Another Oakland Shakedown, by Ralph Kanz

Pay up or your houses will BURN! That's the message going out to the hills and many slantland residents who recently received ballots asking them to approve a proposal to create and fund the Wildfire Prevention Assessment District (WPAD). This proposal is so poorly researched and planned that it will not achieve its goals. So many problems plague the WPAD that the City Council should withdraw the proposal and start over.

Fraud Number One: Council members claim there is no money for fire safety programs in the hills. That's because the City Council didn't budget any money for those programs. The Council budgeted money for 2003-04, but nothing for the 2004-05. Public safety should be the number one priority of city government. It's the responsibility of the Council to fund this program if it is such a serious matter of public safety. And I believe that it is.

Fraud Number Two: Everyone paying an assessment will receive equal benefits from the WPAD. Over the ten year life of the WPAD the City would pay $1,489,774 in assessments and receive approximately $11,500,000 in benefits. The average homeowner would pay $650.00 over ten years and would receive an annual inspection! Just like homeowners do today, but without the assessment. No funds will be spent to clear private lands, no matter how severe the hazard they present. City properties would be inspected and cleared with WPAD funds.

The first year budget of $1.8 million provides service expenditures of $1,625,000. The rest goes to City and County administration expenses. Assessment districts are designed to provide benefit proportional to the amount paid into the fund. The assessment amount for each property should be designed to reflect the benefit received by that property. The WPAD assessment rate for undeveloped parcels shows a glaring inequity. Undeveloped private parcels are taxed at twice the rate of public parcels ($68.74 per acre for private versus $34.37 for public). Yet when we look at expenditures, the proposed budget would allot $250,000 to goat grazing and $900,000 to vegetation management, all of which would occur on City lands. This means that 70 percent of the service expenditures would benefit the City.

Fraud Number Three: “The process creating the WPAD involved extensive public input.” The proposal was jammed down people's throats at the last minute. The City knew a year ago when the budget process began that this issue was going to come up. Yet council members waited until July 14, 2003 to discuss it. People in the Fire Suppression District are afraid to speak out. They are fearful that this is their only opportunity to protect their property, and that this assessment is better than nothing. Some hills groups fear that failure to support the WPAD will lead to the withdrawal of City support for other projects in their neighborhoods. The proposal we see is the one developed by the Fire Department and the City Manager's office. There were no meaningful changes made to the proposal. Meetings held by the council members were not properly noticed. David Mix* filed a complaint with the Oakland Public Ethics Commission (PEC) over the failure to properly notice the meetings. Page 2 of the November 3, 2003 PEC staff report states in part: “Apparently there was no written notice provided for the August 26, 2003, meeting. A City Council staff member reportedly sent out an e-mail reminder only to committee members and other City staff. At the August 26, 2003, meeting the only council member in attendance was Ms. Quan.”

Each of the four hills council members appointed three members to the committee. Who were the “yes” people appointed to the committee? I have not seen a committee membership list in any of the documents supporting the WPAD

The process for establishing the fire assessment district is one of the most democratic I can remember in recent history. Three public meetings were held to develop the district and Council member present put each major decision to a vote. All neighborhood associations were invited to participate as well as the general public

Jean Quan in an email to the Dimond List et cetera, 11/20/03.

No, not all neighborhood groups were invited. I am a member of the Friends of Sausal Creek (FOSC). We were never informed of the meetings, yet the Sausal Creek watershed covers an enormous area affected by the proposed WPAD. There are no minutes of the meetings. There is no evidence of any major decision being put to a vote. One reason the PEC dismissed David Mix's complaint was that there is no ‘action' to cure or correct.” No decisions were made at the meetings of the advisory committee. So much for public input.

Fraud Number Four: Goats are environmentally friendly. Goat grazing, when properly managed, can be a beneficial tool for both fuel reduction purposes and the enhancement of native ecosystems. I do not oppose goat grazing. I oppose badly managed goat grazing. By the time goats are moved out of most areas grazed under City contract, all that is left is goat dung and dust. To paraphrase John Muir, goats are the hooved locusts of the Oakland Hills. The goat-grazing program in Oakland is causing erosion and damage to native plant species, including the endangered pallid manzanita. Manzanita Flat is located on Skyline Drive near the Chabot Observatory. The City installed a sign declaring the importance of the site. In 1989, there were 19 documented pallid manzanitas there. As of 2003, all of these plants are dead. Excessive annual goat grazing in the area stripped bark and leaves from the plants leading to their death. This year, goats were used in previously ungrazed areas along Skyline Drive in the vicinity of Chabot. No protection was afforded to the pallid manzanitas growing there and some plants were browsed heavily (one plant was left with a single leaf).

