Board Meeting Packet

BOARD OF DIRECTORS Board Meeting Packet

March 19, 2019 Clerk of the Board YOLANDE BARIAL KNIGHT (510) 544-2020 PH MEMO to the BOARD OF DIRECTORS (510) 569-1417 FAX EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

East Bay Regional Park District Board of Directors

AYN WIESKAMP The Regular Session of the MARCH 19, 2019 President - Ward 5 Board Meeting is scheduled to commence at 1:00 p.m. at the EBRPD Administration Building, ELLEN CORBETT 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland Vice-President - Ward 4 DEE ROSARIO Treasurer - Ward 2 COLIN COFFEY Secretary - Ward 7 Respectfully submitted, WHITNEY DOTSON Ward 1 DENNIS WAESPI Ward 3 BEVERLY LANE Ward 6 ROBERT E. DOYLE ROBERT E. DOYLE General Manager General Manager

2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605-0381 (888) 327-2757 MAIN (510) 633-0460 TDD (510) 635-5502 FAX ebparks.org AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING OF MARCH 19, 2019 BOARD OF DIRECTORS EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT The Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park 11:00 a.m. ROLL CALL (Board Conference Room) District will hold a regular meeting at District’s PUBLIC COMMENTS Administration Building, 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland, CLOSED SESSION CA, commencing at 11:00 a.m. for Closed Session and 1:00 p.m. for Open Session on Tuesday, A. Conference with Labor Negotiator: Government Code Section 54957.6 March 19, 2019. Agency Negotiator: Robert E. Doyle, Ana M. Alvarez, Agenda for the meeting is Kip Walsh listed adjacent. Times for agenda items are approximate only and are subject to change during the Employee Organizations: AFSCME Local 2428, meeting. If you wish to speak on Police Association matters not on the agenda, you may do so under Public Unrepresented Employees: Managers and Confidentials Comments at the beginning of the agenda. If you wish to testify on an item on the agenda, please B. Conference with Legal Counsel: complete a speaker’s form and submit it to the Clerk of the 1. Existing Litigation - Government Code Section 54956.9 Board.

A copy of the background a) Chavez-Crone v. East Bay Regional Park District (USDC materials concerning these Northern District) Case No. 4:19-cv-00097-DMR agenda items, including any material that may have been 2. Anticipated Litigation – Government Code Section 54956.9 (d)(2): submitted less than 72 hours (1 case) before the meeting, is available for inspection on the District’s website (www.ebparks.org), C. Conference with Real Property Negotiator Regarding Price and/or the Administrative Building Terms of Payment – Government Code Section 54956.8 reception desk, and at the meeting.

1) Agency Negotiator: Kristina Kelchner, Mike Reeves Agendas for Board Committee Meetings are available to the APN/ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNERS PARK/TRAIL public upon request. If you wish Alameda County to be placed on the mailing list to receive future agendas for a 941-2764-006 Harsch Investment District-wide specific Board Committee, 5653 Stoneridge Drive, Properties, LLC please call the Clerk of the Suite 111-116, Pleasanton Board’s Office at (510) 544- 2020.

1:00 p.m. OPEN SESSION (Board Room) District facilities and meetings comply with the Americans with PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Disabilities Act. If special accommodations are needed for you to participate, please A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA contact the Clerk of the Board as soon as possible, but B. PUBLIC COMMENTS preferably at least three If you wish to comment on an item not on the agenda, please working days prior to the complete a speaker’s form and submit it to the Clerk. meeting. 3 1:15 p.m. C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

a. Approval of District Check Listing for the Period of February 11, 2019 to February 24, 2019 (Auker/Doyle) (Resolution) (No Cost) b. Approval of the Minutes for the Board Meeting of March 5, 2019 (Barial Knight) (Resolution) (No Cost) c. Authorization to Negotiate with Various Property Owners (Reeves/Kelchner) (Resolution) (No Cost) d. Authorization to Exercise a Five-Year Option to Extend a Lease with Harsch Investment Properties, LLC for the Creative Design Unit Work Space Located at Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton, California (Reeves/Kelchner) (Resolution) (Budgeted Funds) e. Authorization to Extend the Term of the Piedmont Stables Concession Agreement with Judith Martin D.B.A. Skyline Ranch Equestrian Center, Inc.: Redwood Regional Park (Patterson/O’Connor) (Resolution) (Rev Authorization) f. Authorization to Extend the Term of the Skyline Ranch Concession Agreement with Judith Martin D.B.A. Skyline Ranch Equestrian Center, Inc.: Anthony Chabot Regional Park (Patterson/O’Connor) (Resolution) (Rev Authorization) g. Authorization to Enter into an Agreement with Nathan Lawrence for Caretaker Services: Big Break Regional Shoreline (Dort/O’Connor) (Resolution) (Budgeted Funds) h. Authorization to Execute a Contract with NBS Government Finance Group for Assessment District Engineering, Community Facilities District Formation and Professional Administration Services (Spaulding/Auker) (Resolution) (Budgeted Funds) i. Approval of 2019 Risk-based Internal Audit Plan, and Confirmation of the Organizational Independence, with Qualification, of the Internal Audit Function (Sumner/Auker) (Resolution) (Budgeted Funds) j. Acceptance of the East Bay Regional Park District Investment Report for the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 (Spaulding/Auker) (Resolution) (No Cost) k. Authorization to Transfer and Appropriate Funds and Return Insurance Proceeds for Recovered Stolen Mower #923 Assigned to Miller Knox Regional Park (Fong/Victor) (Resolution) (No Cost)

: 1 30 p.m. 2. ACQUISITION, STEWARDSHIP & DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

a. Authorize the Naming of Judge John Sutter Regional Shoreline (Holt/Kelchner) (Resolution) (No Cost)

4 b. Authorize the Certification of the Environmental Impact Report for the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline Land Use Plan Amendment; Adoption of the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program; Adoption of the Findings Report; and Approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment: Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline (Holt/Kelchner) (Resolution) (No Cost)

: 2 00 p.m. 3. PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION

PUBLIC HEARING a. An Ordinance of the East Bay Regional Park District Amending Ordinance 38: Rules and Regulations of the Park District (Love/Ciaburro/Victor) (Resolution) (No Cost)

b. Authorization to Enter into a Contract for Services with Axon to Supply the East Bay Regional Park District Police Department with: Body Worn Cameras, Conductive Energy Devices, (Tasers), Fleet Vehicle Audio and Video Recording and Cloud Based Evidence and Storage and Management (Love/Ciaburro) (Resolutions) (Budgeted Funds)

2:30 p.m. 4. BOARD AND STAFF REPORTS

a. Actions Taken by Other Jurisdictions Affecting the Park District (Doyle)

2:45 p.m. 5. GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS

a. Fire Chief Aileen Theile and Assistant Fire Chief Brad Gallup: Fire Department Overview for 2019

3:00 p.m. 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION

3:05 p.m. 7. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS

a. Executive Committee (1/10/19) (Waespi)

3:15 p.m. 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS If you wish to comment on an item not on the agenda, please complete a speaker’s form and submit it to the Clerk.

: 3 20 p.m. 9. BOARD COMMENTS

4:00 p.m. D. ADJOURNMENT

5 Page Left Blank Intentionally

6 CONSENT CALENDAR AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

a. Approval of District Check Listing for the Period February 11, 2019 Through February 24, 2019 (Auker/Doyle)

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the Check Listing for the period of February 11, 2019 through February 24, 2019.

Per Resolution No. 1992-1-40, adopted by the Board on January 21, 1992, a copy of the Check Listing has been provided to the Board Treasurer for review. A copy of the Check Listing has also been provided to the Clerk of the Board and will become a part of the Official District Records.

7 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2019 – 003 -

March 19, 2019

APPROVAL OF DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR THE PERIOD OF FEBRUARY 11, 2019 THROUGH FEBRUARY 24, 2019

WHEREAS, District Resolution No. 1992 - 1 - 40, adopted by the Board of Directors on January 21, 1992, requires that a listing of District checks be provided to the Board Treasurer for review;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby approves the check listing for the period of February 11, 2019 through February 24, 2019;

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and adopted this 19th day of March 2019 by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

8 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

b. Approval of the Minutes for the Board Meeting March 5, 2019 (Barial Knight)

9 Page Left Blank Intentionally

10 Unapproved Minutes Board Meeting of March 5, 2019

The Board Meeting, which was held March 5, 2019 at the East Bay Regional Park District, 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland, CA 94605 called its Closed Session to order at 11:09 a.m. by Board President Ayn Wieskamp.

ROLL CALL

Directors Present: Ayn Wieskamp, President Ellen Corbett, Vice President Colin Coffey, Secretary Dee Rosario, Treasurer Whitney Dotson Beverly Lane Dennis Waespi Directors Absent: None.

The Open Session of the Board Meeting was called to order at 1:03 p.m. by President Wieskamp.

Staff Present: Robert Doyle, Debra Auker, Carol Victor, Carol Johnson, Anthony Ciaburro, Jim O’Connor, Matt Graul, Chris Newey, Michael McNally, Jeff Rasmussen, Tiffany Margulici, Tyrone Davis, Kristina Kelchner, Brian Holt, Michael Reeves, Anne Kassebaum, Lisa Goorjian, Al Love, Dave Mason, Steve Castile, Ren Bates, Katy Hornbeck, Kip Walsh, Mona Koh, Sabrina Pinell Guests: None.

A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

By motion of Director Waespi, and seconded by Director Rosario, the Board voted unanimously to approve the Agenda.

Directors For: Colin Coffey, Ellen Corbett, Whitney Dotson, Beverly Lane, Dee Rosario, Ayn Wieskamp, Dennis Waespi. Directors Against: None.

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS

There were no public comments.

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

By motion of Director Corbett, and seconded by Director Lane, the Board voted unanimously to approve the Consent Calendar.

Directors For: Colin Coffey, Ellen Corbett, Whitney Dotson, Beverly Lane, Dee Rosario, Dennis Waespi, Ayn Wieskamp. Directors Against: None. Directors Absent: None.

Approval of District Check Listing for the Period of January 28, 2019 Through February 10, 2019 a. Resolution No. 2019 – 03 -033 (attached) 11 Unapproved Minutes Board Meeting of March 5, 2019

b. Approval of the Minutes for the Board Meeting of February 19, 2019

c. Authorization to Negotiate with Various Property Owners Resolution No. 2019 – 03 - 034 (attached)

d. Adoption of Amended Human Resources Policy and Procedure #3: Fingerprinting and Criminal Background Check Policy Resolution No. 2019 – 03 - 035 (attached)

Director Lane remarked she hopes that HR takes the ages of people into consideration, when a misdemeanor was committed as teenagers into whether or not to hire. Kip Walsh, Chief of HR explained the same standard is applied across the board: convicted vs. arrested/accused, seriousness of offense, job applying for, and the age when the offense occurred. Director Corbett asked if the applicant is not hired, how are they notified, and can they submit clarifying information to mitigate the offense. Walsh answered the applicant is notified by a letter when the criminal background has come back with a conviction, and the applicant has the option within a defined period of time, to submit clarifying information. Walsh added there was an inadvertent omission in the staff report. Walsh submitted the correction to the Board via hard copy. and stated she will provide the Clerk with a revised and updated staff report. Walsh explained the omission is in reference to the Levels of Background on page 28 of the Board packet. Director Waespi asked in which level would an on-call firefighter fall? Walsh replied that it would be their primary assignment and when they move into the Fire department there is another level of enforcement. Alan Love, Public Safety Support Services said there is no specific background check done for an on-call firefighter. Director Rosario seconded Director Lane’s comments about a misdemeanor when young and asked if the 5-day limit to respond to HR about anything negative in the background was negotiable. Director Rosario added that acquiring a response by the Department of Justice (DOJ) can be difficult. Walsh replied that 5 days is the minimum, and if notified by the applicant HR will work with them on a timeline for response.

e. Authorization to Appropriate Measure WW Development Funds and Amend a Contract with BKF Engineers to Develop the Tyler Ranch Resolution No. 2019 – 03 -036 (attached)

Director Lane and President Wieskamp asked for dates of project completion. Ren Bates, Capital Programs Manager responded when funding becomes available, the date for Tyler and Garms completion is 2021. Wieskamp stated there is interest from the community to make this park accessible. GM Doyle added that in 2012, the Tyler property LUP was approved, Garms will take several million dollars to do the traffic signal and parking lot improvements. Director Coffey asked if the District is using the existing consultant due to timing? Bates replied timing and permitting which was separate and now are together; would be beneficial because habitat and scope are very similar. Coffey asked if there is a benefit to putting it out to bid again. Bates said there is no cost savings because we are receiving benefit because they already know the scope of the project.

f. Authorization to Transfer and Appropriate Major Infrastructure Renovation and Replacement Funds for the Replace Glenside-Oliveira Bridge Project: Lafayette-Moraga Regional Trail Resolution No. 2019 – 03 - 037 (attached)

g. Authorization to Accept and Appropriate Funds for Improvements to the Bridge Yard Building from the Bay Area Toll Authority: East Bay Gateway Regional Shoreline Resolution No. 2019 – 03 - 038 (attached)

Director Lane commented that noise attenuation is an important part of the building and wanted some reassurance that it was being addressed. Jim O’Connor, AGM Operations, said staff are going through a 2- 12 Unapproved Minutes Board Meeting of March 5, 2019 stage process in terms of tenant improvements. Part of funding includes a study on sound systems and sound attenuation. The second phase will look at long term tenant improvements and see if the District can obtain funding from BATA for next year’s budget. These funds will be used for a catering kitchen, office space, restroom expansion, and sound attenuation. GM Doyle commented that BATA has stepped up by helping to fund this park.

h. Authorization to Apply for Grant Funds from the Wildlife Conservation Board for the McCosker Stream Restoration and Recreational Infrastructure Project: Robert Sibley Volcanic Regional Preserve Resolution No. 2019 – 03 - 039 (attached)

i. Authorization to Apply for Grant Funds from the California Coastal Conservancy for Public Access Improvements: Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline Resolution No. 2019 – 03 - 040 (attached)

j. Authorization to Purchase Palo Alto Network Security Firewall Device from AMS.Net for District-wide Information Technology Infrastructure Replacements Resolution No. 2019 – 03 - 041 (attached)

k. Authorization Transfer Funds and Award Construction Contract to ECAST Engineering Inc. to Grade Trail and Install Waterline Project: Redwood Regional Park Resolution No. 2019 – 03 - 042 (attached)

Director Rosario commented that he was happy to see that the lady beetle hibernation and aestivation periods would be taken into consideration.

2. ACQUISITION, STEWARDSHIP & DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

a. Authorization to Purchase Real Property at 2955 Peralta Oaks Court in Oakland, California for Additional Administrative Office Space Including the Park District’s Public Safety Headquarters and to Transfer and Appropriate the Funds Necessary to Complete the Purchase Resolution No. 2019 – 03 - 043 (attached)

By motion of Director Corbett, and seconded by Director Lane, the Board voted unanimously to approve item 2a. Corbett requested an addition to the minutes which states, the entire Board agreed to move and to second, and this decision was unanimous.

Directors For: Colin Coffey, Ellen Corbett, Whitney Dotson, Beverly Lane, Dee Rosario, Dennis Waespi, Ayn Wieskamp Directors Against: None. Directors Absent: None.

Kristina Kelchner, Acting AGM ASD, opened this presentation with an overview of the current administrative building, the increase in staff levels over the years, and the required additional space needed for staff and for the Public Safety Division. Kelchner stated the purchase price will be $14.4M. The building needs several upgrades including the alarm system, network, electrical systems, HVAC, seismic, exterior and entry improvements, and reconfiguration of walls. It is expected to take 30 days to close escrow. Director Rosario commented the District should ensure that the public knows Measure FF did not fund this building. The General Manager GM and Public Affairs will make certain that that message is clear in board material and in press. 13 Unapproved Minutes Board Meeting of March 5, 2019

Rosario added that electric charging stations for electric vehicles for both the employees and public should be considered in the design. Director Lane thanked staff for the presentation and building tour. Director Lane said she supports the campus feel the building’s proximity will provide. Lane commented that her one reservation is that the Park District encompasses two counties and this location is no longer the center. She commented that the pros for this building, and the experience the District had looking at other buildings for years, outweighs her concern. Director Corbett stated the Board acknowledges the volume of work that has gone into this project and agreed with Director Lane on the campus and her concern the District will continue to provide all services throughout the District. Kelchner acknowledged the team effort by staff. President Wieskamp said this is a great campus setting and is concern over in East County and Contra Costa for public safety.

Chief Anthony Ciaburro, AGM Public Safety commented on the use of a centralized hub and the positive ways to distribute resources. Ciaburro stated there are deployment points/offices at Contra Loma, and one on San Pablo Dam Road and utilized in conjunction with the contract with EBMUD a potential fire facility at Del Valle. Ciaburro explained that there are officers with specific assignments which allow them to deploy from their homes with an assigned District vehicle and after a phone briefing can begin work. Wieskamp emphasized that thorough consideration was taken for the employees and the public. GM Doyle added that this has been about a 22-year effort.

GM Doyle stated it is important the building has a public park façade and looks inviting. There is an opportunity for additional space at Concord Hills for Public Safety and providing polices services is a requirement under the District’s contract with EBMUD. This building will not only house Public Safety, but also the administrative staff which includes 2428 and those who do the work of the District. It will also allow for more training possibilities as the Trudeau building is in constant use. GM Doyle complimented the Land Division for this ongoing search. Wieskamp commented that the Ficus tree in the atrium of the building has survived since 2007 adding that Public Safety deserves it.

b. Authorization to Enter into an Option, Purchase and Sale Agreement and Transfer and Appropriate Funds for the Acquisition, in Partnership with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, of 120.09+ Acres of Real Property from Orville and Betty E. Olesen, Trustees and Tenants in Common, and Lawrence H. Duke, Successor Trustee: Deer Valley Regional Park Resolution No. 2019 – 03 - 044 (attached)

By motion of Director Coffey, and seconded by Director Lane, the Board voted unanimously to Approve Item 2b.

Directors For: Colin Coffey, Ellen Corbett, Whitney Dotson, Beverly Lane, Dee Rosario, Dennis Waespi, Ayn Wieskamp. Directors Against: None. Directors Absent: None.

Michael Reeves, Chief of Land gave a presentation on this item. Reeves oriented the Board via a map of the property. Reeves explained that this acquisition prevents fragmentation of Upper Briones Valley, and is a high priority conservation area for East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (ECCCHC). It provides foraging and nesting habitat for raptors, expands and creates a more logical boundary for Deer Valley Regional Park. Director Coffey toured this property with the GM last year and commented there is value in preventing future fragmentation of these parklands. Director Lane said that this park will serve many people and is not far from Round Valley. Reeves added that staff will come back to the Board after due diligence has been done and funding resources have been confirmed. 14 Unapproved Minutes Board Meeting of March 5, 2019

3. BOARD AND STAFF REPORTS

a. Actions Taken by Other Jurisdictions Affecting the Park District

Director Lane inquired about the odds of getting this grant at Pt. Molate Beach Park. Brian Holt, Chief of Planning replied this is a city of Richmond proposal and isn’t sure of the odds of them getting it. Director Coffey commented he read in newspaper that the city is considering six different business proposals.

Holt said that Pt Molate is identified as potential parkland and District staff have worked with Richmond and continue to monitor the current development proposals. Holt stated that Richmond needs to determine their future land use for the site. Director Coffey commented that when he and Director Dotson attend the Richmond Liaison meetings, they point out that the District is interested in a park at the site. GM Doyle added that the District has a long history and is one of the original litigants to oppose the casino development. The scale of development has to be so big to afford the infrastructure cost. The District is proceeding with the development of Phase I of the SF Bay Trail spur. and GM Doyle complimented the city of Richmond for being proactive with the District. Staff are finalizing the easements given to the District by Chevron. President Wieskamp asked if it is public knowledge what the city must do and the penalty. GM Doyle said it is public knowledge, and Holt added that the penalty is severe with Richmond selling back the property at a significantly reduced price. Director Rosario asked about the hint of erosion project. GM Doyle answered that this is Richmond’s project not the District’s.

4. GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS

a. Government Affairs Manager Erich Pfuehler and Legislative Assistant Lisa Baldinger will provide a Presentation about Federal, State and Local Legislative and Governmental Priorities for 2019. b. Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager, began with the map of the legislative districts and discussed the 2019 Legislative and Government Priorities. Pfuehler and Lisa Baldinger, Legislative Assistant, gave a very detailed report.

Director Corbett thanked Erich and Lisa for a thorough report. Corbett asked if on the Sacramento trip did any individual emerge as the Cap and Trade person. Pfuehler said it was perceived that there is competition for that space by Senator Bob Wieckowski and Assemblymember Rob Bonta, Senator Ben Allen, and Assemblymember Cristina Garcia. Corbett thought the idea of working more closely with the Park Commissioner is a good idea, and asked Pfuehler to find out who is the appointing person. Corbett commented on the importance of building relationships with the new councilmembers and mayors. Director Lane asked what is the acronym for BUILD? Pfuehler said it is Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development. Lane commented that San Ramon was interested in BUILD and have two Ironhorse Trail bridges they are interested in and perhaps they need to be re-contacted. Director Lane commented she would appreciate District communication with them. Pfuehler said he will come back to the Board and communicate with San Ramon. Director Rosario commented that efforts in Sacramento and DC were productive and it was a great opportunity to meet with the newly electeds. Regarding Measure BB, Rosario asked if there is funding for the Bay Trail on the Oakland side. Pfuehler replied yes and it is identified in Measure BB. Director Waespi thanked Erich and Lisa for both trips, and commented it was great to interface with the newly electeds. He thanked Erich for following up on the Bay Area Quality Air Management (BAQA) management board meetings and plans to include the District Fire Department and hopefully the Division Chief for CalFire Santa Clara Ranger Unit. Director Waespi would like grasslands in the forest fire mitigation bills to be part of the discussion. Pfuehler said there are plans for more Sacramento trips in future. He commented that staff also met with Assemblymember Rebecca Bauer-Kahan in her District office. 15 Unapproved Minutes Board Meeting of March 5, 2019 Pfuehler said that on March 12 the District has been invited to testify at a hearing on SB 45. SB 45 is a fire drought climate bond measure and the District is one of two agencies invited to testify. Fire Chief Aileen Theile will testify before the Senate Environmental Quality Committee. President Wieskamp asked if Dublin is doing monitoring and commented it makes sense to have an overcrossing on Dublin Blvd. Wieskamp asked if Alameda County Landfill Committee is supportive of using funds for Tesla. Pfuehler said they are, and District staff have had conversations with Friends of Tesla. Pfuehler will double check and come back to the Board.

5. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION Carol Victor, District Counsel said there were no announcements.

6. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS

a. Operations Committee (02-21-2019) (Wieskamp)

Director Lane reminded the Board to take note of changes to the Unit Manager and Acting Unit Managers on page 102. b. Operations Committee (01-30-2019) (Wieskamp) c. Finance Committee (01-23-2019) (Rosario) d. Natural/Cultural Resources (12-19-2018) (Lane)

Director Waespi requested the report from Becky Tuden on cyanobacteria. Director Rosario asked if there is a possibility that a member of staff can meet with one of his active groups. Staff will follow up.

7. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were none.

