James Walgren, Director of Community Development for the City of Los Altos is our speaker. He will be sharing his insights on balancing aspects of development — commercial & office development, city infrastructure projects, affordable housing, preserving neighborhoods and transportation. He can address how city staff is implementing and influencing city council policy. Cost is $25 per person. RSVP online now for this lunch with the League. Space is limited.
To prep for Q&A with James, check out the Housing Reading List from last month that we are recommending againhere.
Ristorante Bella Vita
376 First Street, Los Altos 11:30am to 1pm
RSVP & PAY BELOW
Make your selections using the form below. RSVP by 4/16. For questions contact Natalie Elefant at 650-383-5590 or at natalie.elefant@gmail.com
* Indicates items that are required.
How to register and pay by check
You can RSVP by email to Margaret Brooks with your choice of entree, lemon chicken or vegetarian pasta and arrange for payment. Alternatively, until April 15you can mail a check made out to the League of Women Voters Mountain View-Los Altos. Thereafter please email or phone Natalie Elefant at 650-383-5590 to arrange in person payment. Please add attendee names, menu selections and a memo to the check that the payment is for LWL 04/18/2014 so that we may process your check properly. If mailing, mail the check and your notations to the League office at 97 Hillview Ave., Los Altos, CA 94022.
Glossary of Affordable Housing Terms
The co-chair of our Affordable Housing Committee –Sue Russell– has recently developed a draft version of a Glossary of Housing Development Terms you may want to refer to or print out before the lunch. It includes a review of laws and housing programs as they apply specifically to Los Altos and Mountain View.
BIO
James Walgren, AICP
Assistant City Manager and Director of Community Development
City of Los Altos
“Downtown Public & Private Projects”
James Walgren has worked for the City of Los Altos for over 14 years. In his present position, James directs the Community Development Department, including the Planning Division, the Building Plan Check and Inspection Division, the Engineering Services Division and the Economic Development Division. With a staff of about twenty five, James administers a $3.5 million annual operating budget and an approximately $2 million annual capital projects program.
James earned a B.S. in City and Regional Planning from California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo, with an emphasis in architecture and urban design. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners, the American Planning Association, and the Santa Clara County Association of Planning Officials. James and his wife Kerry have two sons – Andrew, 17, and Christian, 13.
MAP • Ristorante Bella Vita • 376 First Street, Los Altos
Our League is thrilled that Mary Hughes close the gap CA — a renown speaker and advocate for recruiting more women to elected office — is the keynote speaker at our Annual Business Meeting on June 21. The meeting and luncheon from 10am to 1:30 will be held at Michaels at Shoreline as usual.
New this Year – Annual Meeting Kit will be Online
In order to reduce costs and be greener, we will be asking members to download the Annual Meeting Kit from our website. In late May — when the Annual Meeting Kit is completed — the League will email members with a convenient weblink. Those members without email or computers, will continue to receive a kit by mail.
Mary’s Bio
Mary V. Hughes is the President of Hughes & Company a political strategy and communications firm. She is the architect of close the gap CA, a four-year (2013 – 2016) campaign to recruit talented, progressive women to run for the California legislature and of The 2012 Project, a national, non-partisan campaign to increase the number of women in Congress and state legislatures.
Hughes has advised candidates for President, Congress, state and legislative office. Her work has contributed to several historic “firsts” for women: the first woman to lead her Party in Congress, the first woman Superintendent of California schools and the first out-lesbian judge elected in the nation. Her writing on American politics has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, The San Francisco Chronicle and The Huffington Post. In 2013, Hughes was named “woman of the year” by California Women Lead and in 2012 Women’s e-News named her one of “21 leaders for the 21st Century.”
Hughes is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law and Mt. Holyoke College and lives with her husband in Palo Alto, California.
In February and March, our League has asked both the Mountain View EPC and the Mountain View City Council to be more aggressive in negotiating BMR Housing Mountain View for the Prometheus 1616 El Camino Real West Project. Our Affordable Housing Committee argues that the developer has received a considerable number of concessions and exceptions, so the city could be requesting more public benefits. Many other cities have been able to extract more from developers under these circumstances.
Bay Area State legislators participated in an open dialogue about pending state legislation focused on early education in California, as well as the January budget proposal and its impact on early care and education programs.
On Feb. 21, from 9:15 am till noon, the Santa Clara County Office of Education’s (SCCOE) Early Education Local Planning Council (LPC) co-hosted a legislative forum as part of the Eight-County Early Care and Education Coalition.
Key Take-Aways
The forum demonstrated the increased interest and support for funding early education (Birth to Kindergarten) programs for low income families. More legislators participated in this year’s event that was filled to capacity. Both the State Senate and State Assembly are working on bills proposing ways to expand access to quality child care and pre-school.
Ted Lempert’s key message was that California and Governor Brown needs to prioritize early education in California NOW. Our children can’t wait. No further research on long term benefits or best practices is needed. A sufficient number of pilot programs and longitudinal studies have shown the benefits of increased resilience, attendance, third grade reading levels etc.
Many comments on the need to better integrate early education with health and human services. Low income families need education on early education, as well as how to secure health/developmental screenings and services for children.
While the State Senate has proposed the SB 837 “Kindergarten Readiness Act of 2014”, and the SB 1123 “Strong Start” Child Care bill, these bills are still under review and revision as they become more refined.
Some of the areas receiving most attention in the SB837 is how districts may be the provider or the contractor of preschool for 4-year olds. Would the preschool staff need to meet school district staff requirements, or what requirements do the contracted staff need to meet. How to locate, secure and provide appropriate facilities needed for expanded programs for 4-year olds.
