt lands while bypassing affordable housing requirements and local fees. Measure B would have set a dangerous precedent for the entire Bay Area. We have seen efforts similar to Measure B in the past, as developers throughout the Bay Area tried to mislead the public and overrule community and environmental protections. But the public in our country’s tenth largest city has seen through the deception. Developers should be working with cities to create sustainable and inclusive communities with homes for a range of income levels, instead of destructive sprawl. By saying No to Measure B and Yes to Measure C, San Jose voters showed once again that they will unite to stop sprawl and support smart growth in our cities and towns. Voters showed more strongly than ever, that safeguarding Coyote Valley, in particular, is an essential and unifying value. Sprawl developers, take note: Voters want sustainable, walkable communities with housing for all. The Bay Area will not stand for sprawl. We are especially proud of how our years of prior work emphasizing the need to protect Coyote Valley has embedded that concept in San Jose’s culture. When we met with City Councilmembers, leaders, and the community about the threat Measure B posed to Coyote Valley, they were ready to respond because they knew about its importance. Our Impact Greenbelt Alliance helped form Neighbors for Affordable Housing and Open Space, the campaign against Measure B and for Measure C, from the beginning. We organized residents to walk precincts and hit the phones, with Greenbelt Alliance volunteers calling San Jose voters to get the word out about Measures B and C. Our campaign expertise, together with our coalition allies, played a key role in defeating Measure B and passing Measure C. What’s Next Building on this victory, Greenbelt Alliance and our partners will continue to protect our region’s precious natural and agricultural lands—including Coyote Valley—while helping the Bay Area create the right development in the right places. Photo: Wesley Lee
Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV July 20, 2018
POLITICS Conservation advocates see winning issue in Trump era Jeremy P. Jacobs, E&E News reporter E&E Daily: Tuesday, June 12, 2018
California environmental advocates campaigning for a ballot initiative to fund parks and conservation. @Yes68CA/Twitter
After winning one of the country's largest conservation ballot measures in California last week, advocates believe they have found a campaign issue with bipartisan political appeal in the Trump era.
With nearly 57 percent of the vote, California voters approved a record $4.1 billion bond package that will provide funding to a host of environmental priorities, including climate change resilience and stream restoration.
But the measure's focus — and its biggest pot of money — is aimed at improving to access to parks, especially in underserved communities. According to the measure's sponsor, the Trust for Public Land, 1 in 3 Americans don't have a park within a 10- minute walk from home.
The nonprofit says the measure's success is part of California's resistance to the Trump administration's budget cuts and the rollback of environmental regulations.
"This is absolutely a part of what California is doing to combat what's happening federally," said Mary Creasman, the group's director of government affairs in California. "This is going to be the beginning of a trend."
The ballot measure will provide more than $1 billion for parks and green spaces, $1 billion for climate resilience, and more than $100 million to improve access to the outdoors, including transportation for disadvantaged youth.
Creasman said the effort for a ballot initiative had been percolating for a while but was finally successful in the state Legislature last year, with Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signing the legislation.
She said the Trump administration was a major factor. "We didn't get the political momentum needed to pass this until last year, and there's a reason for that," Creasman said. But the shift toward funding conservation through state and local ballot measures has been happening for several years, said Will Abberger, the Trust for Public Land's conservation finance director.
Decades in the making
The group has been working in the state and local finance realm since 1996. In total, it has worked on more than 500 successful measures, creating some $68 billion in funding.
Not all of the initiatives have been statewide; many are local or county sales taxes, property taxes, or bond measures. This year, for example, the lands trust has put 10 measures on the ballot.
They range from Proposition 68 in California to a $19.4 million property tax in Gallatin County, Mont., to a $2.5 million municipal bond in Corrales, N.M.
The group has been successful in nine out of the 10 initiatives this year already and has a 81 percent success rate over its history, Abberger said. And it expects to have as many as 50 measures on ballots across the country by the end of the year.
The group has not shied away from wading into conservative states, believing the issues in question cut across party lines, said Abberger.
This year, for example, it has a measure on the Georgia ballot that would dedicate a portion of the state sales tax on sporting goods to conservation. It's a constitutional amendment, and it would raise $200 million over 10 years.
"If you want to think about red versus blue, Left Coast versus Deep South, there is a real contrast there," Abberger said. "But based on the polling that we've done on the 'Georgia Outdoor Stewardship Act,' it's something that Georgia voters are very supportive of."
The group's pollster said that one of the strongest demographics voting for the ballot measures looks a lot different from the typical environmental voter.
"One of the strongest constituencies in support of conservation measures are sportsmen — hunters and anglers," said David Metz, president of the FM3 Research polling firm. "If you look at the profile, they tend to be disproportionately white, male, over 50, rural."
That demographic, he said, is typically not supportive of higher taxes or increased government spending. "But they vote for conservation funding proposals that they think will offer benefits for wildlife conservation," he said.
'Green wall'
In California, the recent measure will likely be a boon for some long-delayed projects that have long struggled to find funding.
It includes $200 million for projects at the Salton Sea, the state's rapidly shrinking lake near the Mexican border. As the lake recedes, dust from its lake bed is creating a public health crisis (Greenwire, June 13, 2016). There is an additional $300 million in the measure for river and stream restoration. Advocates will likely also seek some of that funding to remove outdated California dams, said Redgie Collins of the nonprofit California Trout Inc. They include the Matilija Dam in Ventura and the Rindge Dam in Malibu, both of which are nearly filled with sediment, serve no purpose and harm local threatened species (Greenwire, Aug. 23, 2017).
Collins said legislators and voters "are taking heed" of the policies and rollbacks coming out of Washington, D.C. The ballot measure, he said, is part of "building a green wall in California."
Creasman of the Trust for Public Land echoed that sentiment, pointing to the climate resilience funding in the measure.
"California has been ravaged by wildfires, by flooding, by extreme heat," she said. "We are in a moment when voters and leaders feel the reality of climate change in a way they've never felt before."
Twitter: @GreenwireJeremy Email: [email protected]