8. BOARD COMMENTS

Director Wieskamp reported on meetings attended. Director Wieskamp • Attended the Board field trip to the new administrative building; • Attended the Alameda County Resource Conservation District; • Attended the Operations Committee meeting; • Attended the State of City of Pleasanton. Wieskamp said the Niles Canyon Roll and Stroll will be held on September 22nd. Wieskamp inquired about the date for the formal opening of the Iris Garden. She mentioned that on April 13 Ohlone College is putting on the first street fair in the Mission District. Wieskamp extended her condolences to Director Dotson on the sudden loss of his son.

Director Corbett reported on meetings attended. Director Corbett • Attended the Board field trip to the new administrative building; • Attended the Operations Committee. Corbett looking forward to the festivities for Earth Day.

Director Rosario reported on meetings attended. Director Rosario • Met with Park Supervisor Bridget Calvey at Redwood. • Attended the San Leandro Creek Alliance meeting: • Attended District 4 Councilmember Sheng Thao; • Attended the Hike the Hill Conference, DC; • Met with Pat O’Brien; • Attended the Natural/Cultural Resources Meeting; • Attended the Finance Committee; 16 Unapproved Minutes Board Meeting of March 5, 2019 • Met with Dave Brown on DD subcommittee; • Met with a constituent at Montclair.

Director Coffey reported on meetings attended. Director Coffey • Attended the Board field trip to the new administrative building; • Attended the State Lands Commission Forum; • Attended Natural/Cultural Resources Meeting; • Hiked Crockett Watershed with citizens in the community. Coffey attended the celebration of life of Director Dotson’s son and extended his condolences. Walked the San Pablo Bay Shore and explored the new trail.

Director Lane reported on meetings attended. Director Lane • Attended the Board field trip to the new administrative building; • Attended the Natural/Cultural Resources Meeting; • Attended the Operations Committee meeting; • Attended the PAC meeting; • Attended the Elected Women’s Lunch in Concord; • Met with two San Ramon councilmembers and District staff regarding open space. Lane commented on the nice article on Doolan Canyon. She extended condolences to Director Dotson. Lane will meet with Contra Costa County Supervisor Candace Anderson. Lane said she is speaking at Mt. Diablo Audubon Club and attending town hall meeting in Danville.

Director Waespi reported on meetings attended. Director Waespi • Attended the Board field trip to the new administrative building; • Attended the ALCO Fire Commission meeting; • Attended the Wellness Walk at Quarry Lakes; • Attended a CARPD Legislative Committee Meeting. Waespi extended well wishes to Contra Costa County Supervisor Diane Burgis. Waespi complimented the GM on the article on managing wildfires and parklands in the District.

Director Dotson reported on meetings attended. Director Dotson • Attended the Board field trip to the new administrative building. Dotson did not attend meetings due to the sudden death of his son and family obligations.

D. ADJOURNMENT

President Wieskamp adjourned the meeting at 3:32 p.m.

17 Page Left Blank Intentionally

18 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

c. Authorization to Negotiate with Various Property Owners (Reeves/Kelchner)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager recommends that the Board of Directors authorize the General Manager and the Assistant General Manager, Acquisition, Stewardship & Development Division, to negotiate with:

APN/ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER PARK/TRAIL Contra Costa County 138-280-005-08 Contra Costa County Flood Diablo Foothills Regional Park North Gate Road, Control & Water Walnut Creek Conservation District

REVENUE/COST

Items of cost, terms or conditions of any option are subject to negotiation and would be presented to the Board for formal approval at a later date.

BACKGROUND

The proposed resolution for this item is in direct response to the Brown Act. According to District Counsel, "The Board may meet in Closed (Executive) Session prior to or during negotiations to give instructions to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of payment for the purchase or the lease of the property only after it has identified the parcels of concern, and has identified the people with whom this negotiator may negotiate in open session."

ALTERNATIVES

No alternatives are recommended.

19 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2019 – 003 -

March 19, 2019

AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE WITH VARIOUS PROPERTY OWNERS

WHEREAS, Government Code Section 54956.8 requires that prior to or during the negotiations concerning the acquisition of real property, the Board of Directors in closed session may give instructions to its negotiator regarding the price and terms of payment of such property; and

WHEREAS, prior to the closed session, the legislative body of the local agency shall hold an open and public session in which it identifies the real property or real properties which the negotiations may concern, and the person or persons with whom its negotiator may negotiate;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby approves the authorization to negotiate as presented to the Board of Directors on March 19, 2019; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager and the Assistant General Manager, Acquisition, Stewardship & Development Division, are hereby authorized by the Board of Directors on behalf of the East Bay Regional Park District and in its name to negotiate the price and terms of payment of the following parcels of real property:

APN/ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER PARK/TRAIL Contra Costa County 138-280-005-08 Contra Costa County Flood Diablo Foothills Regional Park North Gate Road, Control & Water Walnut Creek Conservation District

Moved by Director , and seconded by Director , and adopted this 19th day of March, 2019, by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

20 Acquisition, Stewardship & AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE Development Division Date: March 19, 2019

Antioch

Concord

Richmond

Hwy 24 Contra Costa Berkeley County 1 Mt. Diablo State Park

Danville

Oakland

Alameda County San Francisco Bay Livermore Hayward

Legend

EBRPD Lands 0 5 Miles [ O:\GIS\Land\A2Ns_2019\03_19_2019.mxd

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

Park/Trail: Diablo Foothills Regional Park 1 Owner: Contra Costa County Flood Control & Water Conservation District APN: 138-280-005-08 Location: Walnut Creek, CA 94598

21 Page Left Blank Intentionally

22 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

d. Authorization to Exercise a Five-Year Option to Extend a Lease with Harsch Investment Properties, LLC for the Creative Design Group Work Space Located at Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton, California (Reeves/Kelchner)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager recommends that the Board of Directors authorize a lease renewal with Harsch Investment Properties, LLC (Lessor) to extend for an additional five-year term the Park District’s existing lease of flex space at Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton, California, housing the Creative Design Group (CDG) in the Public Affairs Department.

REVENUE/COST

Per the terms of the original lease, rent for the five-year extension shall be set at the current prevailing market rent. The initial rent will be $16,640 per month which includes a base rent amount of $1.45 per square-foot, as well as a common area maintenance (CAM) fee amount of $0.413 per square-foot. The CAM fee covers operating expenses, property taxes, insurance premiums, and utilities necessary for maintenance of common areas such as the parking lot and restrooms, and includes fees for landscaping, lighting and janitorial services. The base rent amount will increase by $0.05 per square foot annually over the five-year term of the lease extension. The CAM fee will vary slightly month-to-month based on a number of factors including inflation and occupancy of the business park. Additional expenses related to this lease include utility and operating fees for the work space occupied by the CDG, which are currently estimated at approximately $1,200 per month. All of the aforementioned fees will be funded by the CDG annual general fund budget. Staff time related to the lease extension will be funded by the 2019 Land Acquisition Department general fund budget.

BACKGROUND

In 2011, the CDG determined that they had outgrown their work space in Hayward and desired to relocate to a larger and more centrally located facility. Following a search for suitable facility, in 2011 the Park District entered into a seven-year lease with the Lessor for the current 8,932 square-foot work space (Board Resolution No. 2011-11-248 approved November 8, 2011).

23 The CDG work space has worked well for staff. The facility is located within the Hacienda Business Park in Pleasanton, a central location that facilitates reasonable driving times to all District parks and facilities. The facility offers an efficient floorplan and adequately-sized office, storage and work spaces, and a high vertical clearance roll-up door and large bay that allows CDG staff to bring Park District vehicles inside the facility to apply identifying decals. Additionally, the facility is patrolled by a 24-hour security service which provides protection for Park District vehicles and equipment stored on-site.

The Park District’s current administrative facilities do not provide adequate space to house CDG staff and equipment. The General Manager recommends exercising the option to extend the lease by five years, during which time staff will evaluate alternative locations within District-owned facilities.

The current lease, which expires on August 31, 2019, includes an option to extend for one additional five-year period. In accordance with the lease terms, rental for the additional five-year period is to be based on the current fair market rental rates for similarly flex space properties within the local market. An independent appraiser contracted by the Park District to perform a market analysis determined that the base rent proposed by the Lessor falls within range of current rental rates obtained for similar properties within the local market.

The extended lease term will commence on September 1, 2019 and terminate on August 31, 2024.

ALTERNATIVES

No alternatives are recommended.

24 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2019 – 003 -

March 19, 2019

AUTHORIZATION TO EXERCISE A FIVE-YEAR OPTION TO EXTEND A LEASE WITH HARSCH INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, LLC FOR THE CREATIVE DESIGN GROUP WORK SPACE LOCATED AT HACIENDA BUSINESS PARK IN PLEASANTON, CALIFORNIA

WHEREAS, by Board Resolution No. 2011-11-248 adopted on November 8, 2011, the East Bay Regional Park District (Park District) entered into a seven-year lease with Harsch Investment Properties, LLC for an 8,932 square-foot flex space located within the Hacienda Business Park at 5653 Stoneridge Drive, Suites 111-116, in Pleasanton, California (Facility) for use by the Park District’s Creative Design Group (CDG); and

WHEREAS, the lease is scheduled to terminate on August 31, 2019, and includes an option to extend the term of the lease for one additional five-year period; and

WHEREAS, the Facility has functioned well as an efficient work space for the CDG, and the Park District now desires to extend its lease of the Facility for an additional five-year period;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby authorizes the General Manager to exercise the option to extend the lease for the Facility for an additional five-year term commencing on September 1, 2019 and terminating on August 31, 2024 for an initial base rent of $1.45 per square foot, with annual increases of $0.05 per square foot over the five-year term of the lease extension; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the General Manager is hereby authorized and directed, on behalf of the District and in its name, to execute and deliver such documents and to do such acts as may be deemed necessary or appropriate to accomplish the intentions of this resolution.

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and adopted this 19th day of March 2019 by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

25 Page Left Blank Intentionally

26 PUBLIC AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT ENVIRONMENTAL GRAPHICS SERVICES EBRPD Lease of office space Environmental Programs March 1, 2019 5653 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 111-116, Feet t:bstone/mxd projects/landacq/pub 035 70 140 210 280 affairs_environ graphics lease.mxd Pleasanton, California

5653 Stoneridge Drive Suite 111-116 Pleasanton

SF Property Investments LLC 941 276400600

Stoneridge Drive

Location Map Las Positas Blvd.

27 Page Left Blank Intentionally

28 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

e. Authorization to Extend the Term of the Piedmont Stables Concession Agreement with Judith Martin D.B.A. Skyline Ranch Equestrian Center, Inc.: Redwood Regional Park (Patterson/O’Connor)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager and the Board Operations Committee, by unanimous vote at its February 21, 2019 meeting, recommend that the Board of Directors authorize an extension of the Piedmont Stables concession agreement with Judith Martin, d.b.a. Skyline Ranch Equestrian Center in Redwood Regional Park for an additional seven years as allowable in the current agreement.

REVENUE/COST

The District can expect $6,390 annually, representing 3% of total gross monthly receipts derived from a combination of horse boarding, lessons, and day camps. In addition, up to $14,910 annually, seven percent of total gross monthly receipts, will be set aside in a site-specific Concession Maintenance Fund (CMF). There will be no cost to the Park District for this action except for any unknown maintenance or repairs to the property not covered by the concessionaire or the CMF.

BACKGROUND

Piedmont Stables (now includes the Redwood Arena located west of the Stables) is a Park District equestrian concession located in Redwood Regional Park. The facility has a 43-stall stable with a small indoor arena, outdoor paddocks with outdoor arena, and a security residence. Judith Martin has been the Piedmont Stables concessionaire since August 2002.

After a Request for Proposal process in 2016, the Board of Directors approved selection of Judith Martin, d.b.a. Skyline Ranch Equestrian Center, as the concessionaire at Piedmont Stables. The current concession agreement will expire October 31, 2019 and Ms. Martin has requested the option for an extension of seven years to October 31, 2026. Ms. Martin has met the criteria and requirements as contained in the agreement and received an unanimously-recommended approval by the Board Operations Committee for review by the Board of Directors.

29 ALTERNATIVES

None are recommended.

30 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2019 – 003 -

March 19, 2019

AUTHORIZATION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE PIEDMONT STABLES CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH JUDITH MARTIN D.B.A. SKYLINE RANCH EQUESTRIAN CENTER, INC.: REDWOOD REGIONAL PARK

WHEREAS, Piedmont Stables, including Redwood Arena, is an East Bay Regional Park District equestrian concession located in Redwood Regional Park; and

WHEREAS, the term of the current concession agreement with Judith Martin d.b.a Skyline Ranch Equestrian Center commenced on November 1, 2016 and will expire on October 31, 2019; and

WHEREAS, Judith Martin is requesting the seven-year extension option which is available in the current agreement; and

WHEREAS, Judith Martin has met the criteria she set in her proposal for the concession and has met the requirements as contained in the concession agreement; and

WHEREAS, the Board Operations Committee, at its February 21, 2019 meeting has reviewed and unanimously recommended approval of an extension of the concession agreement to October 31, 2026 by the full Board;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby authorizes extending the concession agreement with Judith Martin d.b.a. Skyline Ranch Equestrian Center, Inc. for the management of Piedmont Stables and Redwood Arena in Redwood Regional Park for an additional seven years expiring on October 31, 2026 with expected annual average rent revenue of $6,390, to be coded to Account 101- 5121-112-3651, and an $14,910 annually to be set aside in a site-specific concession maintenance fund to be coded to Account 101-0000-000-2377; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the General Manager is hereby authorized and directed, on behalf of the Park District and in its name, to execute and deliver such documents and to do such acts as may be deemed necessary or appropriate to accomplish the intentions of this resolution.

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and adopted this 19th day of March, 2019, by the following vote:

FOR: AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

31 Page Left Blank Intentionally

32 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

f. Authorization to Extend the Term of the Skyline Ranch Concession Agreement with Judith Martin D.B.A. Skyline Ranch Equestrian Center, Inc.: Anthony Chabot Regional Park (Patterson/O’Connor)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager and the Board Operations Committee, by unanimous vote at its February 21, 2019 meeting, recommend that the Board of Directors authorize an extension of the Skyline Ranch concession agreement with Judith Martin, d.b.a. Skyline Ranch Equestrian Center in Anthony Chabot Regional Park for an additional seven years as allowable in the current agreement.

REVENUE/COST

The District can expect $10,350 annually, representing 3% of total gross monthly receipts derived from a combination of horse boarding, lessons, and day camps. In addition, up to $24,150 annually, 7% of total gross monthly receipts will be set aside in a site-specific Concession Maintenance Fund (CMF). There will be no cost to the Park District for this action except for any unknown maintenance or repairs to the property not covered by the concessionaire or the CMF.

BACKGROUND

Skyline Ranch is a District equestrian concession located in Anthony Chabot Regional Park. The concession facility has a small indoor arena with 45 stall stable for boarding. There is a large outdoor arena with paddocks along the hillside for turnouts, including a manure management area, feed storage area, and two caretaker residences. The concession agreement will allow the concessionaire to board up to 14 of the stalls for lessons. Judith Martin has been the Skyline Ranch concessionaire since August 2002.

After a Request for Proposal process in 2016, the Board of Directors approved selection of Judith Martin d.b.a. Skyline Ranch Equestrian Center, Inc. as the concessionaire at Skyline Ranch. The current concession agreement will expire October 31, 2019 and Ms. Martin has requested the option for an extension of seven years to October 31, 2026. Ms. Martin has met the criteria and requirements as contained in the agreement and received an unanimously-recommended approval by the Board Operations Committee for review by the Board of Directors.

33 ALTERNATIVES

None are recommended.

34 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2019- 003 -

March 19, 2019

AUTHORIZATION TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE SKYLINE RANCH CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH JUDITH MARTIN D.B.A. SKYLINE RANCH EQUESTRIAN INC.: ANTHONY CHABOT REGIONAL PARK

WHEREAS, Skyline Ranch, is an East Bay Regional Park District equestrian concession located in Anthony Chabot Regional Park; and

WHEREAS, the term of the current concession agreement with Judith Martin d.b.a Skyline Ranch Equestrian Center commenced on November 1, 2016 and will expire on October 31, 2019; and

WHEREAS, Judith Martin is requesting the seven-year extension option which is available in the current agreement; and

WHEREAS, Judith Martin has met the criteria she set in her proposal for the concession and has met the requirements as contained in the concession agreement; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby authorizes extending the concession agreement with Judith Martin d.b.a. Skyline Ranch Equestrian Center, Inc. for the management of the Skyline Ranch facility in Anthony Chabot Regional Park for an additional seven years expiring on October 31, 2026, with expected annual average rent revenue of $10,350, to be coded to Account 101-5121-175-3651, and an $24,150 annually to be set aside in a site-specific concession maintenance fund to be coded to Account 101-0000-000-2370; and

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and adopted this 19th day of March, 2019, by the following vote:

FOR: AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

35 Page Left Blank Intentionally

36 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

g. Authorization to Enter into an Agreement with Nathan Lawrence for Caretaker Services: Big Break Regional Shoreline (Dort/O’Connor)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager and the Board Operations Committee, by unanimous vote at its February 21, 2019 meeting, recommend that the Board of Directors authorize an Agreement with Nathan Lawrence for caretaking services at Big Break Regional Shoreline for up to three years, beginning March 2019.

REVENUE/COST

The initial cost to the Park District for this action is $6,659.04 per year, to increase by 1.5% annually during the term of the Agreement. The caretaker cost is paid from the Operations services budget of the Delta Unit, Big Break at 101-5171-429-6191.

BACKGROUND

Big Break Regional Shoreline requires caretaker services to monitor the property and provide site security for park facilities. The Caretaker shall live on a designated residence site in a self- provided, stand-alone livable mobile unit. Duties will include: gate and restroom open/close responsibilities, monitoring of the ADA fishing/observation pier, as well as routine patrol of the site.

The current caretaker services end in March 2019, and staff has identified an ongoing need for on-site security in this area. After an open application process, Mr. Nathan Lawrence was the only applicant to apply. Mr. Lawrence has received positive evaluation and approval of his services from Unit Manager Dan Cunning, Park Supervisor Carlos Lare-Masters, and Police Captain Alan Love. Mr. Lawrence has direct and applicable experience in this area, having provided caretaker services at Big Break from 2012 to 2019. Mr. Lawrence is familiar with East Contra Costa County and the surrounding area, and he has experience in facilities maintenance and security.

Staff recommends entering into an Agreement for Big Break Regional Shoreline with Mr. Nathan Lawrence. The Agreement would be for one year, commencing March 2019, with the possibility

37 of two one-year term extensions upon mutual agreement by both the Park District and Mr. Nathan Lawrence.

ALTERNATIVES

None are recommended.

38 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2019 – 003 -

March 19, 2019

AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH NATHAN LAWRENCE FOR CARETAKER SERVICES: BIG BREAK REGIONAL SHORELINE

WHEREAS, the East Bay Regional Park District (Park District) requires caretaker services to monitor the property and provide site security for certain park facilities; and

WHEREAS, the Park District utilizes caretaker services at Big Break Regional Shoreline for gate and restroom open/close responsibilities, monitoring of the ADA fishing/observation pier, as well as routine patrol of the site; and

WHEREAS, an open application process took place to seek interested and qualified applicants caretaker services; and

WHEREAS, as a result of the selection process, Park District staff recommends Nathan Lawrence to provide caretaker services for Big Break Regional Shoreline; and

WHEREAS, the Board Operations Committee at its February 21, 2019 meeting has reviewed and unanimously recommended approval of this concession agreement by the full Board;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby authorizes entering into an Agreement with Nathan Lawrence for caretaker services at Big Break Regional Shoreline for one year, commencing March 2019, with the possibility of two one-year term extensions upon mutual agreement between the Park District and Mr. Nathan Lawrence, for $6,659.04 per year, increasing by 1.5% annually during the term of this Agreement, payable from the General Fund at 101-5171-429-6191; and

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and adopted this 19th day of March, 2019, by the following vote:

FOR: AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

39 Page Left Blank Intentionally

40 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

h. Authorization to Execute a Contract with NBS Government Finance Group for Assessment District Engineering, Community Facilities District Formation and Professional Administration Services (Spaulding/Auker)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager and the Board Finance Committee (by unanimous vote) recommend that the Board of Directors authorize executing a contract for services with NBS Government Finance Group (NBS) for Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District (LLD) Engineering, Professional Administration Services for Zones of Benefit (ZOB) and Community Facilities Districts (CFD), as well as new CFD formation for three-years, with an optional two-year extension.

REVENUE/COST

The annual cost for the services provided by NBS will be $44,900. Funding for the contract is budgeted in the Finance Department’s professional services budget. The costs for formation of new CFDs will not exceed $14,000. Over the first three years of the contract, total costs will not exceed $162,700.

BACKGROUND

The Park District uses Landscape and Lighting Assessment Districts (LLDs), Community Facilities Districts (CFDs), Zones of Benefit (ZOBs), and a special excise tax to generate revenue for services in specific areas within the two counties. These revenue sources are complex enough to require oversight and administration by a consultant who specializes in assessment district engineering and administration. The current contract expired in January 2019.

These various taxes and assessments generate over $8 million annually and include the Alameda/Contra Costa Counties Landscape and Lighting District (Two County LLD); the East Contra Costa County (ECCC LLD), six Zones of Benefit, the Special Park and Operations Maintenance Tax, (Measure CC) as well as two CFDs in the Las Trampas area. In 2020, the new CFD for Measure FF will begin.

41 Certain services are required annually for administration of these assessments and special taxes: preparation of the statutorily required Engineer’s Report, an annual examination of parcel information, and submission of levy information to the counties. These reports are brought forward on an annual basis for review and approval by the Board of Directors.

In January, staff commenced a procurement process by issuing a Request of Proposal (RFP) for these consulting services. Two firms responded to the RFP, including the District’s current firm, NBS. The proposals were reviewed by staff from Finance & Management Services. Reference checks were performed on the two firms.

The District has selected NBS to serve as the consultant to manage these tasks for the next three years, with an optional two-year extension. NBS has a 23-year history of working with public agencies, and has worked with the District since 2011. The firm was instrumental in assisting the District with its implementation of Measure FF, a Community Facilities District that extended the existing Measure CC Special Tax.

ALTERNATIVES

None are recommended.

42 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO. 2019 – 003 -

March 19, 2019

AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH NBS GOVERNMENT FINANCE GROUP FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT ENGINEERING, COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FORMATION AND PROFESSIONAL ADMINISTRATION SERVICES

WHEREAS, the East Bay Regional Park District (Park District) annually administers the property assessment of the Alameda / Contra Costa Counties Regional Trails Landscape and Lighting District, the East Contra Costa County Landscape and Lighting District, six Zones of Benefit, Measure CC, and three Community Facilities Districts; and

WHEREAS, the Government Finance Officers Association recommends a competitive procurement process for these types of services; and

WHEREAS, the Park District’s Board Operating Guidelines require contracts for services above $50,000 utilize a formal request for proposal procurement process; and

WHEREAS, Park District staff initiated the formal request-for-proposal process in January 2019, reviewed two proposals submitted; and

WHEREAS, the Park District has worked successfully and productively with the firm NBS since 2011, with the most recent contract expired in January 2019, and has selected NBS to continue provide the Park District with services for another three year-period; and

WHEREAS, the Board Finance Committee reviewed this item at their meeting on February 27, 2019, and recommended favorable consideration of this item by the Board of Directors;

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby authorizes executing a contract with NBS Government Finance Group for assessment district engineering, community facilities district formation and professional administration services for three years with an optional two-year extension, with total three-year costs not to exceed $162,700; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the General Manager and Chief Financial Officer / Assistant General Manager of Finance & Management Services are hereby authorized and directed, on behalf of the Park District and in its name, to execute and deliver such documents and to do such acts as may be deemed necessary or appropriate to accomplish the intentions of this resolution.