Keynote Speaker –
Ted Lempert, President of Children Now
Legislative panelists
State Senator Jim Beall, Democrat, 16th District
Assembly Member Joan Buchanon, Democrat, 16th District
Assembly Member Paul Fong, , Democrat, 28th District
Assembly Member Rich Gordon, Democrat
State Senator Jerry Hill, Democrat, 13th District
State Senator Mark Leno, Democrat, 11th District
Assembly Member Kevin Muller, Democrat, 22nd District
Assembly Member Mark Stone, Democrat, 29th District
Moderator: Angie Garling, Child Care Planning Council Coordinator for Alameda County
Ted Lempert’s Remarks
Ted started his comments stating he is not worried about the “fade-out” effects of preschool. No more research on early education’s potential or proven benefits is needed. He cited a RAND Study with the Packard Foundation. He also noted that families with financial resources invariably ensure that their children attend quality preschools. The issue is that low income parents are not able to afford quality infant care and preschool. A minimum wage earner would expend 71% of their income for infant care. This creates a huge inequity for our children. At the same time, kids from low income families have a greater need for quality early education programs. These programs include home visits, parent education, and quality programs delivered from qualified staff.
Early education is on the state’s legislature agenda, although it may not be passed in 2014. In Governor Brown’s 2014-2015 Budget Proposal, presented January 16th, 2014, education funding is $1B lower than 2007-2008. When taking normal inflation into account, the 2014-2015budget represents a 40% cut to education over 2007-2008. Governor Brown is proposing a CalWorks pilot program that would provide quality childcare for infants and toddlers and home visits.
The State Senate has proposed SB 837 “Kindergarten Readiness Act” to expand transitional kindergarten to all four-year-olds over 4 years. Senator Carol Liu has introduced SB 1123, the California Strong Start program bill, which will establish a comprehensive, evidence-based, locally controlled program for children birth through age 3. The SB837 bill is still being drafted. The SB837 proposal allows school districts to contract out preschool services. Many questions remain as to the contract service providers, such as the requirements of their staff. Current school districts do not have sufficient facilities, especially those appropriate for four-year-olds.
Ted stated that we need better integration of our 0-5 early education and K-12 education delivery systems.
Ted’s Call to Action
In the midst of state proposals for early education, several counties and communities have started initiatives to expand early education. Examples include San Mateo County’s The Big Lift and Santa Clara County’s Strong Start and EduCare. We should support these local initiatives and voice support for the state proposed bills to expand early education. We will need all of these programs. Message to service providers: don’t rathole in trying to differentiate programs.
We need to tell our legislative members to prioritize early education. 850 organizations have voiced support for state legislation. Need 10,000 organizations to show support for legislation. These early education bills need to be supported, NOW. Our young children need early education now.
Introductory Comments by State Legislators
State Senator Jim Beall, Democrat, 16th District
Early education needs to be a state priority. Also need to better link health care and education. Currently assessments are not coordinated. Cross systems approach is necessary. Need to keep families together, even when there is a problem child. We need to look comprehensively for young children. And the Time is Now.
Assembly Member Joan Buchanon, Democrat, 16th District
Joan’s view on top three priorities for California’s education system:
Stop blaming the teachers. Blame the leaders.
Invest heavily in staff and teacher professional development.
Invest in our children birth to age 5. Both childcare and preschool. Invest the way Finland does. California’s funding per pupil is $3500 lower the national average. We will need more taxes to fund education. There are concerns that if California’s economy does not continue to improve, LCFF funding won’t reach its funding targets in 2020.
Assembly Member Paul Fong, Democrat, 28th District
Paul has been active on California’s Higher Education Committee. He views that early education is key to increasing college attendance, reducing crime and building a larger/stronger middle class. Paul has worked on multiple bills to increase low income student access to community college and higher education. Specifically, Mr. Fong promotes increasing Cal Grants via AB 1285to help more low income students attend and complete college.
Assembly Member Rich Gordon, Democrat, 24th District
Rich has much experience supporting early education initiatives and programs. He served on the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and Chaired the First 5 Commission. During that time Redwood City ran a pilot preschool program where the students were tracked into elementary school. They saw gains in third grade reading scores. Moving forward, Rich would like to see better linkage between child care and preschool providers and the K-12 system. He notes that further work is needed on early education provider staff development, and to secure additional facilities appropriate for preschool and child care.
State Senator Jerry Hill, Democrat, 13th District
Jerry supports early education and also notes that we do not need to wait for more research studies and pilots. He noted that his district includes 29 school districts, which 21 are Basic Aid (community funded, rather than solely state funded.) Basic Aid districts do not receive the incremental funding allotted in the Local Control Funding Formula. Thus these districts will not have additional funds for early education programs.
State Senator Mark Leno, Democrat, 11th District
Mark noted that much of the achievement gap is established by kindergarten. Families with financial means pay for their children to receive quality child care and preschool. Only one-third of eligible low income children have access to quality pre-school. Mark pointed out the challenges the State budget faces due to its current structure and revenue sources. In 2007-2008 when the economy was doing well, the state budget was $103B. Based on inflation/cost of living adjustments, to be at that level in 2012-2013 would increase to $125B. Instead, the 2012 budget was $94B. Without Prop 30’s $6B, the budget would have been $88B, which means that it would have been only at two-thirds the level of the 2007-2008 budget. California’s per pupil spending is about $8000/student ($7000/student without Prop 30), which is half of the other high cost of living states (eg New Jersey and New York at $15,000/student) and well below the national average. At a minimum, we need to ensure the continuation of Proposition 30.
Assembly Member Kevin Muller, Democrat, 22nd District
Kevin would like to see stronger links between economic and business councils. Together they could improve under-utilized child care facilities. He suggests moving the capital improvement loan payback period to 14 rather than 10 years so that facility operators could expand services. He promotes building more bipartisan relationships to address business and economic development issues. He agrees with Ted Lempert’s call to action that we need to act NOW to expand access to quality early education.