Goats aren't the only mammals guilty of destroying endangered species. This year city contractors clearing vegetation in front of Chabot cut a pallid manzanita to the ground. In 1989, there were 105 documented pallid manzanitas in Joaquin Miller Park. Surveys this year found less than half that number. The decline corresponds to the aggressive vegetation management programs instituted after the 1991 fire. The pallid manzanita was listed as endangered by the State in 1979 and as threatened by the federal government in 1998. A management plan for pallids was developed in 1987 by the California Department of Fish and Game. Unfortunately, most aspects of this plan have never been implemented. The species is also included in the Draft Recovery Plan for Chaparral and Scrub Community Species East of San Francisco Bay, California just published by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Oakland vegetation management practices are not in compliance with either of these plans.

Fraud Number Five: The WPAD does not require CEQA compliance. At the October 14th, 2003 Public Safety Committee meeting two members of the public requested that an EIR be prepared for the project. None of the Committee members responded to the issue. After the meeting the assistant to Fire Chief Simon promised a legal opinion would be sought on this matter. No such opinion has been issued. FOSC and the Sierra Club have both written letters requesting the City prepare an EIR for the project. These letters have received no response from the City. Case law is quite clear on this issue. An EIR is an important part of the decision-making process. The EIR must be prepared before the City Council votes to send the issue to the voters. Citizens for Responsible Government v. City of Albany (1997) 56 Cal. App. 4th 1199.

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) also mandates the preparation of an EIR. Under CESA the “take” of endangered species (such as cutting them down or allowing goats to graze them) requires the preparation of a mitigation and monitoring plan to insure the long-term survival of a species. A mandated part of the mitigation plan is the preparation of an EIR.

Fraud Number Six: The WPAD program will have long-term benefit. Vegetation management has been run on an annual basis without concern for long-term impacts. The management of vegetation reduction programs has not been consistent with existing standards and protocols. The City helped create the standards that they are failing to follow. One of a multitude of examples is the Hills Emergency Forum (HEF) (agencies in the HEF include, with Oakland, the cities of Berkeley and El Cerrito, California Department of Forestry, East Bay Municipal Utility District, East Bay Regional Park District, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, and UC Berkeley). HEF has prepared Management Recommendations for different vegetation types. Oakland has two members on the HEF. In the HEF's 2002 Annual Report, now-departed Robert Bobb is listed as an Executive Member; Oakland Fire Chief Gerald Simon and Fire Marshall Ernie Robinson serve on the Staff Liaison Committee, and Simon is also a member of the Fire Chiefs Consortium.

The HEF web site http://www.lbl.gov/ehs/hef/index.html has the Management Recommendations for different vegeta”Neither of these communities are recommended for treatment as both represent low fire hazards and often occur in environmentally sensitive settings.” This year the City of Oakland paid contractors to clear the redwood forest along Skyline in Joaquin Miller Park/

City vegetation management policies have targeted areas like grasslands in the parks. Yet according to all the standards and protocols these areas only need a 30 to 100 foot buffer cleared around the perimeters. This year all of King Estates Park was grazed to almost bare dirt. Large areas of Knowland and Joaquin Miller Parks were grazed the same way. The City is paying over $800 an acre for the goats to clear areas that do not need clearing. The goats effectively “seed and feed” grazed areas, encouraging the growth of more flammable non-native grasses and ensuring that they will be needed the following year.

While money is being wasted on goats in the parks, nothing is being done about the large stands of trees in canyons (like Thornhill and Shephard) where a crown fire among the eucalyptus, cypress and Monterey pine trees could devastate many homes. Nothing in the proposed budget for the WPAD corrects these problems. Next years proposed budget provides for goat grazing on 350 acres of parklands, and for 650 acres to be cleared by crews at an average cost of $1,150 per acre.

Properly managed fuel reduction programs can benefit less flammable native plant communities and provide long term benefits. Long-term the program has the potential to reduce the need for clearing. None of this can be achieved without proper planning and management.

Fraud Number Seven: The WPAD proposal could not be amended. At the October 14 Public Safety Committee meeting Jean Quan promised to meet with representatives of Friends of Sausal Creek (FOSC) the following week. The meeting was rescheduled for October 31. After the failure to respond to the EIR request at the Public Safety Committee meeting, FOSC and the Sierra Club sent letters to the City Council before the November 4, 2003 vote on the WPAD. The letters requested a management program and EIR for the WPAD. A management plan would save the City money and increase the quality of work performed under the WPAD. The October 31 meeting was cancelled, and rescheduled to November 14. At the November 14 meeting Jean Quan declared it was impossible to amend the proposal. Quan failed to reveal that one day earlier the Rules Committee had scheduled Urgency Amendments to the WPAD resolution and had placed them on the November 18 City Council agenda. If the meeting had occurred the week after the October 14 Public Safety Committee meeting as originally promised then amendments would have been easily made, assuming the Council was interested in improving the proposal.

I want to support a WPAD. Long term this could be a great program for the City. However, the current version does not guarantee proper management. There has been no meaningful public participation. The City will pay eight percent of the costs and receives over 70 percent of the benefits. The City Council should start the process from the beginning and develop a proposal that will have long-range benefits for everyone. Add it up. Vote no.

* Here is the link to the David Mix complain to the Public Ethics Commission: http//www.oaklandnet.com/government/public_ethics/113D1.pdf