43 Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and adopted this 19th day of March, 2019 by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

44 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

C BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

i. Approval of 2019 Risk-based Internal Audit Plan, and Confirmation of the Organizational Independence, with Qualification, of the Internal Audit Function (Sumner/Auker)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager and the Board Finance Committee (by unanimous vote at its February 27, 2019 meeting) recommend that the Board of Directors approve the 2019 Internal Audit Plan, and confirm organizational independence of the internal audit function.

REVENUE/COST

The costs associated with this action are included in the annual Finance Department General Fund budget.

BACKGROUND

2019 Risk-based Internal Audit Plan The internal audit function provides an independent and objective assurance and consulting activity that is guided by a philosophy of adding value to improve the operations of the District. It assists the District in accomplishing its objective by bringing a systematic and disciplined approach to evaluate and improve the effectiveness of the organization’s risk management, control and governance processes. Each year the annual internal audit plan is presented to the Board for approval.

The 2019 internal audit plan is comprised of projects prioritized by level of financial risk, which is defined as a set of circumstances that hinder achievement of objectives. A risk-based auditing approach is required per Standard #2010 of the Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing. The annual risk assessment process involves understanding the entity and its environment (including internal controls), performing analytical procedures, observation and inspection, consideration of staff and management input and the establishment of a formal rating system, which is used to demonstrate risk level of major activities of the District.

The annual audit plan includes an assessment of cash collection sites (on a rotating basis), monitoring the results of a prior year audit project, examination of concessionaires and review of major revenue and expenditure categories are endeavored to be audited each year.

As a result of the risk assessment process a sample of several District activities will be audited during course of the year. The 2019 audit plan includes a review of cash handling procedures at Kennedy Grove, Shadow Cliffs, Diablo Foothills, and Temescal parks; a review of MAST Fleet Dept. and Park Express Dept. Financial transactions; and examining compliance with the provisions of concession agreement pertaining to Tilden Golf Course, and Anthony Chabot Equestrian Center Concessionaires.

The internal audit plan has been presented to the Board Finance Committee and is unanimously recommended for full Board of Directors approval.

Organizational Independence

Due to the current District reporting structure, the internal audit function is assigned within the Finance Department.

IIA Standard #1100 requires that the internal audit activity must be independent, and internal auditors must be objective in performing their work.

The Interpretation of IIA Standard #1100 defines independence and objectivity as follows:

“Independence is the freedom from conditions that threaten the ability of the internal audit activity to carry out internal audit responsibilities in an unbiased manner. To achieve the degree of independence necessary to effectively carry out the responsibilities of the internal audit activity, the chief audit executive (i.e., audit manager) has direct and unrestricted access to senior management and the board.”

“Objectivity is an unbiased mental attitude that allows internal auditors to perform engagements in such a manner that they believe in their work product and that no quality compromises are made. Objectivity requires that internal auditors do not subordinate their judgment on audit matters to others.”

The IIA Standard # 1110 requires that the chief audit executive (i.e., audit manager) must confirm to the board, at least annually, the organizational independence of the internal audit activity.

The District does comply with IIA Standard #1110 Interpretation, which states:

“Organization independence is effectively achieved when the chief audit executive (i.e., audit manager) reports functionally to the Board”.

In compliance with the District’s Internal Audit Charter, the Audit Manager reports administratively to the CFO and functionally to the Board.

Consequently, the organizational independence of the internal audit activity is confirmed with qualification.

ALTERNATIVES

None are recommended.

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2019 – 003 -

March 19, 2019

APPROVAL OF 2019 RISK-BASED INTERNAL AUDIT PLAN, AND CONFIRMATION OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL INDEPENDENCE, WITH QUALIFICATION, OF THE INTERNAL AUDIT FUNCTION

WHEREAS, internal audit is an independent function established to provide assurance and consulting activity, providing value to improve the operations of the District; and

WHEREAS, Institute of Internal Auditors International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standard) #1110 requires organizational independence for the internal audit function; and

WHEREAS, in compliance with Standard #1110, organizational independence must be confirmed annually to the Board; and

WHEREAS, the District’s current organizational structure (internal audit function within the Finance Department) results in the lack of independence in fact or appearance; and

WHEREAS, according to Standard #1110, organizational independence can be achieved through a dual-reporting relationship, whereas the Audit Manager reports administratively to the Chief Financial Officer and functionally to the Board; and

WHEREAS, the District’s Internal Audit Charter specifies that the Audit Manager report functionally to the Board, which incorporates the requirement that the Board approve the annual risk-based internal audit plan; and

WHEREAS, the 2019 Internal Audit Plan was reviewed by the Board Finance Committee on February 27, 2019 and unanimously recommended to the full Board for approval;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby approves the 2019 Internal Audit Plan; and confirmation of the organization independence, with qualification, of the internal audit activity; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the General Manager and the Chief Financial Officer are hereby authorized and directed, on behalf of the District and in its name, to execute and deliver such documents and to do such acts as may be deemed necessary or appropriate to accomplish the intentions of this resolution.

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and this 19th day of March 2019, by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSENT: ABSENT:

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT FINANCE DEPARTMENT 2019 INTERNAL AUDIT WORK PLAN

Selected Projects Review of Anthony Chabot Equestrian Center Concession Verify concessionaire's compliance with the contract terms.

Review of Tilden Golf Course Concession Verify concessionaire's compliance with the contract terms.

Review of Park Express Dept. Financial Transactions Verify propriety of accounting transactions and functionality of internal controls.

Review of Diablo Foothills Cash Handling Procedures Verify functionality of internal controls, safeguarding of assets, and compliance with administrative requirements.

Review of Temescal Cash Handling Procedures Verify functionality of internal controls, safeguarding of assets, and compliance with administrative requirements.

Review of MAST Fleet Department Verify functionality of internal controls, safeguarding of assets, and compliance with administrative requirements.

Review of Shadow Cliffs Cash Handling Procedures Verify functionality of internal controls, safeguarding of assets, and compliance with administrative requirements.

Review of Kennedy Grove Cash Handling Procedures Verify functionality of internal controls, safeguarding of assets, and compliance with administrative requirements.

Review of the District's Financial System (OneSolution) security relating to HR & Payroll * Review and assess propriety of access controls setup, to ensure safeguarding of assets.

Review of Redwood Valley Railway Corp. Concession * Verify concessionaire's compliance with the contract terms.

Review of Oakland Strokes, Inc. MLK Jr. Estuary use * Verify lessee's compliance with financial terms of the lease agreement.

Routine Projects Review of Contracts and RFPs Review, revise and refine text of the proposed contracts & RFPs. Perform financial review, protect the District's best interest and assist with vendor selection. Requested by: Management and staff. Review of Measure WW Local Grant Projects Verify propriety of payment requests submitted to the District's Grants Department. Requested by: Grants Department

* Project field work was partially performed in 2018. Audit report will be issued in 2019.

45 Page Left Blank Intentionally

46 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

j. Acceptance of the East Bay Regional Park District Investment Report for the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 (Spaulding/Auker)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager and the Board Finance Committee (by unanimous vote) recommend that the Board of Directors accept the Investment Report for the quarter ended December 31, 2018.

REVENUE/COST

There is no revenue/cost impact associated with the acceptance of the report.

BACKGROUND

In accordance with Board Operating Guidelines and the East Bay Regional Park District’s (Park District) Investment Policy, the attached report has been prepared on the Park District’s cash and investments. The total market value of the Park District’s pooled cash and investments as of December 31, 2019 was $249,696,471. The market value of the Park District’s pension trust fund, project bond funds and debt service funds held by trustees were an additional $117,169,631. Attachment A provides detail regarding these funds.

Liquidity Portfolio The District’s “liquid portfolio” (funds readily usable, convertible to cash with minimal impact to price) was $121.7 million as of December 31, 2018. This amount is above the balance at the end of the last quarter by $36.3 million. The increase is primarily due to the timing of receipt of property taxes, the vast majority of which are received in April and December. The Park District’s Demand Deposit Accounts show a negative balance, reflecting checks that have been issued, but are not yet cashed. These accounts “roll up” into the Bank of the West Sweep Account, which has sufficient funds to cover all of these pending transactions.

Short & Mid-Term Securities As of December 31st, the total value of the District’s short-term and mid-term securities was $128.0 million, $2.1 million higher than at September 31, 2018. The District has increased its exposure to AAA-rated Asset Backed Securities (ABS) by almost $4.4 million from the third

47 quarter. When compared to the prior year, a change in the District’s overall investment positioning can also be observed: the District has increased its investment in short-term and mid-term securities – from $96.2 million in 2017 to $128.0 million in 2018. This strategy was implemented in an effort to safely increase investment returns in the District’s portfolio. Attachment B, the PFM Investment Performance Report, provides an overview of PFM’s strategy for investing District funds.

Bond Funds Project bond funds of $96.7 million were available at the end of quarter four, $7.4 million less than at September 30, 2018. This was primarily related to spending of the 2017 Measure WW bond funds. Mid-term security investments from the Promissory Note are lower. These mid- term investments have been converted to short-term, to ensure that there is sufficient liquidity available for a potential acquisition.

The District’s debt service funds totaled $15.1 million. The funds will be used for debt service payments in March and September 2019. The final debt service payment for the District’s Measure AA bonds was made in September 2018. This account will be closed, and the remaining balance transferred back to the District.

The following is a description of the information provided in the report Attachments:

• Attachment A provides comparative investment balance information between the current quarter, the prior quarter and the same period one year ago.

• Attachment B, page 11 shows that the Park District’s invested funds at the end of the fourth quarter were in compliance with the Board approved 2018 Investment Policy.

• Attachment B, page 12 provides information on the managed portfolio maturity and credit quality.

• Attachment B, beginning on page 18 provides detailed information on all securities held and managed by PFM.

• Attachment C shows all Park District cash and investments by type (including funds not managed by PFM).

The Park District’s invested funds as of December 31, 2018 are in compliance with the Board approved 2018 Investment Policy. The Park District’s cash management program provides sufficient liquidity to meet expenditure requirements for the next six months.

ALTERNATIVES None are recommended.

ATTACHMENTS December 31, 2018 Investment Report, Attachments A, B & C.

48 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO. 2019 – 003 -

March 19, 2019

ACCEPTANCE OF EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT INVESTMENT REPORT FOR THE QUARTER ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2018

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors has adopted the 2018 Investment Policy to provide guidance and direction for the prudent investment of East Bay Regional Park District (Park District) funds, and to foster the creation of a systematic and controlled investment process; and

WHEREAS, the Investment Policy calls for the Park District to invest Park District funds in a prudent manner, providing the highest yield with the maximum security of principal invested, while also meeting the daily cash flow requirements of the Park District; and

WHEREAS, the Investment Policy and Board Operating Guidelines require the Chief Financial Officer to prepare a quarterly report on investment activity for review by the Board Finance Committee and acceptance by the Board of Directors; and

WHEREAS, the Board Finance Committee reviewed this item at their meeting on February 27, 2019, and recommended favorable consideration of this item by the Board of Directors,

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby accepts the East Bay Regional Park District Investment Report for the quarter ended December 31, 2018; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the General Manager and Chief Financial Officer are hereby authorized and directed, on behalf of the District and in its name, to execute and deliver such documents and to do such acts as may be deemed necessary or appropriate to accomplish the intentions of this resolution.

Moved by Director , seconded by Director and approved on this 19th day of March 2019, by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

49 Page Left Blank Intentionally

50 Attachment A EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT INVESTMENT BALANCES

For Period Ending December 31, 2018

District Cash and Investment Balances current quarter prior quarter prior year Market Value Amortized Cost Basis Market Value Market Value December 31, 2018 December 31, 2018 September 30, 2018 December 31, 2017 Pooled Investments Held by District Liquidity Portfolio Demand Deposit Accounts (1,274,737) $ (1,274,737) $ (1,130,001) $ 79,791 Wells Fargo Sweep - - - 3,666,777 Bank of the West Sweep 6,138,688 6,138,688 6,729,387 4,254,956 LAIF (Local Agency Investment Fund) 3,193,865 3,196,902 26,603,414 64,875,734 CAMP (California Asset Management Program) 113,301,704 113,301,704 52,027,879 57,104,049 First American Government Fund US Bank 317,945 317,945 1,096,086 157,306 Sub-total 121,677,466 121,680,503 85,326,765 130,138,613 Short- and Mid-term Securities US Treasuries 45,093,583 45,244,183 45,154,917 39,265,793 Federal Agencies/Instrumentalities 14,859,226 14,971,467 16,458,417 20,294,027 State/Local Agencies 1,624,781 1,630,201 1,619,120 1,373,966.20 Supra-National Agency Bonds/Notes 6,185,528 6,204,513 6,617,058 3,121,510 Asset Backed Securities 16,812,785 16,775,620 12,416,448 - Corporate Bonds / Notes 28,436,865 28,690,526 28,632,532 19,327,176 Certificate of Deposit 15,006,239 15,042,940 15,001,966 12,800,359 Sub-total 128,019,006 128,559,450 125,900,459 96,182,831 Total Cash/Investments Held by District 249,696,471 250,239,952 211,227,224 226,321,444

Irrevocable Pension Trust Fund Cash, Equities & Fixed Income 5,353,955 5,661,308 5,063,014 -

Project Bond Funds Short-term Investments Measure AA Project Funds 13,194,931 13,194,931 13,273,585 13,339,227 Promissory Note Project Funds 4,322,924 4,322,924 755,264 1,109,641 Measure WW 2013 Project Fund - - - 5,288,650 Measure WW 2017 Project Fund 4,859,715 4,859,715 4,304,223 79,775,191 Mid-term Securities Promissory Note Project Funds 17,723,897 18,232,707 21,156,736 20,624,209 Measure WW 2017 Project Funds 56,562,018 56,613,470 64,597,960 - Total Project Bond Funds 96,663,485 97,223,747 104,087,768 120,136,918

Debt Service Funds Measure AA Debt Service Fund 1,031 1,031 425 583,544 Promissory Note Debt Service 26 26 499 140 Measure WW Debt Service Funds 15,147,790 15,147,790 1,154 14,694,614 Total Debt Service Funds 15,148,847 15,148,847 2,078 15,278,298

Total District funds held in trust 117,166,287 118,033,902 109,152,860 135,415,216

Grand Total District Cash/Investments 366,862,759 368,273,855 320,380,084 361,736,659

Investment Earnings (accrual basis): quarter ended year-to-date at year-to-date at December 31, 2018 December 31, 2018 December 31, 2017 Short-term Investments $ 538,069 $ 2,566,127 $ 1,592,401 Mid-term Investments 808,923 2,623,752 1,227,916 Long-term Investments - - - Pension Trust investments (book value) 108,403 173,820 - Total Investment Earnings $ 1,455,395 $ 5,363,699 $ 2,820,317

Investment Fees: quarterly ytd fees Bank of the West account fees $ 4,080 $ 27,259 US Bank Measure AA custodial fees $ 1,905 $ 7,570 Pension Trust fees - US Bank and PARS $ 8,351 $ 21,952 PFM invest mgt fees & US Bank custodial fees $ 37,064 137,576 Total $ 51,400 $ 194,357

I verify that this report contains the total amounts of cash and investments at December 31, 2018 The investments are in conformity with the Investment Policy as stated in Resolution # 2018-02-016, dated February 6, 2018. The District's cash management program provides sufficient liquidity to meet expenditure requirement for the next six months, in conformity with the Investment Policy. Debra Auker 51 Debra Auker, CFO Page Left Blank Intentionally

52 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 53

Investment Performance Review For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018

Client Management Team PFM Asset Management LLC

Monique Spyke, Managing Director 50 California Street, Suite 2300 213 Market Street Allison Kaune, Senior Managing Consultant San Francisco, CA 94111 Harrisburg, PA 17101-2141 415-982-5544 717-232-2723 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Compliance

Sector Allocation and Compliance

 The portfolio is in compliance with the District’s Investment Policy and California Government Code

% of Permitted by Security Type Market Value In Compliance Portfolio Policy U.S. Treasury $45,093,583 18.6% 100%  Federal Agency $12,934,490 5.3% 100%  Federal Agency CMOs $1,924,736 0.8% 20%  Municipal Obligations $1,624,781 0.7% 30%  Supranationals $6,185,528 2.6% 30%  54 Negotiable CDs $15,006,239 6.2% 30%  Corporate Notes $28,436,865 11.8% 30%  Asset-Backed Securities $16,812,785 7.0% 20%  4.2% Securities Sub-Total $128,019,006 52.9% Accrued Interest $611,236 Securities Total $128,630,242 Money Market Fund $317,946 0.1% 20%  CAMP Cash Reserve Portfolio $113,467,859 46.9% 100%  Total Investments $242,416,046 100.0%

PFM Asset Management LLC 11 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Snapshot

Credit Quality (S&P Ratings) Sector Allocation

A Asset-Backed Not Rated 4.4% U.S. 7.0% 1.8% A- Treasury Certificate Portfolio Statistics BBB+ 2.2% 18.6% of Deposit A+ Supra-Sov / 6.2% As of December 31, 2018 1.8% 4.8% Supra-Natl Corporate A-1 Agency 11.8% 1.1% 2.6% $242,302,896 Par Value: AA Municipal 0.7% Total Market Value: $242,416,046 0.5% Federal AA- Agency/CMO Security Market Value: $128,019,006 3.6% 0.8% Accrued Interest: $611,236 AA+ Federal 25.0% Mny Mkt Agency/GSE $317,946 Cash: AAA Fund / Pool 5.4% CAMP $113,467,859 AAAm 7.8% 46.9% 55 47.0% Amortized Cost: $242,027,308

Yield at Market: 2.78%

Yield at Cost: 2.39% Maturity Distribution 60% Effective Duration: 1.63 Years 54.8% 1.66 Years Duration to Worst: 50% Average Maturity: 1.98 Years 40% Average Credit: * AA

30%

21.3% 20% 17.6%

10% 3.6% 2.7% 0.0% 0% 0 - 1 Year 1 - 2 Years 2 - 3 Years 3 - 4 Years 4 - 5 Years > 5 Years

* An average of each security’s credit rating assigned a numeric value and adjusted for its relative weighting in the portfolio. Securities held in the District's portfolio are in compliance with California state statutes and the District's investment policy dated February 2018.

PFM Asset Management LLC 12 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Performance

Portfolio Performance (Total Return)

Annualized Return Effective Current Since Inception Portfolio/Benchmark Duration Quarter 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 10 Year (06/30/09)

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 1.63 1.04% 1.74% 1.38% 1.12% - 1.05%

Performance Benchmark* 1.81 1.29% 1.58% 0.96% 0.81% - 0.82%

Difference -0.25% 0.16% 0.42% 0.31% - 0.23%

1.8% 1.74%

1.6% 1.58%

56 1.38% 1.4% 1.29%

1.2% 1.12% 1.04% 1.05% 1.0% 0.96% 0.81% 0.82% 0.8%

Total Return 0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0% Current Quarter 1 Year 3 Year 5 Year 10 Year Since Inception

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Performance Benchmark

Portfolio performance is gross of fees unless otherwise indicated. *The District's Index was the Merrill Lynch 1-Year UST Index from 6/30/09 to 3/31/11 and is the Merrill Lynch 1-3 Year UST Index beginning 3/31/11.

PFM Asset Management LLC 13 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Performance

Portfolio Earnings

Quarter-Ended December 31, 2018

Market Value Basis Accrual (Amortized Cost) Basis

Beginning Value (09/30/2018) $177,928,338.39 $179,146,633.03

Net Purchases/Sales $62,933,660.01 $62,933,660.01

Change in Value $624,866.05 ($52,984.68)

57 Ending Value (12/31/2018) $241,486,864.45 $242,027,308.36

Interest Earned $1,075,297.19 $1,075,297.19

Portfolio Earnings $1,700,163.24 $1,022,312.51

PFM Asset Management LLC 14 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Composition

Sector Allocation

December 31, 2018 September 30, 2018 June 30, 2018 March 31, 2018

Sector MV ($MM) % of Total MV ($MM) % of Total MV ($MM) % of Total MV ($MM) % of Total

Mny Mkt Fund / Pool 113.5 46.9% 52.0 29.3% 65.6 36.0% 48.3 33.0% U.S. Treasury 45.1 18.6% 45.2 25.4% 40.7 22.4% 32.0 21.8% Corporate 28.4 11.8% 28.6 16.1% 28.1 15.4% 26.4 18.1% Asset-Backed 16.8 7.0% 12.4 7.0% 7.2 4.0% 0.8 0.6% Certificate of Deposit 15.0 6.2% 15.0 8.4% 16.3 9.0% 15.0 10.3% Federal Agency/GSE 12.9 5.4% 15.7 8.8% 16.2 8.9% 18.8 12.9% Supra-Sov / Supra-Natl Agency 6.2 2.6% 6.6 3.7% 5.3 2.9% 4.1 2.8% Federal Agency/CMO 1.9 0.8% 0.8 0.4% 1.0 0.5% 0.2 0.2% Municipal 1.6 0.7% 1.6 0.9% 1.6 0.9% 0.4 0.3%

Total $241.5 100.0% $177.9 100.0% $182.1 100.0% $146.0 100.0% 58

100% Municipal 90% Federal Agency/CMO 80% Supra-Sov / Supra-Natl 70% Agency Federal Agency/GSE 60% 50% Certificate of Deposit 40% Asset-Backed 30% Corporate 20%

U.S. Treasury 10%

Mny Mkt Fund / Pool 0% December 2018 September 2018 June 2018 March 2018

Detail may not add to total due to rounding.

PFM Asset Management LLC 15 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Composition

Maturity Distribution

As of December 31, 2018

Yield Average 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 >5 Portfolio/Benchmark at Market Maturity Years Years Years Years Years Years

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 2.78% 1.98 yrs 54.8% 21.3% 17.6% 3.6% 2.7% 0.0%

Performance Benchmark* 2.52% 1.94 yrs 2.7% 53.6% 43.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

60% 54.8% 53.6% 50% 59 43.7%

40%

30%

21.3% 20% 17.6%

10%

2.7% 3.6% 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 0-1 Years 1-2 Years 2-3 Years 3-4 Years 4-5 Years > 5 Years

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Performance Benchmark

*The District's Index was the Merrill Lynch 1-Year UST Index from 6/30/09 to 3/31/11 and is the Merrill Lynch 1-3 Year UST Index beginning 3/31/11.

PFM Asset Management LLC 16 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Outlook

Investment Strategy Outlook

 While the path of future Fed rate hikes is less clear than in recent years, we expect future tightening (additional Fed rate hikes) to be modest.

• As a result, we will seek to increase portfolio duration to be more in line with (neutral to) the benchmark.

 Our outlooks for the major investment-grade fixed income sectors are as follows:

• Federal agency spreads (incremental yield) remain very narrow as most maturities offer less than five basis points (0.05%) of incremental yield relative to U.S. Treasuries. We will continue our moderate use of agencies where yield differences are narrow, seeking better relative value in either Treasuries or other sectors.

• Supranational issuance is expected to increase during the first quarter of 2019. We will seek to take advantage of attractively priced new issues through the first several months of the year. 60

• The sell-off in the corporate sector (resulting in wider spreads) presents an opportunity to selectively add to the sector.

• Allocations to AAA-rated asset-backed securities (ABS) will be maintained. The sector continues to offer attractive incremental income compared to government securities while also serving as a lower volatility credit alternative.