Assembly Member Mark Stone, Democrat, 29th District
Mark supports legislation that focuses on early education for children birth to age 5. He views it key to reducing poverty, prison population, and the achievement gap. It reduces the number of children on the welfare system as parents can take jobs, and expand their hours of employment. The challenge is trying to carve up the existing education budget; instead we need to review the full budget allocation mix. Some are looking at ways the Department of Family Services (DFS) can help fund childcare. Mark advocates for online community service review sites like Yelp that can help families locate better residential care facilities, child care and preschool. He notes that many infrastructure issues could be addressed with “one-time” funds and fees, rather than asking for commitment to long-time funding.
Comments from the Q&A Session
SB 837 “Kindergarten Readiness Act of 2014”
SB 837 is still a work in process, but it has brought together all the stakeholders to further refine the provisions and language in the bill.
SB 837 asks for funding of $990M over 5 years; but the true cost to meet its goals may be three times as much.
Concerns were raised over SB 837’s provision that districts may contract out preschool services, leading to questions of monitoring the quality of the contracted facilities, and qualifications/training of the staff.
The Proposition 98 rules are to divide state revenues by the number of students in the system. If more students (eg 4-year-olds) are added to Prop 98 pot, then the per pupil spending is decreased for all students. At this point, there is no funding for services to monitor and rate the providers.
The transition of a child’s care/education needs to be seamless as he/she transitions from child care to preschool to elementary school.
California’s State Budget, Revenue Sources
California draws most of its revenue from personal income tax (65.8%) and sales tax (22.7%).
Before Vehicle License Fees were reduced during Schwartzenberger’s term as Governor, 2% of the fees went directly to early education. The fees were reduced an average of $200 / year which represents over $50B over 5 years… 2% of $50B is the $1B that SB 837 asks for funding.
The 2009-2012 State Budget cuts were made “on the backs of women and children.”
Department of Corrections budget. Ten years ago the Department of Corrections budget represented 5.3% of the state budget – the highest rate in the nation. The Department of Corrections now represents 11% of the budget. The cost per inmate has increased from $28K to $60K per year, and in some cases up to $300K/year. California’s prison return rate (recidivism) is 70%. Clearly, we need new programs to reduce recidivism and improve rehabilitation and drug/mental health counseling. We need reform to reduce sentencing terms and incarceration rates. If we reduced the Department of Corrections budget by 10%, we could pay for quality early education for low income families and reduce welfare, prison costs, while improving state tax rolls.
Corporate taxes contribute only 8.2% of the 2014-2015 general fund revenues.
Two-thirds majority is needed to pass measures to increase taxes, including parcel taxes. Bonds require 55% of the vote within a regular election.
CalWORKS Parent-Child Engagement Pilot Project
CalWORKS proposes to pilot a program for up 2000 families in six counties over three years to improve parent-child engagement – begin March 2015 and extend through December 2017. The intent is to encourage early interventions for families and children who are experiencing multiple barriers to achieving self-sufficiency. These interventions include case management, job readiness training, home visiting, parenting skills education, and should ensure that children receive stable high-quality child care services that will provide an educational preparatory platform for their future. The demonstration pilot would cost $10 million in 2014-2015 and $115 million over three years.
These notes are from Julie Cates who attended the Forum. They reflect her memory of the comments made at the Forum. They have not been reviewed for accuracy by any of the Speakers at the Forum. Comments and corrections are welcome – send to Julie.Cates@gmail.com.
Are you going to hear Director of MV Development, Randy Tsuda, at our lunch March 21? If so you might want to prep for lively Q&A by doing a little interesting background reading. Here’s what Randy’s been reading about housing & development and also what Sue Russell – our Affordable Housing Committee & Development Chair – recommends as a reading list.
Check out Sue’s new, hot off the presses Affordable Housing Glossary .pdf on our website. It explains those pesky acronyms and esoteric terms as well as the how the various ordinances and legislation are implemented by city councils in Mountain View and Los Altos.
Sue Russell generally agrees with the planning and affordable housing approaches explained by SPUR.org in their easy to ready and well-illustratedAgenda for Change.pdf.
The Bay Area is in a time of tremendous change. We are the economic envy of the world, but we have huge challenges as well. Housing is too expensive. Inequality is on the rise. And we’re not prepared for the realities of climate change. Fortunately, there’s a lot we can do to solve the toughest problems our cities face. SPUR’s Agenda for change is our vision for the central cities of the Bay Area — our manifesto. It condenses the big ideas behind our work and lays out our seven-point plan for making this vision a reality.
Picks from Mountain View Voice
open space – a plaza with people sitting around – public space making
This first article highlights the jobs-housing imbalance in Mountain View, which will be greatly exacerbated by literal implementation of parts of the City’s new General Plan. The General Plan allows a great expansion of office space, especially in the North Bayshore area, which is not matched by anticipated housing production.
This second article explains that presently no housing is to be allowed in the North Bayshore area. This is happening at a time when rents in Mountain View are rapidly escalating and many long-time residents are being forced out, either because of high rents or because their dwellings are being torn down to make way for new luxury housing. Adding housing in North Bayshore will not solve all our housing woes, of course, so other policy changes are also needed.
California’s new school-funding formula requires significant community involvement through “Local Control Accountability Plans.” Each local community is supposed to be involved in the local decision on how to spend state funds. At this forum, school administrators and education advocates, including Michael Kirst, Preisdent, California State Board of Education, discussed their roles and the positive implications of local control for the community. The event — Building Great Schools through Community Partnership: the Opportunity of LCFF — was held the afternoon of March 4, 2014 at the Silicon Valley Community Foundation offices in Mountain View.