• Short-term money market investors continue to reap the rewards of current monetary policy as the fed funds effective rate now nears two and a half percent. Short-term negotiable bank certificates of deposit and commercial paper have since normalized following very narrow yield differences at year-end, and once again provide an attractive, high-quality source of incremental income.

PFM Asset Management LLC 17 61 Portfolio Transactions and Holdings For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Activity

Quarterly Portfolio Transactions

Trade Settle Maturity Transact Yield Realized Date Date Par ($) CUSIP Security Description Coupon Date Amt ($) at Market G/L (BV)

BUY

10/2/18 10/4/18 900,000 9128284W7 US TREASURY NOTES 2.75% 8/15/21 899,952.61 2.89% 10/3/18 10/10/18 550,000 02665WCP4 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP NOTES 3.37% 12/10/21 549,736.00 3.39% 10/10/18 10/17/18 260,000 05586CAC8 BMWLT 2018-1 A3 3.26% 7/20/21 259,963.86 3.27% 10/16/18 10/18/18 1,275,000 86565BPC9 SUMITOMO MITSUI BANK NY CERT DEPOS 3.39% 10/16/20 1,273,266.00 3.46% 10/16/18 10/24/18 480,000 65478BAD3 NISSAN AUTO LEASE TRUST 3.25% 9/15/21 479,958.05 3.26% 10/17/18 10/24/18 480,000 14315EAC4 CARMAX AUTO OWNER TRUST 3.36% 9/15/23 479,995.58 3.36% 10/31/18 11/7/18 510,000 89231PAD0 TOYOTA AUTO RECEIVABLES OWNER 3.18% 3/15/23 509,889.69 3.19% 11/1/18 11/6/18 425,000 025816BY4 AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CORP NOTES 3.70% 11/5/21 424,906.50 3.71%

62 11/15/18 11/20/18 1,210,000 58769LAC6 MBALT 2018-B A3 3.21% 9/15/21 1,209,972.90 3.51% 11/15/18 11/21/18 930,000 92869BAD4 VALET 2018-2 A3 3.25% 4/20/23 929,960.94 3.25% 11/27/18 12/6/18 370,000 437076BV3 HOME DEPOT INC 3.25% 3/1/22 368,986.20 3.34% 12/3/18 12/7/18 150,000 14913Q2Q1 CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP CORP 3.35% 12/7/20 149,974.50 3.36% 12/4/18 12/12/18 475,000 44933AAC1 HART 2018-B A3 3.20% 12/15/22 474,994.30 3.48% 12/7/18 12/14/18 650,000 3137FKK70 FHMS KJ23 A1 3.17% 3/1/22 650,739.81 3.05% 12/7/18 12/17/18 605,000 3137FKK39 FHMS KP05 A 3.20% 7/1/23 605,859.44 3.11% 12/11/18 12/12/18 2,400,000 3130AF5B9 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS NOTES 3.00% 10/12/21 2,421,744.00 2.85%

Total BUY 11,670,000 11,689,900.38

INTEREST

10/1/18 10/25/18 61,585 3136AQDQ0 FANNIE MAE SERIES 2015-M13 ASQ2 1.64% 9/1/19 84.47 10/1/18 10/25/18 8,458 3136AQSW1 FNMA SERIES 2015-M15 ASQ2 1.89% 1/1/19 13.38 10/1/18 10/25/18 703,355 3136B1XP4 FNA 2018-M5 A2 3.56% 9/25/21 2,161.90 10/1/18 10/25/18 10,209 3136ASPX8 FNMA SERIES 2016-M9 ASQ2 1.78% 6/1/19 15.19 10/1/18 10/1/18 520,000 911312BP0 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CORPORATE BOND 2.05% 4/1/21 5,330.00

PFM Asset Management LLC 19 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Activity

Trade Settle Maturity Transact Yield Realized Date Date Par ($) CUSIP Security Description Coupon Date Amt ($) at Market G/L (BV)

10/1/18 10/1/18 0 MONEY0002 MONEY MARKET FUND 2,552.95 10/1/18 10/1/18 480,000 06051GGS2 BANK OF AMERICA CORP (CALLABLE) 2.32% 10/1/21 5,587.20 10/1/18 10/1/18 100,000 06051GGS2 BANK OF AMERICA CORP (CALLABLE) 2.32% 10/1/21 1,164.00 10/1/18 10/1/18 1,250,000 13063DGA0 CA ST TXBL GO BONDS 2.80% 4/1/21 15,166.67 10/1/18 10/1/18 100,000 06051GGS2 BANK OF AMERICA CORP (CALLABLE) 2.32% 10/1/21 1,164.00 10/1/18 10/1/18 250,000 437076BL5 HOME DEPOT INC CORP NOTES 2.00% 4/1/21 2,500.00 10/1/18 10/1/18 295,000 06051GGS2 BANK OF AMERICA CORP (CALLABLE) 2.32% 10/1/21 3,433.80 10/8/18 10/8/18 1,000,000 68389XAX3 ORACLE CORP NOTE 2.25% 10/8/19 11,250.00 10/9/18 10/9/18 405,000 931142DY6 WAL-MART STORES INC CORP NOTE 1.75% 10/9/19 3,543.75 10/10/18 10/10/18 1,075,000 22532XHT8 CREDIT AGRICOLE CIB NY FLT CERT DEPOS 2.88% 4/10/20 7,696.18 10/10/18 10/10/18 1,075,000 13606BVF0 CANADIAN IMP BK COMM NY FLT CERT DEPOS 2.81% 4/10/20 7,503.87 10/13/18 10/13/18 275,000 89236TEU5 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP NOTES 2.95% 4/13/21 4,056.25 10/13/18 10/13/18 775,000 3135G0U27 FANNIE MAE NOTES 2.50% 4/13/21 9,687.50 63 10/15/18 10/15/18 770,000 02004VAC7 ALLYA 2018-2 A3 2.92% 11/15/22 1,873.67 10/15/18 10/15/18 600,000 02007JAC1 ALLYA 2018-3 A3 3.00% 1/15/23 1,500.00 10/15/18 10/15/18 575,000 05522RCW6 BANK OF AMERICA ABS 2017-A1 A1 1.95% 8/15/22 934.38 10/15/18 10/15/18 1,075,000 34528FAD0 FORDO 2018-A A3 3.03% 11/15/22 2,714.38 10/15/18 10/15/18 178,000 44931PAE6 HART 2017-A A4 2.09% 4/15/23 310.02 10/15/18 10/15/18 575,000 65478GAD2 NISSAN ABS 2017-B A3 1.75% 10/15/21 838.54 10/15/18 10/15/18 200,000 14314XAB5 CARMX 2018-2 A2 2.73% 8/15/21 455.00 10/15/18 10/15/18 750,000 58772RAD6 MBART 2018-1 A3 3.03% 1/15/23 1,893.75 10/15/18 10/15/18 555,000 14313FAD1 CARMAX AUTO OWNER TRUST 3.13% 6/15/23 1,447.62 10/15/18 10/15/18 275,000 34531HAD1 FORD ABS 2017-B A3 1.69% 11/15/21 387.29 10/15/18 10/15/18 575,000 43814UAC3 HAROT 2018-1 A3 2.64% 2/15/22 1,265.00 10/15/18 10/15/18 825,000 02582JHQ6 AMXCA 2018-1 A 2.67% 10/17/22 1,835.63 10/15/18 10/15/18 575,000 89231AAD3 TOYOTA ABS 2018-C A3 3.02% 12/15/22 1,447.08 10/15/18 10/15/18 910,000 89238TAD5 TAOT 2018-B A3 2.96% 9/15/22 2,244.67 10/15/18 10/15/18 500,000 06406FAA1 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP (CALLABLE) 2.50% 4/15/21 6,250.00 10/15/18 10/15/18 700,000 65479GAD1 NAROT 2018-B A3 3.06% 3/15/23 1,785.00 10/15/18 10/15/18 500,000 34531LAD2 FORDL 2018-B A3 3.19% 12/15/21 1,063.33

PFM Asset Management LLC 20 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Activity

Trade Settle Maturity Transact Yield Realized Date Date Par ($) CUSIP Security Description Coupon Date Amt ($) at Market G/L (BV)

10/15/18 10/15/18 345,000 44891KAD7 HART 2018-A A3 2.79% 7/15/22 802.13 10/16/18 10/16/18 520,000 36255JAD6 GMCAR 2018-3 A3 3.02% 5/16/23 1,308.67 10/18/18 10/18/18 370,000 43814UAG4 HAROT 2018-2 A3 3.01% 5/18/22 928.08 10/19/18 10/19/18 1,215,000 4581X0DB1 INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK NOTE 2.62% 4/19/21 15,946.88 10/20/18 10/20/18 370,000 36256GAD1 GMALT 2018-3 A3 3.18% 6/20/21 849.77 10/21/18 10/21/18 600,000 61746BEA0 MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTES 2.50% 4/21/21 7,500.00 10/21/18 10/21/18 1,750,000 3130ACM92 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK NOTES 1.50% 10/21/19 13,125.00 10/21/18 10/21/18 555,000 43815HAC1 HONDA AUTO RECEIVABLES OWNER T 2.95% 8/21/22 1,364.37 10/23/18 10/23/18 100,000 38148LAA4 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC CORP NOTES 2.60% 4/23/20 1,300.00 10/23/18 10/23/18 130,000 38148LAA4 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC CORP NOTES 2.60% 4/23/20 1,690.00 10/25/18 10/25/18 300,000 38141GVT8 GOLDMAN SACHS GRP INC CORP NT (CALLABLE) 2.00% 4/25/19 3,000.00 10/25/18 10/25/18 45,000 38141GVT8 GOLDMAN SACHS GRP INC CORP NT (CALLABLE) 2.00% 4/25/19 450.00 10/26/18 10/26/18 115,000 172967KB6 CITIGROUP INC CORP NOTES 2.65% 10/26/20 1,523.75 64 10/26/18 10/26/18 225,000 172967KB6 CITIGROUP INC CORP NOTES 2.65% 10/26/20 2,981.25 10/26/18 10/26/18 250,000 172967KB6 CITIGROUP INC CORP NOTES 2.65% 10/26/20 3,312.50 10/28/18 10/28/18 1,300,000 3133EFKY2 FFCB NOTES (CALLABLE) 1.36% 10/28/19 8,840.00 10/30/18 10/30/18 300,000 025816BP3 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO CORP (CALLABLE) NOTE 2.20% 10/30/20 3,300.00 10/30/18 10/30/18 400,000 0258M0EC9 AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT (CALLABLE) CORP 1.70% 10/30/19 3,400.00 10/31/18 10/31/18 375,000 912828K58 US TREASURY NOTES 1.37% 4/30/20 2,578.13 10/31/18 10/31/18 900,000 912828K58 US TREASURY NOTES 1.37% 4/30/20 6,187.50 10/31/18 10/31/18 3,750,000 912828K58 US TREASURY NOTES 1.37% 4/30/20 25,781.25 10/31/18 10/31/18 1,700,000 912828F62 US TREASURY NOTES 1.50% 10/31/19 12,750.00 11/1/18 11/25/18 8,446 3136AQSW1 FNMA SERIES 2015-M15 ASQ2 1.89% 1/1/19 13.36 11/1/18 11/25/18 671,316 3136B1XP4 FNA 2018-M5 A2 3.56% 9/25/21 2,067.14 11/1/18 11/25/18 37,205 3136AQDQ0 FANNIE MAE SERIES 2015-M13 ASQ2 1.64% 9/1/19 51.03 11/1/18 11/25/18 8,907 3136ASPX8 FNMA SERIES 2016-M9 ASQ2 1.78% 6/1/19 13.25 11/2/18 11/2/18 0 MONEY0002 MONEY MARKET FUND 1,215.08 11/5/18 11/5/18 175,000 904764AV9 UNILEVER CAPITAL CORP BONDS 1.80% 5/5/20 1,575.00 11/5/18 11/5/18 225,000 86563YVN0 SUMITOMO MITSUI BANK NY CD 2.05% 5/3/19 2,383.13 11/9/18 11/9/18 770,000 4581X0CD8 INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 2.12% 11/9/20 8,181.25

PFM Asset Management LLC 21 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Activity

Trade Settle Maturity Transact Yield Realized Date Date Par ($) CUSIP Security Description Coupon Date Amt ($) at Market G/L (BV)

11/10/18 11/10/18 185,000 478160CH5 JOHNSON & JOHNSON CORP NOTE 1.95% 11/10/20 1,803.75 11/11/18 11/11/18 400,000 037833CS7 APPLE INC BONDS 1.80% 5/11/20 3,600.00 11/11/18 11/11/18 400,000 458140AZ3 INTEL CORP NOTES 1.85% 5/11/20 3,700.00 11/11/18 11/11/18 645,000 369550BA5 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP 2.87% 5/11/20 9,271.88 11/11/18 11/11/18 250,000 458140AZ3 INTEL CORP NOTES 1.85% 5/11/20 2,312.50 11/13/18 11/13/18 245,000 69371RN85 PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP NOTES 2.05% 11/13/20 2,511.25 11/13/18 11/13/18 490,000 458182DX7 INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 1.00% 5/13/19 2,450.00 11/13/18 11/13/18 125,000 037833DJ6 APPLE INC 2.00% 11/13/20 1,250.00 11/15/18 11/15/18 575,000 43814UAC3 HAROT 2018-1 A3 2.64% 2/15/22 1,265.00 11/15/18 11/15/18 345,000 44891KAD7 HART 2018-A A3 2.79% 7/15/22 802.13 11/15/18 11/15/18 555,000 14313FAD1 CARMAX AUTO OWNER TRUST 3.13% 6/15/23 1,447.62 11/15/18 11/15/18 770,000 02004VAC7 ALLYA 2018-2 A3 2.92% 11/15/22 1,873.67 11/15/18 11/15/18 700,000 65479GAD1 NAROT 2018-B A3 3.06% 3/15/23 1,785.00 65 11/15/18 11/15/18 405,000 427866BA5 HERSHEY COMPANY CORP NOTES 3.10% 5/15/21 6,451.88 11/15/18 11/15/18 178,000 44931PAE6 HART 2017-A A4 2.09% 4/15/23 310.02 11/15/18 11/15/18 480,000 14315EAC4 CARMAX AUTO OWNER TRUST 3.36% 9/15/23 940.80 11/15/18 11/15/18 910,000 89238TAD5 TAOT 2018-B A3 2.96% 9/15/22 2,244.67 11/15/18 11/15/18 1,075,000 34528FAD0 FORDO 2018-A A3 3.03% 11/15/22 2,714.38 11/15/18 11/15/18 500,000 34531LAD2 FORDL 2018-B A3 3.19% 12/15/21 1,329.17 11/15/18 11/15/18 750,000 58772RAD6 MBART 2018-1 A3 3.03% 1/15/23 1,893.75 11/15/18 11/15/18 575,000 65478GAD2 NISSAN ABS 2017-B A3 1.75% 10/15/21 838.54 11/15/18 11/15/18 575,000 89231AAD3 TOYOTA ABS 2018-C A3 3.02% 12/15/22 1,447.08 11/15/18 11/15/18 600,000 02007JAC1 ALLYA 2018-3 A3 3.00% 1/15/23 1,500.00 11/15/18 11/15/18 825,000 02582JHQ6 AMXCA 2018-1 A 2.67% 10/17/22 1,835.63 11/15/18 11/15/18 275,000 34531HAD1 FORD ABS 2017-B A3 1.69% 11/15/21 387.29 11/15/18 11/15/18 480,000 65478BAD3 NISSAN AUTO LEASE TRUST 3.25% 9/15/21 910.00 11/15/18 11/15/18 575,000 05522RCW6 BANK OF AMERICA ABS 2017-A1 A1 1.95% 8/15/22 934.38 11/15/18 11/15/18 200,000 14314XAB5 CARMX 2018-2 A2 2.73% 8/15/21 455.00 11/15/18 11/15/18 3,000,000 9128284P2 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 2.62% 5/15/21 39,375.00 11/16/18 11/16/18 520,000 36255JAD6 GMCAR 2018-3 A3 3.02% 5/16/23 1,308.67

PFM Asset Management LLC 22 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Activity

Trade Settle Maturity Transact Yield Realized Date Date Par ($) CUSIP Security Description Coupon Date Amt ($) at Market G/L (BV)

11/16/18 11/16/18 875,000 87019U6D6 SWEDBANK (NEW YORK) CERT DEPOS 2.27% 11/16/20 10,151.94 11/18/18 11/18/18 370,000 43814UAG4 HAROT 2018-2 A3 3.01% 5/18/22 928.08 11/19/18 11/19/18 525,000 857477AV5 STATE STREET CORP NOTES 1.95% 5/19/21 5,118.75 11/20/18 11/20/18 260,000 05586CAC8 BMWLT 2018-1 A3 3.26% 7/20/21 776.97 11/20/18 11/20/18 370,000 36256GAD1 GMALT 2018-3 A3 3.18% 6/20/21 980.50 11/21/18 11/21/18 510,000 808513AW5 CHARLES SCHWAB CORP NOTES 3.25% 5/21/21 8,241.46 11/21/18 11/21/18 555,000 43815HAC1 HONDA AUTO RECEIVABLES OWNER T 2.95% 8/21/22 1,364.37 11/24/18 11/24/18 1,150,000 3134G9LD7 FHLMC NOTES (CALLABLE) 1.25% 5/24/19 7,187.50 11/27/18 11/27/18 400,000 459058FS7 INTL BANK OF RECON AND DEV GLOBAL NOTES 1.12% 11/27/19 2,252.00 11/27/18 11/27/18 375,000 459058FS7 INTL BANK OF RECON AND DEV GLOBAL NOTES 1.12% 11/27/19 2,111.25 11/30/18 11/30/18 1,800,000 912828G61 US TREASURY NOTES 1.50% 11/30/19 13,500.00 11/30/18 11/30/18 5,000,000 912828WN6 US TREASURY NOTES 2.00% 5/31/21 50,000.00 11/30/18 11/30/18 1,000,000 3135G0F73 FNMA BENCHMARK NOTE 1.50% 11/30/20 7,500.00 66 11/30/18 11/30/18 2,325,000 912828VF4 US TREASURY NOTES 1.37% 5/31/20 15,984.38 12/1/18 12/25/18 7,004 3136AQSW1 FNMA SERIES 2015-M15 ASQ2 1.89% 1/1/19 11.08 12/1/18 12/25/18 642,733 3136B1XP4 FNA 2018-M5 A2 3.56% 9/25/21 1,926.23 12/1/18 12/25/18 23,451 3136AQDQ0 FANNIE MAE SERIES 2015-M13 ASQ2 1.64% 9/1/19 32.17 12/1/18 12/25/18 8,278 3136ASPX8 FNMA SERIES 2016-M9 ASQ2 1.78% 6/1/19 12.31 12/4/18 12/4/18 0 MONEY0002 MONEY MARKET FUND 357.61 12/5/18 12/5/18 1,175,000 06417GU22 BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA HOUSTON CD 3.08% 6/5/20 17,893.94 12/5/18 12/5/18 750,000 25468PDU7 WALT DISNEY COMPANY CORP NOTES 1.80% 6/5/20 6,750.00 12/5/18 12/5/18 355,000 437076BQ4 HOME DEPOT INC CORP NOTES 1.80% 6/5/20 3,195.00 12/7/18 12/7/18 1,475,000 78012UEE1 ROYAL BANK OF CANADA NY CD 3.24% 6/7/21 23,762.25 12/10/18 12/10/18 550,000 02665WCP4 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP NOTES 3.37% 12/10/21 3,093.75 12/11/18 12/11/18 800,000 36962G6P4 GENERAL ELEC CAP CORP GLOBAL NOTES 2.10% 12/11/19 8,400.00 12/13/18 12/13/18 400,000 38145GAJ9 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP (CALLABLE) INC BONDS 2.30% 12/13/19 4,600.00 12/14/18 12/14/18 200,000 92826CAB8 VISA INC (CALLABLE) CORP NOTES 2.20% 12/14/20 2,200.00 12/15/18 12/15/18 825,000 02582JHQ6 AMXCA 2018-1 A 2.67% 10/17/22 1,835.63 12/15/18 12/15/18 575,000 05522RCW6 BANK OF AMERICA ABS 2017-A1 A1 1.95% 8/15/22 934.38 12/15/18 12/15/18 480,000 65478BAD3 NISSAN AUTO LEASE TRUST 3.25% 9/15/21 1,300.00

PFM Asset Management LLC 23 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Activity

Trade Settle Maturity Transact Yield Realized Date Date Par ($) CUSIP Security Description Coupon Date Amt ($) at Market G/L (BV)

12/15/18 12/15/18 575,000 65478GAD2 NISSAN ABS 2017-B A3 1.75% 10/15/21 838.54 12/15/18 12/15/18 500,000 34531LAD2 FORDL 2018-B A3 3.19% 12/15/21 1,329.17 12/15/18 12/15/18 345,000 44891KAD7 HART 2018-A A3 2.79% 7/15/22 802.13 12/15/18 12/15/18 510,000 89231PAD0 TOYOTA AUTO RECEIVABLES OWNER 3.18% 3/15/23 1,711.90 12/15/18 12/15/18 480,000 14315EAC4 CARMAX AUTO OWNER TRUST 3.36% 9/15/23 1,344.00 12/15/18 12/15/18 770,000 02004VAC7 ALLYA 2018-2 A3 2.92% 11/15/22 1,873.67 12/15/18 12/15/18 600,000 02007JAC1 ALLYA 2018-3 A3 3.00% 1/15/23 1,500.00 12/15/18 12/15/18 700,000 65479GAD1 NAROT 2018-B A3 3.06% 3/15/23 1,785.00 12/15/18 12/15/18 575,000 89231AAD3 TOYOTA ABS 2018-C A3 3.02% 12/15/22 1,447.08 12/15/18 12/15/18 555,000 14313FAD1 CARMAX AUTO OWNER TRUST 3.13% 6/15/23 1,447.62 12/15/18 12/15/18 275,000 34531HAD1 FORD ABS 2017-B A3 1.69% 11/15/21 387.29 12/15/18 12/15/18 575,000 43814UAC3 HAROT 2018-1 A3 2.64% 2/15/22 1,265.00 12/15/18 12/15/18 200,000 14314XAB5 CARMX 2018-2 A2 2.73% 8/15/21 455.00 67 12/15/18 12/15/18 1,075,000 34528FAD0 FORDO 2018-A A3 3.03% 11/15/22 2,714.38 12/15/18 12/15/18 750,000 58772RAD6 MBART 2018-1 A3 3.03% 1/15/23 1,893.75 12/15/18 12/15/18 178,000 44931PAE6 HART 2017-A A4 2.09% 4/15/23 310.02 12/15/18 12/15/18 1,210,000 58769LAC6 MBALT 2018-B A3 3.21% 9/15/21 2,697.29 12/15/18 12/15/18 910,000 89238TAD5 TAOT 2018-B A3 2.96% 9/15/22 2,244.67 12/16/18 12/16/18 520,000 36255JAD6 GMCAR 2018-3 A3 3.02% 5/16/23 1,308.67 12/18/18 12/18/18 500,000 46647PAS5 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO CORP NOTES 3.51% 6/18/22 8,785.00 12/18/18 12/18/18 370,000 43814UAG4 HAROT 2018-2 A3 3.01% 5/18/22 928.08 12/20/18 12/20/18 260,000 05586CAC8 BMWLT 2018-1 A3 3.26% 7/20/21 706.33 12/20/18 12/20/18 370,000 36256GAD1 GMALT 2018-3 A3 3.18% 6/20/21 980.50 12/20/18 12/20/18 930,000 92869BAD4 VALET 2018-2 A3 3.25% 4/20/23 2,434.79 12/21/18 12/21/18 555,000 43815HAC1 HONDA AUTO RECEIVABLES OWNER T 2.95% 8/21/22 1,364.37 12/22/18 12/22/18 150,000 24422ETS8 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP NOTES 1.95% 6/22/20 1,462.50 12/31/18 12/31/18 250,000 912828N48 US TREASURY NOTES 1.75% 12/31/20 2,187.50 12/31/18 12/31/18 2,000,000 912828XH8 US TREASURY NOTES 1.62% 6/30/20 16,250.00 12/31/18 12/31/18 3,750,000 912828G95 US TREASURY NOTES 1.62% 12/31/19 30,468.75 12/31/18 12/31/18 2,500,000 912828N48 US TREASURY NOTES 1.75% 12/31/20 21,875.00

PFM Asset Management LLC 24 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Activity

Trade Settle Maturity Transact Yield Realized Date Date Par ($) CUSIP Security Description Coupon Date Amt ($) at Market G/L (BV)

Total INTEREST 100,359,947 661,723.60

PAYDOWNS

10/1/18 10/25/18 1,302 3136ASPX8 FNMA SERIES 2016-M9 ASQ2 1.78% 6/1/19 1,301.53 0.00 10/1/18 10/25/18 12 3136AQSW1 FNMA SERIES 2015-M15 ASQ2 1.89% 1/1/19 12.32 0.00 10/1/18 10/25/18 32,040 3136B1XP4 FNA 2018-M5 A2 3.56% 9/25/21 32,039.58 0.00 10/1/18 10/25/18 24,380 3136AQDQ0 FANNIE MAE SERIES 2015-M13 ASQ2 1.64% 9/1/19 24,380.19 0.00 11/1/18 11/25/18 1,442 3136AQSW1 FNMA SERIES 2015-M15 ASQ2 1.89% 1/1/19 1,442.19 0.00 11/1/18 11/25/18 28,582 3136B1XP4 FNA 2018-M5 A2 3.56% 9/25/21 28,582.28 0.00 11/1/18 11/25/18 629 3136ASPX8 FNMA SERIES 2016-M9 ASQ2 1.78% 6/1/19 628.84 0.00 11/1/18 11/25/18 13,754 3136AQDQ0 FANNIE MAE SERIES 2015-M13 ASQ2 1.64% 9/1/19 13,754.11 0.00 68 12/1/18 12/25/18 2,026 3136AQDQ0 FANNIE MAE SERIES 2015-M13 ASQ2 1.64% 9/1/19 2,025.99 0.00 12/1/18 12/25/18 13,671 3136B1XP4 FNA 2018-M5 A2 3.56% 9/25/21 13,670.95 0.00 12/1/18 12/25/18 3,439 3136AQSW1 FNMA SERIES 2015-M15 ASQ2 1.89% 1/1/19 3,438.66 0.00 12/1/18 12/25/18 7,162 3136ASPX8 FNMA SERIES 2016-M9 ASQ2 1.78% 6/1/19 7,162.42 0.00 12/15/18 12/15/18 8,131 14314XAB5 CARMX 2018-2 A2 2.73% 8/15/21 8,131.35 0.00

Total PAYDOWNS 136,570 136,570.41 0.00

SELL

10/2/18 10/4/18 240,000 438516BQ8 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP NOTES 1.80% 10/30/19 239,448.00 2.75% (2,298.81) 10/2/18 10/4/18 300,000 438516BQ8 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL CORP NOTES 1.80% 10/30/19 299,310.00 2.75% (407.84) 10/2/18 10/4/18 360,000 594918BV5 MICROSOFT CORP NOTES 1.85% 2/6/20 356,627.00 2.80% (4,336.73) 10/3/18 10/10/18 350,000 02665WBZ3 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE 2.00% 11/13/19 349,410.83 2.92% (3,338.97) 10/16/18 10/18/18 1,275,000 86563YVN0 SUMITOMO MITSUI BANK NY CD 2.05% 5/3/19 1,281,775.89 2.74% (5,421.61) 10/17/18 10/22/18 135,000 172967KS9 CITIGROUP INC CORP NOTES 2.05% 6/7/19 135,308.81 2.93% (713.98) 10/17/18 10/23/18 175,000 3137EAEB1 FHLMC REFERENCE NOTE 0.87% 7/19/19 173,180.83 2.62% (2,113.51)

PFM Asset Management LLC 25 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Activity

Trade Settle Maturity Transact Yield Realized Date Date Par ($) CUSIP Security Description Coupon Date Amt ($) at Market G/L (BV)

10/30/18 11/6/18 250,000 912828WW6 US TREASURY NOTES 1.62% 7/31/19 249,314.28 2.60% (2,219.15) 11/1/18 11/5/18 400,000 0258M0EC9 AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT (CALLABLE) CORP 1.70% 10/30/19 394,746.44 3.09% (4,237.18) 11/15/18 11/16/18 450,000 912828WW6 US TREASURY NOTES 1.62% 7/31/19 448,999.58 2.63% (3,929.35) 11/15/18 11/20/18 125,000 3137EAEB1 FHLMC REFERENCE NOTE 0.87% 7/19/19 123,930.12 2.63% (1,369.77) 11/15/18 11/20/18 1,000,000 3133ECUV4 FFCB NOTES 2.15% 7/17/19 1,004,205.83 2.63% (7,601.45) 11/15/18 11/20/18 490,000 458182DX7 INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 1.00% 5/13/19 486,395.78 2.59% (3,467.19) 11/28/18 12/5/18 275,000 3135G0N33 FNMA BENCHMARK NOTE 0.87% 8/2/19 272,607.39 2.68% (3,112.30) 12/3/18 12/7/18 150,000 3135G0N33 FNMA BENCHMARK NOTE 0.87% 8/2/19 148,727.73 2.67% (1,672.59) 12/6/18 12/10/18 275,000 912828WW6 US TREASURY NOTES 1.62% 7/31/19 274,884.17 2.61% (2,153.22) 12/6/18 12/10/18 1,150,000 3134G9LD7 FHLMC NOTES (CALLABLE) 1.25% 5/24/19 1,143,612.39 2.61% (7,026.50) 12/6/18 12/10/18 1,000,000 3136G3K87 FNMA NOTES (CALLABLE) 1.18% 7/25/19 995,135.00 2.69% (9,148.49) 12/6/18 12/12/18 150,000 3135G0N33 FNMA BENCHMARK NOTE 0.87% 8/2/19 148,780.46 2.67% (1,639.26) 12/6/18 12/12/18 325,000 912828WW6 US TREASURY NOTES 1.62% 7/31/19 324,891.81 2.62% (2,540.39) 69 12/7/18 12/14/18 375,000 3130A9EP2 FHLB GLOBAL NOTES 1.00% 9/26/19 370,810.00 2.73% (4,967.63) 12/7/18 12/14/18 600,000 3135G0P49 FNMA NOTES 1.00% 8/28/19 594,626.67 2.71% (7,051.63) 12/7/18 12/14/18 275,000 3135G0P49 FNMA NOTES 1.00% 8/28/19 272,537.22 2.71% (3,170.04)

Total SELL 10,125,000 10,089,266.23 -83,937.59

PFM Asset Management LLC 26 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Holdings

CAMP Pool Transactions

Trade Settle Dollar Share or Share Transaction Description Date Date Amount Unit Price Amount

10/31/18 11/01/18 Accrual Income Div Reinvestment - Distributions $100,446.37 1.00 100,446.370

11/30/18 12/03/18 Accrual Income Div Reinvestment - Distributions $101,045.51 1.00 101,045.510

12/03/18 12/03/18 Redemption - ACH Redemption $(3,000,000.00) 1.00 (3,000,000.000)

12/03/18 12/03/18 Transfer to 10-11 $(143,045.69) 1.00 (143,045.690)

12/11/18 12/11/18 Redemption - ACH Redemption $(3,000,000.00) 1.00 (3,000,000.000)

12/14/18 12/14/18 Redemption - ACH Redemption $(2,000,000.00) 1.00 (2,000,000.000)

12/17/18 12/17/18 Purchase - ACH Purchase $44,000,000.00 1.00 44,000,000.000

12/18/18 12/18/18 Purchase - ACH Purchase $32,000,000.00 1.00 32,000,000.000

70 12/20/18 12/20/18 Transfer to 608-01 $(9,784,621.35) 1.00 (9,784,621.350)

12/21/18 12/21/18 Redemption - ACH Redemption $(2,000,000.00) 1.00 (2,000,000.000)

12/24/18 12/24/18 Purchase - ACH Purchase $5,000,000.00 1.00 5,000,000.000

12/31/18 01/02/19 Accrual Income Div Reinvestment - Distributions $166,154.31 1.00 166,154.310

TOTALS $61,439,979.15 61,439,979.150

PFM Asset Management LLC 27 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Composition

Issuer Distribution

As of December 31, 2018

Issuer Market Value ($) % of Portfolio

CAMP POOL 113,467,859 47.0%

UNITED STATES TREASURY 45,093,583 18.7%

FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 5,328,643 2.2%

FANNIE MAE 3,777,071 1.6% Top 5 = 70.8%

FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS 3,352,197 1.4%

TOYOTA MOTOR CORP 3,263,704 1.4% Top 10 = 76.1%

INTL BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION AND DEV 3,232,616 1.3% 71

FREDDIE MAC 2,401,315 1.0%

INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 1,979,016 0.8%

AMERICAN EXPRESS CO 1,955,835 0.8%

CITIGROUP INC 1,623,702 0.7%

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY 1,584,491 0.7%

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE 1,535,584 0.6%

BANK OF AMERICA CO 1,524,106 0.6%

SKANDINAVISKA ENSKILDA BANKEN AB 1,516,480 0.6%

SUMITOMO MITSUI FINANCIAL GROUP INC 1,508,264 0.6%

DEERE & COMPANY 1,503,076 0.6%

HONDA AUTO RECEIVABLES 1,497,297 0.6%

PFM Asset Management LLC 28 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Composition

Issuer Market Value ($) % of Portfolio

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 1,475,150 0.6%

ALLY AUTO RECEIVABLES TRUST 1,368,168 0.6%

WESTPAC BANKING CORP 1,351,417 0.6%

FORD CREDIT AUTO OWNER TRUST 1,347,111 0.6%

NISSAN AUTO RECEIVABLES 1,271,021 0.5%

CATERPILLAR INC 1,269,432 0.5%

CALIFORNIA ST 1,248,900 0.5%

JP MORGAN CHASE & CO 1,243,662 0.5%

CARMAX AUTO OWNER TRUST 1,231,857 0.5%

72 MERCEDES-BENZ AUTO LEASE TRUST 1,214,970 0.5%

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA 1,178,436 0.5%

BANK OF MONTREAL 1,173,631 0.5%

UNILEVER PLC 1,167,072 0.5%

BB&T CORPORATION 1,129,511 0.5%

CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE 1,076,997 0.5%

CREDIT AGRICOLE SA 1,075,269 0.5%

HYUNDAI AUTO RECEIVABLES 997,330 0.4%

ORACLE CORP 995,278 0.4%

UBS AG 975,552 0.4%

NORDEA BANK AB 974,407 0.4%

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION 973,895 0.4%

PFM Asset Management LLC 29 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Composition

Issuer Market Value ($) % of Portfolio

CREDIT SUISSE GROUP 973,332 0.4%

HOME DEPOT INC 968,822 0.4%

GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC 967,478 0.4%

IBM CORP 960,118 0.4%

MORGAN STANLEY 959,463 0.4%

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA 937,704 0.4%

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION 916,047 0.4%

THE WALT DISNEY CORPORATION 882,602 0.4%

MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP INC 868,895 0.4%

73 SWEDBANK AB 858,408 0.4%

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO 786,032 0.3%

MERCEDES-BENZ AUTO RECEIVABLES 751,352 0.3%

PFIZER INC 734,360 0.3%

PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP 731,562 0.3%

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP 645,443 0.3%

INTEL CORPORATION 642,035 0.3%

NATIONAL RURAL UTILITIES CO FINANCE CORP 552,473 0.2%

GM FINANCIAL SECURITIZED TERM 521,851 0.2%

APPLE INC 518,315 0.2%

CHARLES SCHWAB 512,489 0.2%

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC 510,914 0.2%

PFM Asset Management LLC 30 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Composition

Issuer Market Value ($) % of Portfolio

STATE STREET CORPORATION 510,260 0.2%

FORD CREDIT AUTO LEASE TRUST 502,067 0.2%

HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 485,053 0.2%

NISSAN AUTO LEASE TRUST 480,569 0.2%

HERSHEY COMPANY 408,585 0.2%

WAL-MART STORES INC 402,157 0.2%

STATE OF CONNECTICUT 375,881 0.2%

GM FINANCIAL AUTO LEASING TRUST 370,529 0.2%

BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA LLC 261,229 0.1%

74 3M COMPANY 226,818 0.1%

VISA INC 197,827 0.1%

JOHNSON & JOHNSON 182,290 0.1%

Grand Total: 241,486,864 100.0%

PFM Asset Management LLC 31 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Composition

Sector/Issuer Distribution

As of December 31, 2018

Sector / Issuer Market Value ($) % of Sector % of Total Portfolio

Asset-Backed

ALLY AUTO RECEIVABLES TRUST 1,368,168 8.1% 0.6%

AMERICAN EXPRESS CO 821,789 4.9% 0.3%

BANK OF AMERICA CO 568,137 3.4% 0.2%

BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA LLC 261,229 1.6% 0.1%

CARMAX AUTO OWNER TRUST 1,231,857 7.3% 0.5%

CITIGROUP INC 669,557 4.0% 0.3%

FORD CREDIT AUTO LEASE TRUST 502,067 3.0% 0.2% 75 FORD CREDIT AUTO OWNER TRUST 1,347,111 8.0% 0.6%

GM FINANCIAL AUTO LEASING TRUST 370,529 2.2% 0.2%

GM FINANCIAL SECURITIZED TERM 521,851 3.1% 0.2%

HONDA AUTO RECEIVABLES 1,497,297 8.9% 0.6%

HYUNDAI AUTO RECEIVABLES 997,330 5.9% 0.4%

MERCEDES-BENZ AUTO LEASE TRUST 1,214,970 7.2% 0.5%

MERCEDES-BENZ AUTO RECEIVABLES 751,352 4.5% 0.3%

NISSAN AUTO LEASE TRUST 480,569 2.9% 0.2%

NISSAN AUTO RECEIVABLES 1,271,021 7.6% 0.5%

TOYOTA MOTOR CORP 2,000,245 11.9% 0.8%

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA 937,704 5.6% 0.4%

Sector Total 16,812,785 100.0% 7.0%

PFM Asset Management LLC 32 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Composition

Sector / Issuer Market Value ($) % of Sector % of Total Portfolio

Certificate of Deposit

BANK OF MONTREAL 1,173,631 7.8% 0.5%

BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA 1,178,436 7.9% 0.5%

CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE 1,076,997 7.2% 0.4%

CREDIT AGRICOLE SA 1,075,269 7.2% 0.4%

CREDIT SUISSE GROUP 973,332 6.5% 0.4%

MITSUBISHI UFJ FINANCIAL GROUP INC 868,895 5.8% 0.4%

NORDEA BANK AB 974,407 6.5% 0.4%

ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 1,475,150 9.8% 0.6%

SKANDINAVISKA ENSKILDA BANKEN AB 1,516,480 10.1% 0.6%

SUMITOMO MITSUI FINANCIAL GROUP INC 1,508,264 10.1% 0.6% 76 SWEDBANK AB 858,408 5.7% 0.4%

UBS AG 975,552 6.5% 0.4%

WESTPAC BANKING CORP 1,351,417 9.0% 0.6%

Sector Total 15,006,239 100.0% 6.2%

Corporate

3M COMPANY 226,818 0.8% 0.1%

AMERICAN EXPRESS CO 1,134,046 4.0% 0.5%

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE 1,535,584 5.4% 0.6%

APPLE INC 518,315 1.8% 0.2%

BANK OF AMERICA CO 955,969 3.4% 0.4%

BB&T CORPORATION 1,129,511 4.0% 0.5%

CATERPILLAR INC 1,269,432 4.5% 0.5%

CHARLES SCHWAB 512,489 1.8% 0.2%

PFM Asset Management LLC 33 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Composition

Sector / Issuer Market Value ($) % of Sector % of Total Portfolio

CITIGROUP INC 954,145 3.4% 0.4%

DEERE & COMPANY 1,503,076 5.3% 0.6%

GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP 645,443 2.3% 0.3%

GENERAL ELECTRIC CO 786,032 2.8% 0.3%

GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC 967,478 3.4% 0.4%

HERSHEY COMPANY 408,585 1.4% 0.2%

HOME DEPOT INC 968,822 3.4% 0.4%

HSBC HOLDINGS PLC 485,053 1.7% 0.2%

IBM CORP 960,118 3.4% 0.4%

INTEL CORPORATION 642,035 2.3% 0.3%

JOHNSON & JOHNSON 182,290 0.6% 0.1%

77 JP MORGAN CHASE & CO 1,243,662 4.4% 0.5%

MORGAN STANLEY 959,463 3.4% 0.4%

NATIONAL RURAL UTILITIES CO FINANCE CORP 552,473 1.9% 0.2%

ORACLE CORP 995,278 3.5% 0.4%

PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP 731,562 2.6% 0.3%

PFIZER INC 734,360 2.6% 0.3%

STATE STREET CORPORATION 510,260 1.8% 0.2%

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION 916,047 3.2% 0.4%

THE WALT DISNEY CORPORATION 882,602 3.1% 0.4%

TOYOTA MOTOR CORP 1,263,459 4.4% 0.5%

UNILEVER PLC 1,167,072 4.1% 0.5%

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC 510,914 1.8% 0.2%

VISA INC 197,827 0.7% 0.1%

WAL-MART STORES INC 402,157 1.4% 0.2%

PFM Asset Management LLC 34 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Composition

Sector / Issuer Market Value ($) % of Sector % of Total Portfolio

WELLS FARGO & COMPANY 1,584,491 5.6% 0.7%

Sector Total 28,436,865 100.0% 11.8%

Federal Agency/CMO

FANNIE MAE 662,091 34.4% 0.3%

FREDDIE MAC 1,262,645 65.6% 0.5%

Sector Total 1,924,736 100.0% 0.8%

Federal Agency/GSE

FANNIE MAE 3,114,980 24.1% 1.3%

FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS 3,352,197 25.9% 1.4% 78

FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 5,328,643 41.2% 2.2%

FREDDIE MAC 1,138,670 8.8% 0.5%

Sector Total 12,934,490 100.0% 5.4%

Mny Mkt Fund / Pool

CAMP POOL 113,467,859 100.0% 47.0%

Sector Total 113,467,859 100.0% 47.0%

Municipal

CALIFORNIA ST 1,248,900 76.9% 0.5%

STATE OF CONNECTICUT 375,881 23.1% 0.2%

Sector Total 1,624,781 100.0% 0.7%

PFM Asset Management LLC 35 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Composition

Sector / Issuer Market Value ($) % of Sector % of Total Portfolio

Supra-Sov / Supra-Natl Agency

INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK 1,979,016 32.0% 0.8%

INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION 973,895 15.7% 0.4%

INTL BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION AND DEV 3,232,616 52.3% 1.3%

Sector Total 6,185,528 100.0% 2.6%

U.S. Treasury

UNITED STATES TREASURY 45,093,583 100.0% 18.7%

Sector Total 45,093,583 100.0% 18.7%

79 Portfolio Total 241,486,864 100.0% 100.0%

PFM Asset Management LLC 36 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Holdings

Managed Account Detail of Securities Held

Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value

U.S. Treasury Bond / Note

US TREASURY NOTES 912828F62 1,700,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/3/2017 10/3/2017 1,700,000.00 1.50 4,367.40 1,700,000.00 1,684,128.80 DTD 10/31/2014 1.500% 10/31/2019 US TREASURY NOTES 912828G61 1,800,000.00 AA+ Aaa 12/1/2016 12/5/2016 1,802,812.50 1.45 2,373.63 1,800,872.05 1,781,438.40 DTD 12/01/2014 1.500% 11/30/2019 US TREASURY NOTES 912828G95 3,750,000.00 AA+ Aaa 12/14/2017 12/15/2017 3,734,472.66 1.83 168.34 3,742,355.74 3,712,646.25 DTD 12/31/2014 1.625% 12/31/2019 US TREASURY NOTES 912828J50 1,725,000.00 AA+ Aaa 8/31/2017 9/1/2017 1,724,932.62 1.38 8,059.13 1,724,968.52 1,700,877.60 DTD 03/02/2015 1.375% 02/29/2020 US TREASURY NOTES 912828J50 275,000.00 AA+ Aaa 3/8/2017 3/13/2017 272,690.43 1.67 1,284.79 274,083.15 271,154.40 DTD 03/02/2015 1.375% 02/29/2020 US TREASURY NOTES 912828J50 575,000.00 AA+ Aaa 2/1/2017 2/3/2017 571,518.55 1.58 2,686.38 573,665.30 566,959.20 80 DTD 03/02/2015 1.375% 02/29/2020 US TREASURY NOTES 912828J84 2,500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/2/2017 10/2/2017 2,487,890.63 1.57 8,782.62 2,493,902.20 2,463,280.00 DTD 03/31/2015 1.375% 03/31/2020 US TREASURY NOTES 912828K58 3,750,000.00 AA+ Aaa 12/14/2017 12/15/2017 3,707,666.02 1.86 8,831.15 3,726,114.79 3,692,283.75 DTD 04/30/2015 1.375% 04/30/2020 US TREASURY NOTES 912828K58 900,000.00 AA+ Aaa 4/7/2017 4/10/2017 895,359.38 1.55 2,119.48 897,956.59 886,148.10 DTD 04/30/2015 1.375% 04/30/2020 US TREASURY NOTES 912828K58 375,000.00 AA+ Aaa 4/3/2017 4/5/2017 373,315.43 1.53 883.11 374,261.77 369,228.38 DTD 04/30/2015 1.375% 04/30/2020 US TREASURY NOTES 912828VF4 2,325,000.00 AA+ Aaa 6/1/2018 6/1/2018 2,274,867.19 2.49 2,810.44 2,289,311.58 2,287,490.78 DTD 05/31/2013 1.375% 05/31/2020 US TREASURY NOTES 912828XH8 2,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 6/26/2017 6/28/2017 2,007,187.50 1.50 89.78 2,003,621.26 1,972,968.00 DTD 06/30/2015 1.625% 06/30/2020 US TREASURY NOTES 912828XM7 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 9/26/2018 9/26/2018 2,935,781.25 2.82 20,400.82 2,944,786.29 2,957,460.00 DTD 07/31/2015 1.625% 07/31/2020 US TREASURY NOTES 912828XM7 730,000.00 AA+ Aaa 7/5/2017 7/7/2017 730,456.25 1.60 4,964.20 730,239.50 719,648.60 DTD 07/31/2015 1.625% 07/31/2020 US TREASURY NOTES 912828VV9 1,250,000.00 AA+ Aaa 4/16/2018 4/16/2018 1,239,843.75 2.48 9,025.38 1,242,843.94 1,241,698.75 DTD 09/03/2013 2.125% 08/31/2020

PFM Asset Management LLC 37 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Holdings