Michael Kirst, Preisdent, California State Board of Education was a presenter March 4
As part of the Local Control Funding rules, School Districts are to prepare “Local Control Accountability Plans” which describe how the District funding will be used to meet state requirements. The district is to obtain inputs from all “stakeholders” such as parents, students, unions, community, staff in the formulation of its Accountability Plan. The Accountability Plan is to identify goals and measure progress for student subgroups across multiple performance indicators. The single score API is no more. Districts will submit the Accountability Plans to the County Offices of Education who review the Plans to ensure that district funds are allocated to service the needs of the student subgroups and reflect stakeholder inputs. See the California Department of Education website for a LCCF overview.
Presenters & Stakeholder Panel
The program included 3 public sector staff and a variety of professionals at non-profits.
Presenters
Introduction, Context setting: Gina Dalma: Program Officer, Silicon Valley Community Foundation
LCFF Background and Update: Michael Kirst, President, California State Board of Education
Call to Action: Matt Hammer, Executive Director, Innovate Public Schools
http://vimeo.com/77618086 of Kirst speaking on Common Core is 33 minutes long.
Jan Christensen, Superintendent, Redwood City School District
Sandy Mendoza, Advocacy Manager, Families in Schools
Tony Bui, Student Leader, Californians for Justice, and a Sophomore at James Lick High School in San Jose
Anne Campbell, Superintendent, San Mateo County Office of Education
Moderator: Arun Ramanathan, Executive Director, the Education Trust-West
A Call for Patience during Change
Much is changing for California’s Education system: New instructional standards (Common Core), new assessment methodology (Smarter Balanced on-line, adaptive assessment), new funding formula (Local Control FF) in addition to a new accountability process (Local Control Accountability Plans LCAP).
Parents and community members need to be patient in letting the districts and school leaders work out the new instructional methods and strategies. We all need to be supportive in making the transitions across all these fronts smooth and moving forward. They are all in place to help our current local students be better prepared for college and career. And to help California build a better future workforce and economy. Everyone should take personal responsibility to reach out to stakeholders and districts leaders to support and improve the strategies for helping our students succeed.
Jan Christensen, Superintendent Redwood City School District was on the Stakeholder Panel March 4
Mike Kirst stated that the single score “API” is no more. Now schools and districts will be scored across the 8 priorities. Kirst views that the new school performance indicator will be a dashboard showing how the school is performing across multiple measures.
Ted Lempert mentioned that under LCFF, districts may allocate some of the funding toward early education, eg transitional kindergarten and even preschool.
Jan Christensen. Redwood City School District is K-8, serves 9000 students of which 70% are low income and 60% are English Learners. Jan described the multiple stakeholder input meetings that have been held this year to gather inputs as to prioritization of programs. The various stakeholders have very different requests. Teacher Unions want raises for teachers, as there have been no salary increases in five years. Parents want smaller class sizes, more enriched instructional environment. Teachers want more days for professional development and collaboration time. Students want better maintained facilities and greater access to instructional materials such as text books. All are valid requests, and it will be a challenge for the Superintendent to reconcile all the inputs to the funding and program plan. Redwood City SD hired PIVOT Learning to help facilitate the input meetings and synthesize the information gathered. A RCSD Board member was present at each input meeting. Meetings were held with parents of English Learners, parents of Special Ed students, financial advisors and so on.
Sandy Mendoza spoke about the work that she and Families in Schools have done ton increase community engagement and advocacy with LAUSD. Families in Schools is a non-profit based in Los Angeles whose mission is to involve parents and communities in their children’s education to achieve lifelong student success. Families In Schools was created in 2000 deeply rooted in a history of school reform for increasing student outcomes, especially for students from low-income and communities of color. Sandy discussed the active role she and her colleagues have taken to form parent groups representing students and subgroup student populations.
Tony Bui provided the student viewpoint. Tony had attended a private school, but in the last year or so had moved to James Lick High School that is in a low income area of East Side San Jose. Tony commented that he was surprised at the differences between the private and public school environment. The private school grounds were always clean and there were ample instructional materials in the classroom. At James Lick HS, the custodial staff does only weekly cleanups. Also instructional materials are lacking and often in poor condition; teachers may not even have pencils/paper to provide to students.
Anne Campbell said that the San Mateo COE is identifying the staff that will review the district Accountability Plans this summer. She stated she is looking forward to reading about all the strategies that the districts are implementing to improve student outcomes.
Anne Campbell, Superintendent, San Matero County Office of Education was on the Stakeholder Panel March 4. Photo from her 2012 election materials
Comments from the Q&A Session
Basic Aid districts such as Palo Alto and MVLAUHSD: while they will not receive State funding (their funding comes from local revenue/property tax sources), they still are required to follow the LCAP process and submit plans to the COEs for review.
Charter schools, just like school districts, are to develop LCAP plans for their chartering agent to review/approve before submitting to the COEs.
The new “Accountability Progress Report” is being developed now and will be available for review next year.
The LCAP plan development process including explicit stakeholder input sessions is to be repeated each year.
The role of the County Office of Education is to review district accountability plans. They may ask districts to provide clarification or note where there is not alignment as to how funds are used and how student subgroups are served. But it is not clear if a COE may reject a plan or to cause funding to the district to be impacted.
While the “API” of the past decade is now gone, the CA Education leaders will not have a new annual school progress report measurement index available until next year.
Background on LCFF
The goal of the LCFF is to significantly simplify how state funding is provided to local educational agencies (LEAs). Under the new funding system, revenue limits and most state categorical programs are eliminated. LEAs will receive funding based on the demographic profile of the students they serve and gain greater flexibility to use these funds to improve outcomes of students. The LCFF creates funding targets based on these student characteristics.