Managed Account Detail of Securities Held

Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value

U.S. Treasury Bond / Note

US TREASURY NOTES 912828VV9 2,500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 4/5/2018 4/5/2018 2,483,789.06 2.40 18,050.76 2,488,718.85 2,483,397.50 DTD 09/03/2013 2.125% 08/31/2020 US TREASURY NOTES 912828N48 2,500,000.00 AA+ Aaa 12/14/2017 12/15/2017 2,486,132.81 1.94 120.86 2,490,813.93 2,464,355.00 DTD 12/31/2015 1.750% 12/31/2020 US TREASURY NOTES 912828N48 250,000.00 AA+ Aaa 12/1/2017 12/5/2017 248,808.60 1.91 12.09 249,218.03 246,435.50 DTD 12/31/2015 1.750% 12/31/2020 US TREASURY N/B NOTES 9128284P2 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 9/26/2018 9/26/2018 2,980,078.13 2.89 10,224.45 2,982,074.28 3,009,609.00 DTD 05/15/2018 2.625% 05/15/2021 US TREASURY NOTES 912828WN6 5,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 6/1/2018 6/1/2018 4,910,742.19 2.62 8,791.21 4,927,640.55 4,944,530.00 DTD 06/02/2014 2.000% 05/31/2021 US TREASURY NOTES 9128284W7 1,700,000.00 AA+ Aaa 9/5/2018 9/7/2018 1,701,394.53 2.72 17,658.29 1,701,260.53 1,711,488.60 81 DTD 08/15/2018 2.750% 08/15/2021 US TREASURY NOTES 9128284W7 900,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/2/2018 10/4/2018 896,589.84 2.89 9,348.51 896,877.80 906,082.20 DTD 08/15/2018 2.750% 08/15/2021 US TREASURY NOTES 9128284W7 3,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 9/26/2018 9/26/2018 2,987,460.94 2.90 31,161.68 2,988,596.49 3,020,274.00 DTD 08/15/2018 2.750% 08/15/2021

Security Type Sub-Total 45,505,000.00 45,153,790.26 2.18 172,214.50 45,244,183.14 45,093,582.81

Supra-National Agency Bond / Note

INTL BANK OF RECON AND DEV 459058FS7 375,000.00 AAA Aaa 8/28/2017 8/30/2017 371,718.75 1.52 398.44 373,662.28 370,114.50 GLOBAL NOTES DTD 10/27/2016 1.125% 11/27/2019 INTL BANK OF RECON AND DEV 459058FS7 400,000.00 AAA Aaa 8/28/2017 8/30/2017 396,588.00 1.51 425.00 398,609.08 394,788.80 GLOBAL NOTES DTD 10/27/2016 1.125% 11/27/2019 INTL BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION 45905UP32 775,000.00 AAA Aaa 9/12/2017 9/19/2017 773,140.00 1.64 3,662.93 773,929.52 760,798.90 AND DEV NOTE DTD 09/19/2017 1.561% 09/12/2020

PFM Asset Management LLC 38 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Holdings

Managed Account Detail of Securities Held

Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value

Supra-National Agency Bond / Note

INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT 4581X0CD8 770,000.00 AAA Aaa 10/2/2017 10/10/2017 777,137.21 1.81 2,363.47 774,348.49 762,813.59 BANK DTD 11/08/2013 2.125% 11/09/2020 INTERNATIONAL FINANCE 45950VLQ7 975,000.00 AAA Aaa 3/9/2018 3/16/2018 974,268.75 2.66 7,992.83 974,455.25 973,895.33 CORPORATION NOTE DTD 03/16/2018 2.635% 03/09/2021 INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT 4581X0DB1 1,215,000.00 AAA Aaa 4/12/2018 4/19/2018 1,212,327.00 2.70 6,378.75 1,212,932.29 1,216,202.85 BANK NOTE DTD 04/19/2018 2.625% 04/19/2021 INTL BANK OF RECONSTRUCTION 459058GH0 1,700,000.00 AAA Aaa 7/18/2018 7/25/2018 1,696,022.00 2.83 20,258.33 1,696,576.30 1,706,913.90 AND DEV NOTE DTD 07/25/2018 2.750% 07/23/2021 82 Security Type Sub-Total 6,210,000.00 6,201,201.71 2.35 41,479.75 6,204,513.21 6,185,527.87

Municipal Bond / Note

CT ST TXBL GO BONDS 20772J3D2 380,000.00 A A1 8/3/2016 8/17/2016 380,820.80 1.23 1,866.22 380,172.94 375,880.80 DTD 08/17/2016 1.300% 08/15/2019 CA ST TXBL GO BONDS 13063DGA0 1,250,000.00 AA- Aa3 4/18/2018 4/25/2018 1,250,050.00 2.80 8,750.00 1,250,027.94 1,248,900.00 DTD 04/25/2018 2.800% 04/01/2021

Security Type Sub-Total 1,630,000.00 1,630,870.80 2.44 10,616.22 1,630,200.88 1,624,780.80

Federal Agency Collateralized Mortgage Obligation

FNMA SERIES 2015-M15 ASQ2 3136AQSW1 3,564.93 AA+ Aaa 11/6/2015 11/30/2015 3,600.58 1.20 5.64 3,564.93 3,557.48 DTD 11/01/2015 1.898% 01/01/2019 FNMA SERIES 2016-M9 ASQ2 3136ASPX8 1,115.97 AA+ Aaa 6/9/2016 6/30/2016 1,127.13 1.05 1.66 1,116.33 1,110.40 DTD 06/01/2016 1.785% 06/01/2019 FANNIE MAE SERIES 2015-M13 ASQ2 3136AQDQ0 21,424.84 AA+ Aaa 10/7/2015 10/30/2015 21,639.39 1.08 29.39 21,438.77 21,295.03 DTD 10/01/2015 1.646% 09/01/2019 FNA 2018-M5 A2 3136B1XP4 629,062.54 AA+ Aaa 4/11/2018 4/30/2018 641,575.23 2.27 1,866.22 639,200.80 636,128.11 DTD 04/01/2018 3.560% 09/25/2021

PFM Asset Management LLC 39 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Holdings

Managed Account Detail of Securities Held

Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value

Federal Agency Collateralized Mortgage Obligation

FHMS KJ23 A1 3137FKK70 650,000.00 AA+ Aaa 12/7/2018 12/14/2018 649,994.80 3.05 1,719.25 649,994.80 654,052.36 DTD 12/01/2018 3.174% 03/01/2022 FHMS KP05 A 3137FKK39 605,000.00 AA+ Aaa 12/7/2018 12/17/2018 604,998.19 3.11 1,614.85 605,000.00 608,592.25 DTD 12/01/2018 3.203% 07/01/2023

Security Type Sub-Total 1,910,168.28 1,922,935.32 2.78 5,237.01 1,920,315.63 1,924,735.63

Federal Agency Bond / Note

FHLB GLOBAL NOTES 3130A9EP2 175,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/3/2016 10/5/2016 174,938.75 1.01 461.81 174,984.71 172,883.90 DTD 09/09/2016 1.000% 09/26/2019 FHLMC NOTES (EX-CALLABLE) 3134G8PD5 1,150,000.00 AA+ Aaa 3/21/2016 3/30/2016 1,150,000.00 1.35 3,924.38 1,150,000.00 1,138,670.20

83 DTD 03/30/2016 1.350% 09/30/2019 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK NOTES 3130ACM92 1,750,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/12/2017 10/13/2017 1,746,902.50 1.59 5,104.17 1,748,754.05 1,733,698.75 DTD 10/13/2017 1.500% 10/21/2019 FFCB NOTES (CALLABLE) 3133EFKY2 1,300,000.00 AA+ Aaa 10/19/2015 10/28/2015 1,297,959.00 1.40 3,094.00 1,299,569.87 1,285,635.00 DTD 10/28/2015 1.360% 10/28/2019 FFCB NOTES (CALLABLE) 3133EFZT7 1,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 2/11/2016 2/24/2016 1,000,000.00 1.40 4,938.89 1,000,000.00 987,393.00 DTD 02/24/2016 1.400% 02/24/2020 FNMA NOTES 3135G0T29 630,000.00 AA+ Aaa 2/24/2017 2/28/2017 629,596.80 1.52 3,228.75 629,842.20 622,829.34 DTD 02/28/2017 1.500% 02/28/2020 FHLB NOTES 313378J77 1,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 5/9/2016 5/10/2016 1,027,970.00 1.13 5,625.00 1,008,866.41 991,446.00 DTD 03/02/2012 1.875% 03/13/2020 FNMA NOTES 3135G0T60 750,000.00 AA+ Aaa 8/31/2017 9/1/2017 750,195.00 1.49 4,718.75 750,108.33 737,598.75 DTD 08/01/2017 1.500% 07/30/2020 FFCB NOTES (CALLABLE) 3133EGPP4 1,100,000.00 AA+ Aaa 8/4/2016 8/5/2016 1,100,055.00 1.36 6,150.22 1,100,000.00 1,079,169.30 DTD 08/03/2016 1.360% 08/03/2020 FNMA BENCHMARK NOTE 3135G0F73 1,000,000.00 AA+ Aaa 9/15/2016 9/16/2016 1,011,560.00 1.22 1,291.67 1,005,335.93 980,184.00 DTD 10/19/2015 1.500% 11/30/2020 FANNIE MAE NOTES 3135G0U27 775,000.00 AA+ Aaa 4/12/2018 4/13/2018 773,845.25 2.55 4,197.92 774,113.47 774,367.60 DTD 04/13/2018 2.500% 04/13/2021

PFM Asset Management LLC 40 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Holdings

Managed Account Detail of Securities Held

Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value

Federal Agency Bond / Note

FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS NOTES 3130AF5B9 2,400,000.00 AA+ Aaa 12/11/2018 12/12/2018 2,409,744.00 2.85 15,800.00 2,409,576.79 2,430,614.40 DTD 10/12/2018 3.000% 10/12/2021

Security Type Sub-Total 13,030,000.00 13,072,766.30 1.73 58,535.56 13,051,151.76 12,934,490.24

Corporate Note

GOLDMAN SACHS GRP INC CORP NT 38141GVT8 45,000.00 BBB+ A3 4/20/2016 4/25/2016 44,874.90 2.10 165.00 44,986.45 44,843.04 (CALLABLE) DTD 04/25/2016 2.000% 04/25/2019 GOLDMAN SACHS GRP INC CORP NT 38141GVT8 300,000.00 BBB+ A3 4/21/2016 4/26/2016 299,808.00 2.02 1,100.00 299,979.21 298,953.60 (CALLABLE)

84 DTD 04/25/2016 2.000% 04/25/2019 IBM CREDIT CORP NOTE 44932HAA1 670,000.00 A A1 9/5/2017 9/8/2017 669,490.80 1.66 3,477.95 669,824.39 663,491.62 DTD 09/08/2017 1.625% 09/06/2019 ORACLE CORP NOTE 68389XAX3 1,000,000.00 AA- A1 4/14/2016 4/15/2016 1,031,570.00 1.32 5,187.50 1,007,100.62 995,278.00 DTD 07/08/2014 2.250% 10/08/2019 WAL-MART STORES INC CORP NOTE 931142DY6 405,000.00 AA Aa2 10/11/2017 10/20/2017 404,991.90 1.75 1,614.38 404,996.44 402,156.50 DTD 10/20/2017 1.750% 10/09/2019 GENERAL ELEC CAP CORP GLOBAL 36962G6P4 800,000.00 BBB+ A3 8/23/2016 8/26/2016 825,288.00 1.12 933.33 807,351.48 786,032.00 NOTES DTD 12/12/2012 2.100% 12/11/2019 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP 38145GAJ9 400,000.00 BBB+ A3 12/19/2016 12/22/2016 398,448.00 2.44 460.00 399,492.78 395,930.80 (CALLABLE) INC BONDS DTD 12/13/2016 2.300% 12/13/2019 CITIGROUP INC (CALLABLE) CORP 172967LF6 375,000.00 BBB+ Baa1 1/4/2017 1/10/2017 374,850.00 2.46 4,364.06 374,947.52 371,988.75 NOTE DTD 01/10/2017 2.450% 01/10/2020 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO (CALLABLE) 46625HKA7 750,000.00 A- A2 6/15/2017 6/20/2017 752,827.50 2.10 7,406.25 751,125.79 742,530.00 DTD 01/23/2015 2.250% 01/23/2020 MORGAN STANLEY CORP BONDS 61747YDW2 375,000.00 BBB+ A3 1/31/2017 2/3/2017 378,243.75 2.35 4,251.04 376,191.85 372,185.25 DTD 01/27/2015 2.650% 01/27/2020

PFM Asset Management LLC 41 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Holdings

Managed Account Detail of Securities Held

Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value

Corporate Note

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE 02665WBM2 350,000.00 A+ A2 2/13/2017 2/16/2017 349,503.00 2.05 2,663.89 349,810.64 345,919.35 DTD 02/16/2017 2.000% 02/14/2020 AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT 0258M0EE5 215,000.00 A- A2 2/28/2017 3/3/2017 214,776.40 2.24 1,550.39 214,910.90 212,688.54 (CALLABLE) NOTE DTD 03/03/2017 2.200% 03/03/2020 WALT DISNEY COMPANY CORP 25468PDP8 145,000.00 A+ A2 3/1/2017 3/6/2017 144,962.30 1.96 918.94 144,984.92 143,596.11 NOTES DTD 03/06/2017 1.950% 03/04/2020 HSBC USA INC NOTES 40428HPR7 490,000.00 A A2 3/27/2018 3/29/2018 483,757.40 3.03 3,710.39 486,159.73 485,052.96 DTD 03/05/2015 2.350% 03/05/2020 TOYOTA MOTOR CORP NOTES 89236TCF0 1,000,000.00 AA- Aa3 7/8/2016 7/13/2016 1,031,540.00 1.27 6,509.72 1,010,466.16 988,418.00

85 DTD 03/12/2015 2.150% 03/12/2020 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP NOTES 24422ETQ2 315,000.00 A A2 3/10/2017 3/15/2017 314,754.30 2.23 2,079.00 314,899.55 312,094.13 DTD 03/15/2017 2.200% 03/13/2020 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC CORP 38148LAA4 130,000.00 BBB+ A3 11/1/2017 11/3/2017 130,980.20 2.28 638.44 130,526.69 128,728.47 NOTES DTD 01/23/2015 2.600% 04/23/2020 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP INC CORP 38148LAA4 100,000.00 BBB+ A3 3/5/2018 3/7/2018 99,312.00 2.94 491.11 99,572.43 99,021.90 NOTES DTD 01/23/2015 2.600% 04/23/2020 UNILEVER CAPITAL CORP BONDS 904764AV9 175,000.00 A+ A1 5/2/2017 5/5/2017 174,441.75 1.91 490.00 174,745.98 172,395.65 DTD 05/05/2017 1.800% 05/05/2020 INTEL CORP NOTES 458140AZ3 400,000.00 A+ A1 5/8/2017 5/11/2017 399,848.00 1.86 1,027.78 399,930.01 395,098.40 DTD 05/11/2017 1.850% 05/11/2020 INTEL CORP NOTES 458140AZ3 250,000.00 A+ A1 3/28/2018 3/29/2018 246,075.00 2.62 642.36 247,454.28 246,936.50 DTD 05/11/2017 1.850% 05/11/2020 APPLE INC BONDS 037833CS7 400,000.00 AA+ Aa1 5/4/2017 5/11/2017 399,592.00 1.84 1,000.00 399,812.18 394,961.20 DTD 05/11/2017 1.800% 05/11/2020 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORP 369550BA5 645,000.00 A+ A2 5/8/2018 5/11/2018 642,716.70 3.06 2,575.52 643,431.93 645,443.12 DTD 05/11/2018 2.875% 05/11/2020

PFM Asset Management LLC 42 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Holdings

Managed Account Detail of Securities Held

Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value

Corporate Note

HOME DEPOT INC CORP NOTES 437076BQ4 355,000.00 A A2 5/24/2017 6/5/2017 354,794.10 1.82 461.50 354,900.63 349,920.31 DTD 06/05/2017 1.800% 06/05/2020 WALT DISNEY COMPANY CORP 25468PDU7 750,000.00 A+ A2 6/1/2017 6/6/2017 749,130.00 1.84 975.00 749,579.60 739,005.75 NOTES DTD 06/06/2017 1.800% 06/05/2020 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP NOTES 24422ETS8 150,000.00 A A2 6/19/2017 6/22/2017 149,908.50 1.97 73.13 149,954.34 147,660.15 DTD 06/22/2017 1.950% 06/22/2020 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP 02665WBT7 170,000.00 A+ A2 7/17/2017 7/20/2017 169,828.30 1.98 1,482.54 169,909.87 167,312.81 NOTES DTD 07/20/2017 1.950% 07/20/2020 WELLS FARGO & COMPANY NOTES 94974BGM6 1,600,000.00 A- A2 7/8/2016 7/13/2016 1,660,096.00 1.63 18,373.33 1,623,732.94 1,584,491.20 DTD 07/22/2015 2.600% 07/22/2020 86 BNY MELLON CORP NOTE 06406HDD8 425,000.00 A A1 2/16/2018 2/21/2018 422,913.25 2.81 4,113.06 423,620.02 422,203.93 (CALLABLE) DTD 08/17/2015 2.600% 08/17/2020 CATERPILLAR FINL SERVICE NOTE 14913Q2A6 580,000.00 A A3 9/5/2017 9/7/2017 579,512.80 1.88 3,487.25 579,723.72 568,704.50 DTD 09/07/2017 1.850% 09/04/2020 AMERICAN EXP (CALLABLE) CREDIT 0258M0DX4 200,000.00 A- A2 3/28/2018 3/29/2018 197,718.00 3.09 1,545.56 198,403.07 197,953.20 CORP NOTE DTD 09/14/2015 2.600% 09/14/2020 CITIGROUP INC CORP NOTES 172967KB6 115,000.00 BBB+ Baa1 10/31/2017 10/31/2017 116,154.60 2.30 550.24 115,712.75 113,471.08 DTD 10/26/2015 2.650% 10/26/2020 CITIGROUP INC CORP NOTES 172967KB6 250,000.00 BBB+ Baa1 9/22/2017 9/26/2017 252,780.00 2.27 1,196.18 251,664.82 246,676.25 DTD 10/26/2015 2.650% 10/26/2020 CITIGROUP INC CORP NOTES 172967KB6 225,000.00 BBB+ Baa1 3/28/2018 3/29/2018 222,536.25 3.10 1,076.56 223,242.00 222,008.63 DTD 10/26/2015 2.650% 10/26/2020 AMERICAN EXPRESS CO CORP 025816BP3 300,000.00 BBB+ A3 10/23/2017 10/30/2017 299,610.00 2.25 1,118.33 299,759.01 294,585.90 (CALLABLE) NOTE DTD 10/30/2017 2.200% 10/30/2020 JOHNSON & JOHNSON CORP NOTE 478160CH5 185,000.00 AAA Aaa 11/8/2017 11/10/2017 184,802.05 1.99 511.06 184,876.03 182,289.94 DTD 11/10/2017 1.950% 11/10/2020

PFM Asset Management LLC 43 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Holdings

Managed Account Detail of Securities Held

Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value

Corporate Note

APPLE INC 037833DJ6 125,000.00 AA+ Aa1 11/6/2017 11/13/2017 124,895.00 2.03 333.33 124,933.94 123,353.38 DTD 11/13/2017 2.000% 11/13/2020 PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP NOTES 69371RN85 245,000.00 A+ A1 11/6/2017 11/13/2017 244,977.95 2.05 669.67 244,986.13 241,045.21 DTD 11/13/2017 2.050% 11/13/2020 CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES 14913Q2Q1 150,000.00 A A3 12/3/2018 12/7/2018 149,974.50 3.36 335.00 149,975.33 150,616.65 CORP CORP DTD 12/07/2018 3.350% 12/07/2020 VISA INC (CALLABLE) CORP NOTES 92826CAB8 200,000.00 AA- A1 8/25/2017 8/30/2017 202,200.00 1.85 207.78 201,300.62 197,827.40 DTD 12/14/2015 2.200% 12/14/2020 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP NOTES 24422ETZ2 350,000.00 A A2 1/3/2018 1/8/2018 349,818.00 2.37 3,952.57 349,876.09 345,201.85 DTD 01/08/2018 2.350% 01/08/2021

87 BRANCH BANKING & TRUST 05531FAZ6 100,000.00 A- A2 3/5/2018 3/7/2018 97,968.00 2.89 895.83 98,524.50 97,895.60 (CALLABLE) NOTES DTD 10/26/2017 2.150% 02/01/2021 BRANCH BANKING & TRUST 05531FAZ6 380,000.00 A- A2 11/16/2017 11/20/2017 378,024.00 2.32 3,404.17 378,694.13 372,003.28 (CALLABLE) NOTES DTD 10/26/2017 2.150% 02/01/2021 BRANCH BANKING & TRUST 05531FAZ6 485,000.00 A- A2 10/23/2017 10/26/2017 484,776.90 2.17 4,344.79 484,851.32 474,793.66 (CALLABLE) NOTES DTD 10/26/2017 2.150% 02/01/2021 IBM CORP CORP NOTES 44932HAG8 300,000.00 A A1 2/1/2018 2/6/2018 299,853.00 2.67 3,224.17 299,895.98 296,625.90 DTD 02/06/2018 2.650% 02/05/2021 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE 02665WCD1 475,000.00 A+ A2 2/12/2018 2/15/2018 474,335.00 2.70 4,860.17 474,524.26 469,649.60 DTD 02/15/2018 2.650% 02/12/2021 PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP NOTES 69371RN93 200,000.00 A+ A1 4/4/2018 4/6/2018 199,570.00 2.88 1,866.67 199,678.16 198,188.80 DTD 02/27/2018 2.800% 03/01/2021 PACCAR FINANCIAL CORP NOTES 69371RN93 295,000.00 A+ A1 2/22/2018 2/27/2018 294,855.45 2.82 2,753.33 294,894.35 292,328.48 DTD 02/27/2018 2.800% 03/01/2021 JOHN DEERE CAPITAL CORP NOTES 24422EUD9 700,000.00 A A2 3/8/2018 3/13/2018 699,524.00 2.90 6,093.40 699,646.90 698,119.80 DTD 03/13/2018 2.875% 03/12/2021

PFM Asset Management LLC 44 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Holdings

Managed Account Detail of Securities Held

Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value

Corporate Note

CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES 14913Q2G3 400,000.00 A A3 3/12/2018 3/15/2018 399,784.00 2.92 3,415.56 399,839.45 399,715.60 CORP NOTE DTD 03/15/2018 2.900% 03/15/2021 NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP 63743HER9 405,000.00 A A2 2/21/2018 2/26/2018 404,550.45 2.94 3,458.25 404,668.41 403,156.04 DTD 02/26/2018 2.900% 03/15/2021 NATIONAL RURAL UTIL COOP 63743HER9 150,000.00 A A2 3/28/2018 3/29/2018 149,730.00 2.96 1,280.83 149,797.62 149,317.05 DTD 02/26/2018 2.900% 03/15/2021 UNILEVER CAPITAL CORP NOTES 904764AZ0 800,000.00 A+ A1 3/19/2018 3/22/2018 795,912.00 2.93 6,050.00 796,935.34 796,148.80 DTD 03/22/2018 2.750% 03/22/2021 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 911312BP0 520,000.00 A+ A1 11/9/2017 11/14/2017 519,178.40 2.10 2,665.00 519,443.51 510,913.52 CORPORATE BOND DTD 11/14/2017 2.050% 04/01/2021 88 HOME DEPOT INC CORP NOTES 437076BL5 250,000.00 A A2 4/5/2018 4/9/2018 244,050.00 2.84 1,250.00 245,460.71 245,060.75 DTD 02/12/2016 2.000% 04/01/2021 TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORP 89236TEU5 275,000.00 AA- Aa3 4/10/2018 4/13/2018 274,890.00 2.96 1,757.71 274,915.43 275,041.25 NOTES DTD 04/13/2018 2.950% 04/13/2021 BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP 06406FAA1 500,000.00 A A1 2/16/2018 2/21/2018 493,505.00 2.93 2,638.89 495,230.59 493,843.00 (CALLABLE) DTD 02/19/2016 2.500% 04/15/2021 MORGAN STANLEY CORP NOTES 61746BEA0 600,000.00 BBB+ A3 2/13/2018 2/15/2018 589,920.00 3.06 2,916.67 592,615.47 587,277.60 DTD 04/21/2016 2.500% 04/21/2021 HERSHEY COMPANY CORP NOTES 427866BA5 405,000.00 A A1 5/3/2018 5/10/2018 404,720.55 3.12 1,604.25 404,779.03 408,585.47 DTD 05/10/2018 3.100% 05/15/2021 STATE STREET CORP NOTES 857477AV5 525,000.00 A A1 4/2/2018 4/4/2018 509,906.25 2.92 1,194.38 513,374.22 510,260.10 DTD 05/19/2016 1.950% 05/19/2021 CHARLES SCHWAB CORP NOTES 808513AW5 510,000.00 A A2 5/17/2018 5/22/2018 509,984.70 3.25 1,841.67 509,987.40 512,488.80 DTD 05/22/2018 3.250% 05/21/2021 BRANCH BANKING & TRUST CORP 05531FBD4 185,000.00 A- A2 5/31/2018 6/5/2018 184,779.85 3.24 3,387.56 184,827.31 184,818.33 NOTES DTD 06/05/2018 3.200% 09/03/2021

PFM Asset Management LLC 45 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Holdings

Managed Account Detail of Securities Held

Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value

Corporate Note

CATERPILLAR FINANCIAL SERVICES 14913Q2N8 150,000.00 A A3 9/4/2018 9/7/2018 149,884.50 3.18 1,496.25 149,896.22 150,395.25 CORP CORP DTD 09/07/2018 3.150% 09/07/2021 3M COMPANY 88579YBA8 225,000.00 AA- A1 9/11/2018 9/14/2018 224,538.75 3.07 2,006.25 224,582.72 226,818.45 DTD 09/14/2018 3.000% 09/14/2021 PFIZER INC CORP NOTE 717081EM1 730,000.00 AA A1 9/4/2018 9/7/2018 729,014.50 3.05 6,935.00 729,115.82 734,359.56 DTD 09/07/2018 3.000% 09/15/2021 BANK OF AMERICA CORP (CALLABLE) 06051GGS2 100,000.00 A- A3 10/31/2017 10/31/2017 99,802.00 2.38 582.00 99,859.79 98,048.10 DTD 09/18/2017 2.328% 10/01/2021 BANK OF AMERICA CORP (CALLABLE) 06051GGS2 100,000.00 A- A3 3/5/2018 3/7/2018 97,669.00 3.02 582.00 98,182.32 98,048.10 DTD 09/18/2017 2.328% 10/01/2021

89 BANK OF AMERICA CORP (CALLABLE) 06051GGS2 480,000.00 A- A3 9/13/2017 9/18/2017 480,000.00 2.33 2,793.60 480,000.00 470,630.88 DTD 09/18/2017 2.328% 10/01/2021 BANK OF AMERICA CORP (CALLABLE) 06051GGS2 295,000.00 A- A3 9/22/2017 9/26/2017 294,528.00 2.37 1,716.90 294,671.58 289,241.90 DTD 09/18/2017 2.328% 10/01/2021 AMERICAN EXPRESS CREDIT CORP 025816BY4 425,000.00 BBB+ A3 11/1/2018 11/6/2018 424,906.50 3.71 2,402.43 424,910.95 428,818.20 NOTES DTD 11/06/2018 3.700% 11/05/2021 AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORP 02665WCP4 550,000.00 A+ A2 10/3/2018 10/10/2018 549,736.00 3.39 1,082.81 549,750.19 552,702.15 NOTES DTD 10/10/2018 3.375% 12/10/2021 HOME DEPOT INC 437076BV3 370,000.00 A A2 11/27/2018 12/6/2018 368,986.20 3.34 835.07 369,003.52 373,840.60 DTD 12/06/2018 3.250% 03/01/2022 UNILEVER CAPITAL CORP 904764BF3 200,000.00 A+ A1 9/4/2018 9/7/2018 199,032.00 3.15 1,900.00 199,115.53 198,527.20 DTD 09/07/2018 3.000% 03/07/2022 JPMORGAN CHASE & CO CORP 46647PAS5 500,000.00 A- A2 6/11/2018 6/18/2018 500,000.00 3.51 634.47 500,000.00 501,131.50 NOTES DTD 06/18/2018 3.514% 06/18/2022

Security Type Sub-Total 28,695,000.00 28,772,216.20 2.40 177,589.22 28,690,525.57 28,436,865.35

PFM Asset Management LLC 46 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Holdings

Managed Account Detail of Securities Held

Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value

Certificate of Deposit

SUMITOMO MITSUI BANK NY CD 86563YVN0 225,000.00 A-1 P-1 5/3/2017 5/4/2017 225,000.00 2.05 730.31 225,000.00 224,470.13 DTD 05/04/2017 2.050% 05/03/2019 SKANDINAV ENSKILDA BANKEN NY 83050FXT3 1,525,000.00 A-1 P-1 8/3/2017 8/4/2017 1,524,405.25 1.85 11,847.56 1,524,825.98 1,516,479.83 CD DTD 08/04/2017 1.840% 08/02/2019 MUFG BANK LTD/NY CERT DEPOS 06539RGM3 875,000.00 A-1 P-1 9/25/2017 9/27/2017 875,000.00 2.07 4,930.63 875,000.00 868,895.13 DTD 09/27/2017 2.070% 09/25/2019 CREDIT SUISSE NEW YORK CERT 22549LFR1 975,000.00 A A1 2/7/2018 2/8/2018 975,000.00 2.67 23,356.94 975,000.00 973,331.78 DEPOS DTD 02/08/2018 2.670% 02/07/2020 NORDEA BANK AB NY CD 65590ASN7 975,000.00 AA- Aa3 2/20/2018 2/22/2018 975,000.00 2.72 9,650.33 975,000.00 974,407.20

90 DTD 02/22/2018 2.720% 02/20/2020 UBS AG STAMFORD CT LT CD 90275DHG8 975,000.00 A+ Aa2 3/2/2018 3/6/2018 975,000.00 2.93 9,346.46 975,000.00 975,551.85 DTD 03/06/2018 2.900% 03/02/2020 CANADIAN IMP BK COMM NY FLT 13606BVF0 1,075,000.00 A+ Aa2 4/6/2018 4/10/2018 1,075,000.00 2.78 6,975.04 1,075,000.00 1,076,997.35 CERT DEPOS DTD 04/10/2018 2.814% 04/10/2020 CREDIT AGRICOLE CIB NY FLT CERT 22532XHT8 1,075,000.00 A+ A1 4/6/2018 4/10/2018 1,075,000.00 2.85 7,148.53 1,075,000.00 1,075,268.75 DEPOS DTD 04/10/2018 2.884% 04/10/2020 BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA HOUSTON CD 06417GU22 1,175,000.00 A+ Aa2 6/5/2018 6/7/2018 1,174,553.50 3.10 2,613.72 1,174,676.60 1,178,435.70 DTD 06/07/2018 3.080% 06/05/2020 BANK OF MONTREAL CHICAGO CERT 06370REU9 1,175,000.00 A+ Aa2 8/1/2018 8/3/2018 1,175,000.00 3.23 15,721.83 1,175,000.00 1,173,631.13 DEPOS DTD 08/03/2018 3.190% 08/03/2020 WESTPAC BANKING CORP NY CD 96121T4A3 1,370,000.00 AA- Aa3 8/3/2017 8/7/2017 1,370,000.00 2.05 11,234.00 1,370,000.00 1,351,417.32 DTD 08/07/2017 2.050% 08/03/2020 SUMITOMO MITSUI BANK NY CERT 86565BPC9 1,275,000.00 A A1 10/16/2018 10/18/2018 1,273,266.00 3.46 8,764.56 1,273,437.17 1,283,793.68 DEPOS DTD 10/18/2018 3.390% 10/16/2020

PFM Asset Management LLC 47 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Holdings

Managed Account Detail of Securities Held

Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value

Certificate of Deposit

SWEDBANK (NEW YORK) CERT 87019U6D6 875,000.00 AA- Aa2 11/16/2017 11/17/2017 875,000.00 2.30 2,537.99 875,000.00 858,408.25 DEPOS DTD 11/17/2017 2.270% 11/16/2020 ROYAL BANK OF CANADA NY CD 78012UEE1 1,475,000.00 AA- Aa2 6/7/2018 6/8/2018 1,475,000.00 3.24 3,186.00 1,475,000.00 1,475,150.45 DTD 06/08/2018 3.240% 06/07/2021

Security Type Sub-Total 15,045,000.00 15,042,224.75 2.71 118,043.90 15,042,939.75 15,006,238.55

Asset-Backed Security / Collateralized Mortgage Obligation

GMALT 2018-3 A3 36256GAD1 370,000.00 AAA Aaa 9/18/2018 9/26/2018 369,970.77 3.19 359.52 369,973.51 370,528.80 DTD 09/26/2018 3.180% 06/20/2021 260,000.00 AAA Aaa 10/10/2018 10/17/2018 3.27 91 BMWLT 2018-1 A3 05586CAC8 259,963.86 258.99 259,966.61 261,229.46 DTD 10/17/2018 3.260% 07/20/2021 CARMX 2018-2 A2 14314XAB5 191,868.65 AAA NR 5/31/2018 6/4/2018 191,891.14 2.72 232.80 191,887.63 191,447.73 DTD 04/25/2018 2.730% 08/15/2021 MBALT 2018-B A3 58769LAC6 1,210,000.00 AAA NR 11/15/2018 11/20/2018 1,209,972.90 3.51 1,726.27 1,209,972.90 1,214,970.08 DTD 11/20/2018 3.210% 09/15/2021 NISSAN AUTO LEASE TRUST 65478BAD3 480,000.00 AAA Aaa 10/16/2018 10/24/2018 479,958.05 3.26 693.33 479,960.66 480,569.42 DTD 10/24/2018 3.250% 09/15/2021 NISSAN ABS 2017-B A3 65478GAD2 575,000.00 NR Aaa 6/22/2018 6/26/2018 565,611.33 2.74 447.22 566,940.36 568,319.25 DTD 08/23/2017 1.750% 10/15/2021 FORD ABS 2017-B A3 34531HAD1 275,000.00 AAA Aaa 5/23/2018 5/24/2018 269,886.72 2.77 206.56 270,707.38 271,610.74 DTD 06/27/2017 1.690% 11/15/2021 FORDL 2018-B A3 34531LAD2 500,000.00 NR Aaa 9/18/2018 9/21/2018 499,957.75 3.41 708.89 499,961.31 502,067.35 DTD 09/21/2018 3.190% 12/15/2021 HAROT 2018-1 A3 43814UAC3 575,000.00 AAA Aaa 6/6/2018 6/8/2018 571,922.85 2.94 674.67 572,332.36 571,580.76 DTD 02/28/2018 2.640% 02/15/2022 HAROT 2018-2 A3 43814UAG4 370,000.00 AAA NR 5/22/2018 5/30/2018 369,991.93 3.01 402.17 369,993.27 370,367.60 DTD 05/30/2018 3.010% 05/18/2022 HART 2018-A A3 44891KAD7 345,000.00 AAA Aaa 4/10/2018 4/18/2018 344,948.04 2.80 427.80 344,956.33 344,723.93 DTD 04/18/2018 2.790% 07/15/2022

PFM Asset Management LLC 48 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Holdings

Managed Account Detail of Securities Held

Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value

Asset-Backed Security / Collateralized Mortgage Obligation

BANK OF AMERICA ABS 2017-A1 A1 05522RCW6 575,000.00 NR Aaa 6/11/2018 6/13/2018 565,880.86 2.73 498.33 566,891.77 568,137.20 DTD 03/30/2017 1.950% 08/15/2022 HONDA AUTO RECEIVABLES OWNER 43815HAC1 555,000.00 NR Aaa 8/21/2018 8/28/2018 554,923.85 2.96 454.79 554,930.10 555,348.82 T DTD 08/28/2018 2.950% 08/21/2022 TAOT 2018-B A3 89238TAD5 910,000.00 AAA Aaa 5/9/2018 5/16/2018 909,986.44 2.96 1,197.16 909,988.40 910,220.22 DTD 05/16/2018 2.960% 09/15/2022 AMXCA 2018-1 A 02582JHQ6 825,000.00 NR Aaa 3/14/2018 3/21/2018 824,904.22 2.68 979.00 824,919.97 821,788.69 DTD 03/21/2018 2.670% 10/17/2022 ALLYA 2018-2 A3 02004VAC7 770,000.00 NR Aaa 4/24/2018 4/30/2018 769,860.17 2.93 999.29 769,879.48 768,660.28 DTD 04/30/2018 2.920% 11/15/2022

92 FORDO 2018-A A3 34528FAD0 1,075,000.00 AAA NR 5/15/2018 5/22/2018 1,074,826.17 3.04 1,447.67 1,074,848.80 1,075,500.09 DTD 05/22/2018 3.030% 11/15/2022 TOYOTA ABS 2018-C A3 89231AAD3 575,000.00 AAA Aaa 8/14/2018 8/22/2018 574,897.71 3.03 771.78 574,905.78 575,953.01 DTD 08/22/2018 3.020% 12/15/2022 HART 2018-B A3 44933AAC1 475,000.00 AAA Aaa 12/4/2018 12/12/2018 474,994.30 3.48 802.22 474,994.46 477,686.60 DTD 12/12/2018 3.200% 12/15/2022 MBART 2018-1 A3 58772RAD6 750,000.00 AAA Aaa 7/17/2018 7/25/2018 749,971.20 3.03 1,010.00 749,974.22 751,352.33 DTD 07/25/2018 3.030% 01/15/2023 ALLYA 2018-3 A3 02007JAC1 600,000.00 AAA Aaa 6/19/2018 6/27/2018 599,958.96 3.09 800.00 599,963.55 599,507.64 DTD 06/27/2018 3.000% 01/15/2023 CCCIT 2018-A1 A1 17305EGK5 675,000.00 NR Aaa 8/21/2018 8/23/2018 667,538.09 2.97 7,516.69 667,965.06 669,556.87 DTD 01/31/2018 2.490% 01/20/2023 TOYOTA AUTO RECEIVABLES OWNER 89231PAD0 510,000.00 AAA Aaa 10/31/2018 11/7/2018 509,889.69 3.19 720.80 509,894.16 514,071.53 DTD 11/07/2018 3.180% 03/15/2023 NAROT 2018-B A3 65479GAD1 700,000.00 AAA Aaa 7/17/2018 7/25/2018 699,977.32 3.06 952.00 699,979.71 702,701.86 DTD 07/25/2018 3.060% 03/15/2023 HART 2017-A A4 44931PAE6 178,000.00 AAA NR 5/31/2018 6/4/2018 174,711.17 2.87 165.34 175,053.49 174,919.76 DTD 03/29/2017 2.090% 04/15/2023 VALET 2018-2 A3 92869BAD4 930,000.00 AAA Aaa 11/15/2018 11/21/2018 929,960.94 3.25 923.54 929,961.97 937,704.21 DTD 11/21/2018 3.250% 04/20/2023

PFM Asset Management LLC 49 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Portfolio Holdings

Managed Account Detail of Securities Held

Security Type/Description S&P Moody's Trade Settle Original YTM Accrued Amortized Market Dated Date/Coupon/Maturity CUSIP Par Rating Rating Date Date Cost at Cost Interest Cost Value

Asset-Backed Security / Collateralized Mortgage Obligation

GMCAR 2018-3 A3 36255JAD6 520,000.00 AAA NR 7/11/2018 7/18/2018 519,878.74 3.03 654.33 519,889.64 521,850.84 DTD 07/18/2018 3.020% 05/16/2023 CARMAX AUTO OWNER TRUST 14313FAD1 555,000.00 AAA NR 7/18/2018 7/25/2018 554,924.35 3.36 772.07 554,930.81 557,121.65 DTD 07/25/2018 3.130% 06/15/2023 CARMAX AUTO OWNER TRUST 14315EAC4 480,000.00 AAA NR 10/17/2018 10/24/2018 479,995.58 3.36 716.80 479,996.11 483,287.86 DTD 10/24/2018 3.360% 09/15/2023

Security Type Sub-Total 16,809,868.65 16,771,155.10 3.08 27,520.03 16,775,619.80 16,812,784.58

Managed Account Sub Total 128,835,036.93 128,567,160.44 2.39 611,236.19 128,559,449.74 128,019,005.83

Money Market Mutual Fund 93

CAMP Pool 113,467,858.62 AAAm NR 113,467,858.62 0.00 113,467,858.62 113,467,858.62

Money Market Sub Total 113,467,858.62 113,467,858.62 0.00 113,467,858.62 113,467,858.62

Securities Sub-Total $242,302,895.55 $242,035,019.06 2.39% $611,236.19 $242,027,308.36 $241,486,864.45

Accrued Interest $611,236.19

Total Investments $242,098,100.64 Bolded items are forward settling trades.

PFM Asset Management LLC 50 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Appendix

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES

This material is based on information obtained from sources generally believed to be reliable and available to the public; however, PFM Asset Management LLC cannot guarantee its accuracy, completeness or suitability. This material is for general information purposes only and is not intended to provide specific advice or a specific recommendation. All statements as to what will or may happen under certain circumstances are based on assumptions, some, but not all of which, are noted in the presentation. Assumptions may or may not be proven correct as actual events occur, and results may depend on events outside of your or our control. Changes in assumptions may have a material effect on results. Past performance does not necessarily reflect and is not a guaranty of future results.The information contained in this presentation is not an offer to purchase or sell any securities. Dime Ã Market values that include accrued interest are derived from closing bid prices as of the last business day of the month as supplied by Interactive Data, Bloomberg, or Telerate. Where prices are not available from generally recognized sources, the securities are priced using a yield based matrix system to arrive at an estimated market value.

Ã In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, information is presented on a trade date basis; forward settling purchases are included in the monthly balances, and forward settling sales are excluded.

Ã Performance is presented in accordance with the CFA Institute’s Global Investment Performance Standards (GIPS). Unless otherwise noted, performance is shown gross of fees. Quarterly returns are presented on an unannualized basis. Returns for periods greater than one year are presented on an annualized basis. Past performance is not indicative of future returns. 94

Ã Bank of America/Merrill Lynch Indices provided by Bloomberg Financial Markets.

Ã Money market fund/cash balances are included in performance and duration computations.

Ã Standard & Poorʼs is the source of the credit ratings. Distribution of credit rating is exclusive of money market fund/LGIP holdings.

Ã Callable securities in the portfolio are included in the maturity distribution analysis to their stated maturity date, although, they may be called prior to maturity.

Ã MBS maturities are represented by expected average life.

PFM Asset Management LLC 51 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Appendix

GLOSSARY

Ã ACCRUED INTEREST: Interest that is due on a bond or other fixed income security since the last interest payment was made.

Ã AGENCIES: Federal agency securities and/or Government-sponsored enterprises.

Ã AMORTIZED COST: The original cost of the principal of the security is adjusted for the amount of the periodic reduction of any discount or premium from the purchase date until the date of the report. Discount or premium with respect to short-term securities (those with less than one year to maturity at time of issuance) is amortized on a straight line basis. Such discount or premium with respect to longer-term securities is amortized using the constant yield basis.

Ã BANKERS’ ACCEPTANCE: A draft or bill or exchange accepted by a bank or trust company. The accepting institution guarantees payment of the bill as well as the insurer.

Ã COMMERCIAL PAPER: An unsecured obligation issued by a corporation or bank to finance its short-term credit needs, such as accounts receivable and inventory.

Ã CONTRIBUTION TO DURATION: Represents each sector or maturity range’s relative contribution to the overall duration of the portfolio measured as a percentage weighting. Since duration is a key measure of interest rate sensitivity, the contribution to duration measures the relative amount or contribution of that sector or maturity range to the total rate sensitivity of the portfolio. 95

Ã DURATION TO WORST: A measure of the sensitivity of a security’s price to a change in interest rates, stated in years, computed from cash flows to the maturity date or to the put date, whichever results in the highest yield to the investor.

Ã EFFECTIVE DURATION: A measure of the sensitivity of a security’s price to a change in interest rates, stated in years.

Ã EFFECTIVE YIELD: The total yield an investor receives in relation to the nominal yield or coupon of a bond. Effective yield takes into account the power of compounding on investment returns, while ominal yield does not.

Ã FDIC: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. A federal agency that insures bank deposits to a specified amount.

Ã INTEREST RATE: Interest per year divided by principal amount and expressed as a percentage.

Ã MARKET VALUE: The value that would be received or paid for an investment in an orderly transaction between market participants at the measurement date.

Ã MATURITY: The date upon which the principal or stated value of an investment becomes due and payable.

Ã NEGOTIABLE CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: A CD with a very large denomination, usually $1 million or more, that can be traded in secondary markets.

Ã PAR VALUE: The nominal dollar face amount of a security.

PFM Asset Management LLC 52 For the Quarter Ended December 31, 2018 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT Appendix

GLOSSARY

Ã PASS THROUGH SECURITY: A security representing pooled debt obligations that passes income from debtors to its shareholders. The most common type is the mortgage-backed security.

Ã REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS: A holder of securities sells these securities to an investor with an agreement to repurchase them at a fixed price on a fixed date.

Ã SETTLE DATE: The date on which the transaction is settled and monies/securities are exchanged. If the settle date of the transaction (i.e., coupon payments and maturity proceeds) occurs on a non-business day, the funds are exchanged on the next business day.

Ã TRADE DATE: The date on which the transaction occurred; however, the final consummation of the security transaction and payment has not yet taken place.

Ã UNSETTLED TRADE: A trade which has been executed; however, the final consummation of the security transaction and payment has not yet taken place.

Ã U.S. TREASURY: The department of the U.S. government that issues Treasury securities.

Ã YIELD: The rate of return based on the current market value, the annual interest receipts, maturity value, and the time period remaining until maturity, stated as a percentage on an annualized basis. 96

Ã YTM AT COST: The yield to maturity at cost is the expected rate of return based on the original cost, the annual interest receipts, maturity value, and the time period from purchase date to maturity, stated as a percentage on an annualized basis.

Ã YTM AT MARKET: The yield to maturity at market is the rate of return based on the current market value, the annual interest receipts, maturity value, and the time period remaining until maturity, stated as a percentage on an annualized basis.

PFM Asset Management LLC 53 Attachment C

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT INVESTMENT REPORT For Period Ending December 31, 2018

Total Cash/Investments by Type $366,866,102

Checking/Sweep 4,863,951.28 Money Market Funds 1% $317,945 0%

District funds held in Trust CAMP $117,169,631 $113,301,704 32% 31%

Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) $3,193,865 1%

Mid-term Investments $128,019,006 35%

97 Page Left Blank Intentionally

98 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

k. Authorization to Transfer and Appropriate Funds and Return Insurance Proceeds for Recovered Stolen Mower #923 Assigned to Miller Knox Regional Park (Fong/Victor)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager recommends that the Board of Directors authorize the transfer and appropriation of funds to return insurance proceeds received for a stolen mower assigned to Miller Knox Regional Park that has been recovered in good condition.