For school districts and charter schools, the LCFF funding targets consist of grade span-specific base grants plus supplemental and concentration grants that reflect student demographic factors. For county offices of education (COEs), the LCFF funding targets consist of an amount for COE operations plus grants for instructional programs.
Grants for demographic factors include “Supplemental” grants (up to 20% base grants) times the % of English Learners, FRPL low income students and foster youth students and also “Concentration“ grants (incremental 50% of base grants) times the number of English Learners, FRPL low income students and foster youth students over 55% of student population. There are also grants to help reduce K-3 class sizes and for grade 9-12 career technical education
As California districts prepare to spend the new money they are receiving through the state’s Local Control Funding Formula, they must create Local Control Accountability Plans that address eight priorities. The plans must outline annual goals for all students and for those in significant subgroups, along with action plans for achieving the goals.
California’s eight priorities for school and district performance and accountability planning and measurement:
1. Basic services such as appropriately assigned teachers and instructional materials, adequate school facilities
2. Implementation of Common Core Curriculum Standards, especially for English language learners
3. Parental involvement, including outreach to parents of disadvantaged students
4. Student achievement, including test scores, college readiness and language proficiency
5. Student engagement, including attendance, dropout and graduation rates
6. School climate including suspensions and expulsions, safety and campus connections
7. Course access, including core classes and special programs for needy students
8. Other student outcomes demonstrating a broad course of study.
Silicon Valley Community Foundation is a tenant in this Mountain View building
What’s next – the Timeline
The CA Department of Education posted “templates” for the accountability plans. School Boards are to select their plan template this month.School Boards are to adopt an LCAP by July 1stand submit their plan to the County Office of Education for review. The COE reviews the LCAPs to see that the district uses the LCFF funds according to the strategies to serve the needs of its student population. The LCAP is required to identify goals and measure progress for student subgroups across multiple performance indicators. School Districts must obtain parent and public input in developing, revising, and updating LCAPs.
RESOURCES:
View and Download Julie Cates original notes in this link.
[UPDATED: April 1st] On March 1, the meeting room at Martin Luther King Library was crowded with over 100 attendees, estimated by a show of hands to be 80% League of Women Voters members and 20% non-members. The presenters were excellent, offering a wide range of views. It was refreshing to hear them debate each other’s arguments. As one presenter said in apres-event chit-chat, “If you don’t hear speakers contradicting each other, you know something is wrong, you haven’t pulled together a broad enough set of points of view.”
Five presenters at the BDCP Forum have shared their slides with the LWV. The links are below in the story. General links recommended by the panel include
Over 100 people crowded the meeting room in San Jose
The roster of six experts spoke for 10 to 20 minutes each. Moderation duties were ably conducted by League members Gloria Hoo, Rita Norton, and Cathy Lazarus, while Sue Graham handled the final Q & A period. Many thanks to Pat Showalter who orginally proposed this forum. [See lovely photo at end of this article.]
All six speakers are at a long desk in the front listening to the moderator
Caveat Lector [Reader Beware]:
This article attempts to capture the key points of the speakers at this BDCP forum, trying to fairly paraphrase their remarks. The Leagues of Santa Clara Valley have not fact-checked any of these statements, so please take the highlights we present as the a best-effort rendition of the opinions of the speakers. The League has no position on this matter as of the writing of this article. So please realize the language below is a description of what the speaker said, not what the Leagues of Santa Clara Valley endorse or have fact-checked.
The Santa Clara Valley Water District is the water wholesaler which delivers water to the majority of water retailers used by us county residents. A key point of Ms. Maher’s presentation is that finally, after decades, there is a comprehensive plan across the many water authorities, but the BDCP is just one element of several of that coordinated approach. She said over 56 endangered fish species will be helped by implementation of the BDCP, while at the same time our deliveries of water to Santa Clara County will be better insured against interruptions and earthquake risk. Paying for the BDCP plan would involve a small increase – from $2 to $7 – to an average monthly residential water bill.
Joan Maher, Santa Clara Valley Water District, a proponent of the current BDCP
CURT SCHMUTTE
Civil Engineer
Curt Schmutte, civil engineer, former manager of the Delta levee system and advocate for the current BDCP
Mr. Schmutte showed interesting maps, map animations and photos to suggest how much the delta has changed in 150 years and how the current system of levees is unsustainable in his opinion. Many fish species have suffered from the disappearance of habitat including salmon; they often need to be trucked over dry spots. The levees which are concrete don’t offer the baby salmon any place to hide from predator stripped bass.
Land behind Delta levees is over 20 feet below sea level
Areas near the levees, whether dirt levees or concrete levees, are over 20 feet below sea-level and are becoming unfarmable because of salt seepage.
Schmutte Slide showing delta map of decrease in fish habitat area to 1% of 100 years ago
Salination from the ocean is reaching farther and farther up the Delta rivers when our droughts occur, reducing the habitat for fishes. At this point, an earthquake could cause the collapse and sinking of many Delta islands, allowing salt water throughout the entire Delta. The BDCP plan with its twin tunnels will mitigate all that.
DEIDRE DES JARDINS
Sierra Club of California Water Committee
Ms. Des Jardins began her remarks by saying Mr. Schmutte was overstating the earthquake risk of a complete Delta collapse, which in her opinion was not likely. She said that his scenario could only occur if the epicenter were immediately under the Delta, not 45 miles away at the Hayward fault. Quake waves mainly dissipate down. During Loma Prietta there were no levee failures.
Chart showing resevoir level at minimums for a stretch of several years
She is critical of the current BDCP plan because it does not give enough consideration to climate change. She argued that the “drier” climate change models of the future had not been given enough weight in planner assumptions, and hence the current plan is expensive and yet can’t save us. Planners expect — unrealistically — to be able to take resevoir levels down to the minimum in consecutive years. That’s a gamble. In consecutive dry years of the future, there won’t be enough flow going down the Sacramento to use even the exisiting pumps there nor the higher capacity proposed new tunnel pumps. There will be ocean salinity going right up to the mouth of the tunnels rendering them useless.
She advocates the Sierra club alternative — it emphasizes spending on water efficiency and water recycling infrastructure instead of tunnels and flow diversion. She also said the habitat restoration is not funded in the BDCP; it just part of the larger unfunded strategy. Similarly, she said that much needed levee improvement to protect the population and built infrastructure in the Delta is not funded in the BDCP either.
Doug Obegi says there are cheaper new supplies of water
Mr. Obegi presented polling results showing that 95% prefer a smaller water tunnel or no tunnel at all.
Polls show weak voter support for the tunnels
His organization is advocating a smaller tunnel and using the rest of the money on local storage infrastructure and more recycling and conservation.
With the same spending…Invest in a small tunnel, local supplies, in local storage and recycling
His organization finds each of these different kinds of “new” water supplies would mean much less diversion of any annual spring river flow. Flow is more important for the fish right now. According to his organization, the largest “new” water supply is expected to be recycled municipal water supplies. One opportunity — the city of San Francisco takes all the water from the Hetch Hetchy lake and Tuolumne River in Yosemite, uses it once and pumps it as waste to the ocean.
Obegi argues that these new supplies are the cheapest. Even better, investing in local water storage infrastructure creates local jobs and more jobs per dollar than housing construction. Los Angeles has done this. If LA can do it, the rest of the state can too.
Richard Roos Collin urges voter to accept the plan or to take the time to comment on the plan, explain a better paln
Mr. Roos wanted to create a sense of urgency among the audience. He advocated taking some action – like the BDCP — over continued inaction. He related a short history of long past “warnings” about an inadequate water supply and salmon stress…1961…1971. Now… finally a collapse of flow in 2014.
He stated that 2/3 of the diverters of Delta flow have little responsibility for their water use. San Francisco diverts from Yosemite’s Tuolome River and dumps the flow into the ocean after just one use. Some agricultural users are not paying enough. It is only equitable for all diverters to be made more responsible.
Decades of inertia have created a failure to coordinate among water agencies, resulting in water use inefficiency and habitat destruction. Now with BDCP there is coordination at last — it offers a plan for adaptive management of the flow to respond to the needs of species. “But don’t be persuaded by me or any one of the speakers here today. Ask more questions. If you don’t like the current BDCP, explain a better plan …please submit comments on the plan. But don’t do nothing.” End the inertia!
Mr. Frost gave a hard-hitting presentation with two key points: 1) The tunnels idea is an antique idea from the 1940s and will fail, costing a fortune than could be better spent on “smart” water systems , 2) Central Valley agribusiness needs to change a lot.
Michael Frost
The State Water Project was devised in the 1940s with the expectation that exporting water South for development and agriculture in the semi-arid desert would be a benefit to the state of California. A part of the State Water Project involved damming every river in Humboldt and Mendocino Counties, Eel, Klamath, Mad, and Trinity, pumping that water (5 million acre feet annually) over the Siskyou Mountains into the Sacramento River for export. Governor Ronald Reagan declared those rivers wild and scenic in 1968, declaring them off limits to dams in perpetuity. So there is no big flow, and therefore, no need for big water tunnels. Quite the opposite. Without the water from the wild rivers and with drought and climate change, the BCDP’s large tunnels are likely to be empty much of the time. They cannot produce any new supply of water, unlike smart water systems which can.
Frost says Agribusiness in the high poverty Kern & Westlands area are consuming too much water
The Kern and Westlands agricultural areas are naturally a desert. Yet they have massive water allocations, and they need more and more water to keep farming because the land is becoming so salty. Crop choices made there are irrational – almonds trees are being planted, yet that is a crop that needs a reliable water supply each year. They cannot withstand a year of no water.
Almond orchards is a “bad business decision” if in Kern or Westlands, says Frost
Frost also agreed with those speakers who said that the levees needed reinforcing and that talk about the impact of earthquakes on water supply was “fear-mongering.”
SELECTED Q&A
QUESTION: Funding by the Water Rate Payers? Is that realistic?
MAHER, SCV Water District – Of the $24 billion in costs, two-thirds is to be paid by the state and federal contractors. We’ve done a thourough analysis of those costs and we have all our workshops up on our website. The impact per household is $7-8 per month in the N. County and $3-4 in the S. County. We think that is a pretty good value for restoring the habitat and recovering 56 species in the Delta, and having a reliable water supply for Santa Clara County.
OBEGI, Natural Resources Defense Council – We want to see a plan that works for the environment and the economy. Unfortunately, we don’t think that the state’s plan is going to lead to the recovery or the restoration of salmon and other species. And to put the rate payer impact into perspective, if the the BDCP increases the price of acre foot of water by $200, for the agricultural contractors in the Central Valley Project, they pay $150 on average, some of them pay $7 an acre-foot, some of them pay $30. So you are assuming that they are going to pay their share…that is doubling, tripling quadrupling their water rates. But I think that the history of Bureau of Reclamation is that unfortunately, we all wind up subsidizing a lot of the agricultural interests in central California and elsewhere.
ROOS-COLLINS – Water and Power Law Group – At the risk of being booed, let me make a legal point. There will come a moment when the BDCP is either disapproved or it is approved. The moment it is approved, the entities that are responsible for paying for it have a choice. They will look at the totality of the cost. They will look at the risk, at the cost shifting, they will look at the available public funds. They will have choice – including this water district – as well as every other contractor. If they believe it is not realistic, they will say no. If they believe it is, then they’ll say yes. Then they’ll be bound to perform. Now that is two-thirds of the cost. Now with respect to the other one-third, which is currently allocated to you and me, the taxpayers, there is likely to be a vote on a bond. I believe democracy will answer this question. If we need one-third of the cost to be public and come from a bond, either the votes will be there or they won’t.
FROST – RestoreTheDelta.org. Let us remember that Santa Clara County is 3% of the state and federal [river water] diversion. So if you feel that you want to pay for this program, as currently planned 55% of the diversions go to Kern and Westlands. And I think farming the desert has been proven through the millenia to be a really bad program for long term sustainability. So if you want to subsidize corporate agriculture in the desert, please go ahead and support this [BDCP]. If not, make your voice heard.
DES JARDIN – Sierra Club. Santa Clara [County Water District] can afford this. But the question to me is why aren’t they [BDCP] paying for the habitat restoration. It is an essential part of it. Taxpayers have shown [in polls] that they don’t want to pay for it [BDCP tunnels]. And it is the huge weakness in the whole plan. [Before this BDCP process] we’d just recently gone through a whole CalFED process … there the water agencies refused to pay for the 100,000 acres plus of habitat restoration that had been committed. Now they turned around and started this project – and now they are promising it [restoration] again with your tax money. And it’s not a realistic plan for that reason. AND then there are huge questions about what water supply they are going to get out of it anyway.
SCHMUTTE – Water Resources Engineering Consultant. Most of the damage that has been done to the Delta ecosystems has been done by the reclamation of delta islands for farming. And is it reasonable to ask all of the water users, to pay for the damage that somebody else has created?
Note: Mr. Schmutte also rebutted the claims made by several of the other presenters that seismic activity won’t harm the delta and the levees. He cited several recent studies by seismic geologists in academia, including some research at UCLA.
Après Event Chit Chat – photo journal
Attendees interacting with panel members apres-eventMichael Frost talks with an attendeeKatie Zoglin LWVLAMV, Pat Showalter LWVLAMV – who proposed the County League event – with Richard Roos-Collins
League Introspection
Our five Santa Clara Leagues heard from the attendees that they learned a lot at our BDCP Forum. Attendees and readers of this article are urged by the League and the panel members to learn even more by visiting study links throughout this article The panel provided varying opinions. But could it have provided even more variation? Well of course! Mr. Schmutte politely expressed the opinion that “environmentalist” positions were heavily represented. And in retrospect, the League can say that no one was there to make a case for ag-business subsidization.
All in all, the Leagues of Women Voters of Santa Clara Valley are happy they increased awareness and understanding of this important California water supply issue.
The Draft BDCP and BDCP Draft EIR/EIS are being made available to the public in accordance with the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCPA), Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA,) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for a 120-day review period.
The the The Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) including public comments can be accessed on this Page.
League Volunteer Recognition:
Thanks to
Pat Showalter – forum idea and speaker development
Rita Norton – speaker development, planning, moderation, and publicity
Cathy Lazarus – publicity, planning and moderation
Sue Graham – event operations and Q&A
Max Beckman-Harned – technical and audio-visual support
Norma Schroder – marketing and publicity
Comments or questions about this story? Contact communications@lwvlamv.org.
Congressman Anna Eshoo explained why continuing to fight for women’s economic equality is so important. Eshoo came to San Jose City College on February 21 to speak to students about the work she is doing to promote the Women’s Economic Agenda supported by American Association of University Women (AAUW). Our local League or Women Voters publicized this event as of interest to our members. The Eshoo event was headlined “When Women Succeed, America Succeeds: An Economic Agenda for Women and Families.” Keynote speakers were Eshoo along with Esther Peralez-Dickman, Director of the County of Santa Clara Office of Women’s Policy and Suzanne Doty, who serves on Santa Clara County’s Commission on the Status of Women.
Economic Disparities cost women and their families
First Congresswoman Eshoo spoke about the reasons why continuing to fight for women’s economic equality is important. Although gains have been made, Eshoo reminded the audience that women still earn only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, and the gap is even larger for women of color: African-American women earn 64 cents and Latina women only 55 cents for every dollar earned by men. Two-thirds of low-wage workers are women and in 40% of households with children the mother is the sole breadwinner. Clearly these disparities are costing America’s women, children and families. They are also costing the American economy between $400,000 and $2 million per year.
It is one thing to look at numbers, no matter how staggering they may be. It is another to hear how the numbers affect real-life women and families. So Eshoo invited Peralez-Dickman and Doty to share their personal stories of how lack of economic equality affected them and their families.
Personal Stories
Peralez-Dickman bravely shared her family’s painful struggle with domestic violence. She was born in rural Texas to a family of immigrant parents and several siblings. Her father owned a construction company that depended on government contracts to stay in business. However, with government contracts come onerous government documentation requirements, which her father was unable to keep up with. Eventually the business went bankrupt. After losing his business Peralez-Dickman’s father, who had always had a drinking problem, became a hard-core alcoholic and began to beat his wife. He later abandoned his family, leaving Peralez-Dickman’s mother to raise her children alone.
Suzanne Doty has also faced numerous struggles in her life. Doty was a business owner for 25 years and during that time experienced numerous personal and family health problems, including a high-risk pregnancy, a child with asthma, a mother with dementia and being diagnosed with breast cancer not just once but twice. The business she managed with her now ex-husband rented four retail stores and when the business ran into financial difficulty, three of the four landlords refused to negotiate for reduced rent payments. This forced the business into bankruptcy and the landlords to forgo all of the unpaid rent they would have otherwise received. Doty, at age 63, is now unemployed and unable to find another job. She has submitted more than 400 job applications and been invited to three interviews, with zero offers. She believes the cost of her health benefits, which cost approximately $900 per month, is scaring potential employers away from hiring her despite her MBA and years of experience. She is surviving on Social Security, which doesn’t pay enough to live in high-cost Silicon Valley. She also receives a $722 per month health care subsidy thanks to the Affordable Care Act, which has enabled her to purchase health insurance.
Audience Solution Ideas
The stories of Peralez-Dickman and Doty show that the issue of women’s economic equality touches on many other issues, such as domestic violence, health care, unemployment and the need for support for women entrepreneurs and small business owners. Audience members raised additional concerns. One Iranian-American woman expressed concern about helping immigrant women, especially those from highly oppressive countries, who are often unaware of what rights they have and how to exercise them. De Anza College statistics professor Andrew Phelps asked about how to make reasonableness play a larger role in public policy. In response to another audience member’s question, Suzanne Doty suggested that large corporations hire people to work at local nonprofits. If they did, Doty said, people could get jobs, nonprofits could get help, and corporations could get a tax write-off, making it a win-win-win. Congresswoman Eshoo agreed this is a good idea and promised to present it to the Silicon Valley Leadership Group.
The event concluded with some inspiring words from Eshoo. When President Obama, in his State of the Union address, declared that “When women succeed, America succeeds,” it was the highest-rated phrase in all of Obama’s speech.
The economic agenda for women and families
So what can be done to help women succeed? The AAUW and the LWV often have similar goals and collaborate, including here locally in the Mountain View – Los Altos area. The AAUW’s economic agenda for women and families will enable women to achieve greater economic security, raise wages for women and their families, and allow working parents to support and care for their families. It covers the areas of pay, work and family balance, and child care.
Pay:
Paycheck fairness
Increase minimum wage (including tipped)
Invest in job training and education opportunities
Protect and restore employment rights
Support women entrepreneurs/small businesses
Pregnant workers fairness
Adequate tools to investigate wage discrimination
Work and Family Balance:
Paid sick leave
Paid family and medical leave
Expanded family and medical leave
Federal employees paid parental leave
Child Care:
President Obama’s preschool and Early Head Start/Child Care Initiative
Promote affordable and high-quality child care
Adequate funding of child care programs
Adequate training and pay for child care workers
Expand child care tax credit
Make child tax credit permanent and indexed
Increase access to child support
To achieve paycheck fairness the AAUW supports passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act. To expand educational opportunities the AAUW supports expanded access to child care for women attending community colleges. AAUW has no specific legislative position on increased access to child support but some ideas that might help are improving the functioning of the child support enforcement system our state already has (possibly by implementing a volunteer program for California’s Department of Child Support Services, modeled after a similar program in the state of Texas) as well as helping parents obtain higher-paying jobs so they can afford to pay child support.
Collaboration between AAUW and LWV?
Perhaps some League of Women Voters members would be interested in jointly working with the AAUW and starting a dialogue on how to help women more effectively access child support, childcare and educational opportunities in our county and state as well as how to achieve the other social welfare and juvenile justice goals of both organizations.
Cathy Lazarus and Rita Norton have penned a San Jose Mercury op-ed. It is a guest opinion column titled “Take the time to learn more about the Delta plan.” We are thrilled that the San Jose Mercury published it in the Opinion section on page A9 (and also online with a different title) on Monday, Feb. 24, 2014.
League members from Santa Clara County throng to a training session for new and returning Forum Moderators
League member Max Beckman-Harned taped the Moderator training session held Feb. 8 in Sunnyvale. The June and November election seasons are coming up fast. About 25 League members from the five Santa Clara County Leagues participated — brushing up their skills or learning the requirements for the first time. Besides offering a detailed review of the guidelines, scripts, and logistics of producing a candidate forum, the training included a fun and funny “mock” candidate forum complete with audience disruptions and candidate boorishness!
members throng to mock candidate forum
The training included a detail review of “the moderator’s script,” wherein all league forum guidelines are explained to the audience
An Enactment of Uncivil Behavior
The 3 mock candidates were played by Cathy Lazarus, Jackie Kansy and Crownie Billik. The moderator role was played by Ellen Wheeler also of LWVLAMV. Three questions were concocted to set up the enactment of a variety of uncivil behaviors that can occur during a forum, but thankfully almost always don’t—
The Mock Candidate Forum Cast – Cathy Lazarus, Jackie Kansky, Ellen Wheeler, Crownie Billik – on stage in a forum-like formation
In her opening statement, candidate Lazarus committed the faux pas of directly comparing her “superior qualifications” vs. those of her opponents, saying she was the “best” candidate
Candidate Billik retorted dismissively that those were the qualifications of “staff”
Candidate Kansky kept telling the audience to go and pick up her campaign literature outside the room
Audience members held up signs, both pro and con specific candidates; there was booing and cheering
An audience member loudly objected to having her question – which was directed at just one specific candidate – heavily edited by the League so that it would to apply to all the candidates.
The mock moderator demonstrated how to calmly, politely and firmly intervene and handle such breaches of civility and even outright disruptions.
Ellen Wheeler closed the mock candidate forum saying,” I hope your forums are perfectly smooth, as so many are…and that zero of these kinds of incidents occur during your forum. Good luck!”
Video Doubles the Total Forum Audience
Max Beckman-Harned was practicing his “field video” skills at the training in order to be prepared for the election season. Most of our local leagues are blessed to have local access channels which will tape and often livestream or broadcast the most significant candidate forums. But a volunteer group of videographers is forming to tape the forums the access channel won’t. Contact Max Beckman-Harned. max@macmaxbh.com
Our Santa Clara Leagues agree it is important to try to have all candidate forums recorded for viewing on Youtube,etc. It doubles the total audience.
League member Max Beckman-Harned volunteered to video tape the whole training session
Assembly Member Joan Buchanon, Democrat, 16th District 
Assembly Member Kevin Muller, Democrat, 22nd District 