REVENUE/COST

There is no cost associated with this action. On November 6, 2018, by Resolution No. 2018- 11-270 the Board of Directors approved the transfer of $58,446 from the General Liability Fund to the Miller Knox Account 101-5151-465-7505 (Rolling Stock >$25,000) to purchase a new replacement mower. This action will transfer and appropriate funds back to the General Liability Fund so that proceeds of $48,446 can be returned to insurance and $10,000 replenished in the General Liability Fund.

BACKGROUND

On September 12, 2018, mower #923 assigned to Miller Knox was stolen. This was promptly reported to the Park District’s insurance pool, California State Association of Counties – Excess Insurance Authority (CSAC-EIA), and they paid the Park District $48,446 ($58,446 for a cost of a new mower less a $10,000 deductible) for the loss. On February 5, 2019, the stolen mower was recovered in good condition. The Fleet Manager had already ordered a replacement mower from John Deere Company but was able to cancel the transaction without cost to the Park District. Insurance has been notified of the recovery of the stolen mower and is expecting a reimbursement of $48,446.

ALTERNATIVES

No alternatives are recommended.

99 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO: 2019 - 003 -

March 19, 2019

AUTHORIZATION TO TRANSFER AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS AND RETURN INSURANCE PROCEEDS FOR RECOVERED STOLEN MOWER #923 ASSIGNED TO MILLER KNOX REGIONAL PARK

WHEREAS, an East Bay Regional Park District mower #923 was stolen from Miller Knox Regional Park on September 12, 2018; and

WHERAS, Park District staff promptly reported the loss to the Park District’s insurance pool, California State Association of Counties – Excess Insurance Authority (CSAC-EIA); and

WHEREAS, CSAC-EIA paid the Park District in the amount of $48,446 ($58,446 for a cost of a new mower less a $10,000 deductible) for the loss; and

WHEREAS, on November 6, 2018, by Resolution No. 2018-11-270 the Board of Directors approved the appropriation and transfer of $58,446 from the General Liability Fund to the Miller Knox Account 101-5151-465-7505 to purchase a replacement mower; and

WHEREAS, mower #923 was recovered in good condition on February 5, 2019; and

WHEREAS, insurance proceeds received in the amount of $48,446 need to be refunded to CSAC-EIA from the General Liability Fund and $10,000 returned to the General Liability Fund; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby authorizes the General Manager to transfer and appropriate funds and return insurance proceeds for recovered stolen mower #923 assigned to Miller Knox Regional Park, as indicated on the enclosed budget change form; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the General Manager is hereby authorized and directed, on behalf of the Park District and in its name, to execute and deliver such acts as may be deemed necessary or appropriate to accomplish the intentions of this resolution.

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and adopted this 19th day of March, 2019, by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

100 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT BUDGET CHANGE FORM

NEW APPROPRIATIONS BUDGET TRANSFERS x From Fund Balance X Between Funds DECREASE BUDGET ACCOUNT AMOUNT INCREASE BUDGET ACCOUNT AMOUNT Account Name: Expense: General Liability Fund-Risk Dept-District Wide- Theft Claims

Account: 555-2130-000-6838 $ 48,446 TRANSFERS BETWEEN FUNDS Account Name: TRANSFER OUT: Account Name: TRANSFER IN: General Fund-Non Departmental- General Liability Fund-Non Departmental- District Wide-Transfer In District Wide-Transfer Out

101-9110-000-9980 $ 58,446 Account: 555-9110-000-9980 $ 58,446 REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE ENTRY As being presented at the Board of Directors meeting on March 19, 2019 the General Manager authorizes the transfer of $58,446 from the Genearl Fund to the General Liability Fund balance, as well as the appropriation of $48,446 from the General Liability Fund balance to allow for the Risk Department services budget to repay the amount of insurance reimbursement received in 2018. Insurance must be reimbursed because the stolen tractor was recovered with little damage.

As approved at the Board of Directors Meeting on date: 3/19/2019 Board of Directors Resolution Number: 2019-03- Posted By: Posted date: Signature:

T:\BOARDCLK\BOARD MATERIAL\2019\5 - March 19, 2019\S DRIVE\C-1-k OPS Trns to 555 Gen Liability Fund for Recovered Tractor 101 ACQUISITION STEWARDSHIP DEVELOPMENT AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

2. ACQUISITION, STEWARDSHIP & DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

a. Authorize the Naming of Judge John Sutter Regional Shoreline (Holt/Kelchner)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager and the Board Executive Committee, by unanimous vote, recommend that the Board of Directors authorize the naming of the new regional park in Oakland, formerly referred to as the East Bay Gateway Regional Shoreline, the Judge John Sutter Regional Shoreline, in accordance with Park District Naming Policy and Guidelines adopted by Board Resolution No. 2004-04-73.

REVENUE/COST

There are no costs associated with this action.

BACKGROUND

The Park District proposes to name the new approximately 45-acre regional park, located at the eastern landing of the Bay Bridge, the Judge John Sutter Regional Shoreline. The proposed name is in recognition of former Park District Director, John Sutter, and his dedication to and advocacy for public access to waterfront recreation at the new regional park.

John Sutter served as a Park District Board Director from 1996 to 2016, representing Ward 2, which includes the former Oakland Army Base. Prior to his service with the Park District, he served as the Alameda County Deputy District Attorney, an Alameda County Superior Court Judge, Oakland City Councilmember, and Vice Mayor of the City of Oakland. He was president and a founding member of the Citizens for Regional Recreation and Parks, known today as the Greenbelt Alliance, and was awarded the prestigious Honorable Cornelius Amory Pugsley Award from the American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration in 2016.

Former Director Sutter was the earliest proponent of a park at the site of the former Oakland Army Base. In 1967, as president of the Citizens for Regional Recreation and Parks, Director Sutter advocated for the Association of Bay Area Governments to designate the then-active Oakland Army Base as future parkland through a letter to the agency stating:

102 “While the area just south of the Bay Bridge is held by the Army, its possible eventual release and public use for recreation should be contemplated. With good views and good access to the water it could be usefully developed and provide an attractive gateway to Oakland.” - John Sutter, Nov. 24, 1967

Former Director Sutter continued to advocate for parkland on the Oakland shoreline and on the Oakland Army Base throughout his career and during his service on the Park District’s Board.

The Park District’s Board Executive Committee reviewed initial naming considerations for the new park at its September 6, 2018, meeting and made a motion for the Parks Advisory Committee (PAC) to participate in a structured naming activity to spur additional considerations. The PAC took part in an interactive brainstorming session at its September 24, 2018, meeting and provided additional potential names. The Board Executive Committee contemplated and discussed the additional naming considerations at its December 6, 2018, meeting, including a park name that incorporates former Director John Sutter. On February 7, 2019, the Board Executive Committee unanimously recommended favorable consideration of the name Judge John Sutter Regional Shoreline.

Property Background The Oakland Army Base was placed on the federal base closure list in 1995. Thereafter, the Oakland Base Reuse Authority issued a request to public and non-profit agencies for reuse proposals that would benefit the general public. In August 1997, by Resolution No. 1997-8-193, the Park District’s Board of Directors authorized application for a Public Benefit Conveyance (PBC) of the subject property. In November of that year, by Resolution No. 1997-11-267, the Board authorized the General Manager to enter into a Phase 2 agreement, committing the Park District to fund capital development and operating costs for a future regional park at this location. On July 17, 2001, the Board approved Resolution No. 2001-7-179 in support of an application to the National Park Service certifying the Park District’s ability and willingness to fund, develop, and maintain the park. The subject property was subsequently approved for a PBC of approximately 13 acres of upland and seven acres of submerged land to the Park District, sponsored by the National Park Service.

The Gateway Park Working Group (Working Group) is a consortium of nine agencies including the Park District, the Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA), CalTrans, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, California Transportation Commission, City of Oakland, Port of Oakland, East Bay Municipal Utility District, and the Association of Bay Area Governments Bay Trail Project. The Working Group developed the Gateway Park Project Concept Report in September of 2012, for a new park totaling 45 acres, which includes the PBC parcel to be conveyed to the Park District and additional lands owned by the City of Oakland and CalTrans. The Concept Plan and Environmental Impact Report were approved by the BATA Board of Directors on July 25, 2018.

In October 2016, the Alex Zuckermann Bay Bridge Trail (Bay Bridge Trail) was opened on the eastern span of the Bay Bridge, connecting the future regional park to Yerba Buena Island and

103 eventually Treasure Island. In December 2017, the Park District entered into a lease with CalTrans to operate the renovated Bridge Yard Building and Bay Bridge Trail staging area as part of the future regional park. In July 2018, CalTrans approved funding for construction of a public access pier, utilizing the footings of the former eastern span of the Bay Bridge. The Park District is working to implement interim park improvements to connect the Bridge Yard Building, the Bay Bridge Trail, and public access pier. The public currently has access to the Bridge Yard Building and Bay Bridge Trail. Public access to the pier is expected in 2019.

ALTERNATIVES

No alternatives are recommended.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 – Judge John Sutter Regional Shoreline Map

104 Page Left Blank Intentionally

105 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2019 – 003 –

March 19, 2019

AUTHORIZE THE NAMING OF JUDGE JOHN SUTTER REGIONAL SHORELINE

WHEREAS, the Oakland Army Base, located at the eastern landing of the Bay Bridge, was placed on the federal base closure list in 1995, and the East Bay Regional Park District (Park District) has since been working to create a new regional park on the site; and

WHEREAS, a name is needed for the future regional park; and

WHEREAS, Judge John Sutter served on the Park District Board of Directors from 1996 to 2016, and was the earliest proponent of a regional park at the site of the Oakland Army Base; and

WHEREAS, prior to his service with the Park District, Director Sutter served as Alameda County Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County Superior Court Judge, Oakland City Councilmember, Vice Mayor of the City of Oakland, and as president and founding member of the Citizens for Regional Recreation and Parks; and

WHEREAS, former Director Sutter continued to advocate for regional open space along Oakland’s waterfront throughout his career and during his service on the Park District’s Board; and

WHEREAS, Director Sutter received the prestigious Honorable Cornelius Amory Pugsley Award from the American Academy for Park and Recreation Administration in 2016, in acknowledgement of his commitment to open space, public access, and environmental initiatives; and

WHEREAS, the Board Executive Committee, at its February 7, 2019, meeting reviewed and considered the naming of the new park the Judge John Sutter Regional Shoreline, which is in accordance with Park District Naming Policy and Guidelines, adopted by Resolution No. 2004- 04-73, and the Park District’s classification system for regional park facilities, and

WHEREAS, the name was unanimously recommended for approval;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby approves the naming of the new regional park to be Judge John Sutter Regional Shoreline; and

106 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager is hereby authorized and directed, on behalf of the Park District and in its name to execute and deliver such documents and to do such acts as may be deemed necessary or appropriate to accomplish the intentions of this Resolution.

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and adopted this 19th day of March 2019, by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

107 JUDGE JOHN SUTTER REGIONAL SHORELINE Proposed Naming Feet [ 0 200 400

JUDGE JOHN SUTTER REGIONAL SHORELINE 108

VICINITY MAP TILDEN

MCLAUGHLIN CLAREMONT EASTSHORE CANYON STATE PARK

TEMESCAL

CROWN BEACH FUTURE PARK BOUNDARY O:\GIS\CMcKaskey\Projects_2019\ASD\Planning\EG_SutterNaming\EG_SutterNaming.mxd Date: 3/13/2019 Page Left Blank Intentionally

109 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

2. ACQUISITION, STEWARDSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

b. Authorize the Certification of the Environmental Impact Report for the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline Land Use Plan Amendment; Adoption of CEQA Findings, Including a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Partial Demolition of Historical Resource; Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and Approval of the Land Use Plan Amendment: Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline (Holt/Kelchner)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager recommends that the Board of Directors (1) certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as adequate and complete, (2) adopt CEQA Findings, including a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the partial demolition of historical resources, (3) adopt the mitigation measures and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and (4) approve the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA). These actions will allow District staff to proceed with the improvements proposed in the LUPA.

REVENUE/COST

There are two minor fees associated with filing the EIR:

Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder Processing Fee: $ 50 CA Department of Fish and Wildlife Fee: $ 3,271 $ 3,321

Funds are available in the Planning Department’s Administrative budget. There are no other direct costs related to the proposed actions in the LUPA. Funding for future implementation of LUPA recommendations would be considered through regular Park District budget procedures.

BACKGROUND

Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline was opened as a park in 1974, after years of civic advocacy to convert the industrial shoreline to a public park located on 307 acres in the southwestern portion of the City of Richmond on a peninsula known as Point Richmond. This location provides panoramic views of San Francisco Bay and beyond. Dornan Drive divides Miller/Knox Regional

110 Shoreline into an east and west section. The area east of Dornan Drive includes Ferry Point at the southern end, Keller Beach at the northern end, with a lagoon and the Bray Oil property in between. The area west of Dornan Drive includes hiking trails in the ridgelands that are a segment of the Potrero Hills. The location and general vicinity of Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline is shown in Figure 1.

Park District staff prepared a LUPA for Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline to update the original 1983 Land Use Development Plan, consistent with the Park District’s 2013 Master Plan. The LUPA is a long-range plan whose purpose is to enhance the existing environmental and scenic opportunities at the Regional Shoreline, while providing additional recreational and interpretive opportunities for park visitors. Among its 25 major recommendations the LUPA envisions a new section of the Bay Trail on the bay shoreline; new picnic areas and facilities; new parking areas, restoration of trails on the ridgeline, the dredging of the lagoon to improve water quality and habitat and the renovation of the historic pumphouse building for passive interpretation of the site.

Park District staff’s presentation will provide information to the Board of Directors regarding the LUPA recommendations, the conclusions of the EIR, public input received on the EIR and the Park District’s response to the comments received.

LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT

LUPA Recommendations and Improvements. The objective of the LUPA is to protect and enhance existing environmental resources and scenic qualities of Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline, as well as provide improved public access and amenities. Environmental resources will be protected through measures recommended to improve water quality of the lagoon, convert turf to native drought-tolerant vegetation, and address erosion. Recommended public access and amenity improvements include new and restored trails, additional picnic areas, reuse of existing buildings for outdoor education, and additional parking. Specific details of all project components are listed in Chapter II of the LUPA.

LUPA Implementation. The proposed projects in the Miller/Knox LUPA would be implemented and constructed over a period of ten or more years. Adoption of the LUPA does not constitute a commitment of funds nor guarantee that all elements of the LUPA will be implemented by the Park District. Chapter 4 of the LUPA describes the potential funding sources available for projects in the LUPA and a potential schedule for phasing of the projects, in three categories: 0-5 years, 5-10 years, and 10 plus years, as funding becomes available.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT

The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the lead agency (the Park District), prior to approving a project, prepare and certify an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Consistent with Section 15132 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR includes:

1. the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR); 2. comments and recommendations received on the DEIR;

111 3. a list of commenters on the DEIR; 4. the responses of the lead agency to significant environmental points; 5. any changes to the DEIR; and 6. any additional information.

CEQA Analysis of Potential Environmental Impacts. The Park District prepared a Draft EIR, and released it for public review on September 4, 2018, which analyzed each of the subject areas in the CEQA Guidelines. The Park District determined that the following environmental issue areas were not expected to have significant impacts resulting from implementation of the projects in the LUPA: agricultural and forestry resources; energy conservation; land use and planning; population and housing; public services—schools; and public utilities—water supply.

Potential significant impacts were identified for the following environmental topics: biological resources; geology and soils; hydrology and water quality; hazards and hazardous materials; cultural and tribal cultural resources; aesthetics; recreation resources and public access; transportation and circulation; air quality; greenhouse gas emissions and climate change; noise and vibration; public services and utilities. The analysis for the EIR determined that after implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, nearly all the potentially adverse impacts associated with implementation of LUPA recommendations would be reduced to a less-than- significant level. A full listing of the mitigation measures can be found in the Final EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment 2 to this report).

The proposed LUPA would result in an unavoidable, significant impact related to historic buildings. One of the two historic buildings on the site, the historic pumphouse at Ferry Point, would be retained and rehabilitated for passive interpretive use by the public. The LUPA recommends that the second building, the former warehouse, be partially demolished and repurposed as a day-use and scenic vista area, due to the poor condition of the building and the ability to retain its historic value through partial reuse.

CEQA Project Alternatives. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an EIR evaluate feasible alternatives to the potential project which meet fundamental objectives of the project, while potentially avoiding or reducing any of the significant impacts caused by the project. The EIR analyzed three alternatives: • Alternative 1: No Project Alternative, which assumes existing park operations would continue, without the public improvements envisioned in the LUPA.

• Alternative 2: Increased Rehabilitation Alternative, which rehabilitates for passive public use the historic warehouse, instead of partially demolishing it under the proposed LUPA.

• Alternative 3: Lagoon Breach Alternative would breach the Lagoon, opening it to daily tidal influxes of the San Francisco Bay.

The EIR concluded that the No Project Alternative would reduce most of the impacts resulting from implementation of the LUPA recommendations. However, the No Project Alternative would result in greater impacts to the environment in some areas and would not meet all of the objectives of the LUPA. Specifically, the No Project Alternative would result in greater aesthetic,

112 recreation, and historic resource impacts and would not meet the project objectives to address sea level rise, reduce erosion, and provide improved recreational facilities.

CEQA Process. Notice of Preparation. On June 26, 2017, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to prepare a Draft EIR on the proposed project was submitted to the State Clearinghouse. The State Clearinghouse distributed the NOP to responsible agencies, those involved in funding or approving the project, and trustee agencies, those responsible for natural resources affected by the project. The Park District filed the NOP with the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder’s Office. Park District staff distributed a total of 15 notices. Copies of the NOP were provided to the Park District Board of Directors and Park Advisory Committee (PAC). The Park District hosted a public scoping meeting on July 19, 2017. The comment period for the NOP closed on July 28, 2017, which was included on the NOP.

Notice of Availability and Community Presentation. On September 4, 2018, the Park District published a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft PEIR for the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline Land Use Plan Amendment and submitted the NOA to the State Clearinghouse. The State Clearinghouse distributed the NOA and copies of the Draft EIR to responsible and trustee agencies. The NOA was also filed with the Alameda County Clerk – Recorder’s Office. Copies of the NOA were provided to the Park District Board of Directors and Park Advisory Committee and mailed to community members and local government entities, including libraries. The NOA, LUPA, and Draft EIR were also posted on the Park District’s website and distributed to the Park District Board of Directors. The Park District provided hard copies of the NOA, LUPA, and Draft EIR to community libraries for the public to review. The public comment period closed on October 19, 2018, a 45-day review period longer than the minimum CEQA requirement of 30 days.

The Park District held a total of 8 community meetings during the planning and environmental review process. Additionally, the draft LUPA has been presented twice at public meetings of the Board Executive Committee on October 5, 2017 and February 7, 2019, and once before the Park District’s PAC on February 25, 2019. A Park District Board of Directors tour to Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline was held in April of 2017.

Final EIR. The Park District received a total of 29 comments on the Draft EIR. On February 5, 2019, the Park District published the Final EIR, including responses to comments received. The Final EIR was made available to the public in libraries, posted on the Park District website, and sent separately to interested stakeholders and the Park District Board of Directors. The Draft and Final EIR (EIR) and LUPA were considered at a public meeting of the Board Executive Committee on February 7, 2019, which recommended forwarding the EIR to the Board for certification. On February 25, 2019, the LUPA and EIR were considered at the Park Advisory Committee, which recommended the Board approve the LUPA and certify the EIR.

Public Comments and Corrections to the DEIR. During the EIR public review period from September 4, 2018 to October 19, 2018, the Park District received a total of 29 comments. The Park District has responded to all comment letters in the Final EIR Chapter 2: Responses to Comments. In general, the comments expressed concerns about the lagoon enhancement project, the protection of natural resources, the historic Ferry Point buildings, and the remnant railroad tracks. See Chapter 2 of the Final EIR for the Park District’s complete responses to all

113 comments. Chapter 3 of the Final EIR contains changes to the Draft EIR to clarify potential impacts and strengthen mitigation measures.

Statement of Overriding Considerations. The environmental impact of partially demolishing the historic Ferry Point warehouse building to build a covered day use area cannot be mitigated to a level considered less than significant. In such cases, CEQA allows the Board of Directors to still approve the project if a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted finding that the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts to historical resources.

Under CEQA, whenever measures are required and adopted to mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment of an approved project, the agency must also prepare and adopt a mitigation monitoring and reporting program designed to ensure compliance with the required mitigation during project implementation. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is provided in Attachment 2 to the EIR.

ALTERNATIVES

No alternatives to adopting the LUPA and certifying the EIR are recommended by staff. There are no alternatives identified that would feasibly meet the purpose of the project and achieve the project objectives.

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 - Figure 1. Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline Location and Vicinity Map Attachment 2 - Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program Attachment 3 – CEQA Findings Report and Statement of Overriding Considerations

114 Page Left Blank Intentionally

115 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2019 – 003 –

March 19, 2019

AUTHORIZE THE CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE MILLER/KNOX REGIONAL SHORELINE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT; ADOPTION OF CEQA FINDINGS, INCLUDING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE PARTIAL DEMOLITION OF A HISTORICAL RESOURCE; ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; AND APPROVAL OF THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT: MILLER/KNOX REGIONAL SHORELINE

WHEREAS, Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline is a 307-acre park in the City of Richmond, opened by the East Bay Regional Park District (Park District) in 1974, which over time transformed a formerly industrial area into a place for active and passive recreation and natural habitat at the Bayshore and hillside ridges; and

WHEREAS, a Land Use Plan Amendment (LUPA) has been prepared to update the 1983 Land Use Development Plan, consistent with the Park District’s 2013 Master Plan, to protect and enhance existing natural, historic and scenic resources, enhance public access through improved and expanded trails, pathways and parking, provide additional interpretive and recreational programming, and incorporate strategies for climate adaptation, sea-level rise and resiliency at Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline; and

WHEREAS, on May 28, 2013, the Park District published a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the project, on June 8, 2013, the Park District conducted the first public scoping meeting to obtain comments on the proposed scope of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline LUPA, on June 26, 2017, the Park District re-issued a NOP for the project, and on July 19, 2017, the Park District hosted a second public meeting; and

WHEREAS, on September 4, 2018, the Park District issued a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR for the project to the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, responsible and trustee agencies, and the public – initiating the public review period; and

WHEREAS, on February 25, 2013, July 24, 2017, and February 25, 2019, the Park District’s Park Advisory Committee reviewed the LUPA and EIR and recommended its consideration by the full Board of Directors; and

WHEREAS, on April 28, 2017, a Park District Board of Directors tour to Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline was held, and the Park District held eight (8) community meetings before and after the NOA in 2018; and

116 WHEREAS, on October 5, 2017 and February 7, 2019, the Park District’s Board Executive Committee reviewed the LUPA and EIR and recommended its consideration by the full Board; and

WHEREAS, the EIR provides an evaluation of the potential for the proposed project to result in significant environmental impacts, recommends mitigation measures to address those potential impacts, and concludes that each of the potentially significant effects of the project are mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the changes or alterations that have been required in or incorporated into the project with the exception of the significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources from the partial demolition of the historic warehouse building at Ferry Point, for which the Board will adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and

WHEREAS, the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP) consists of mitigation measures recommended in the EIR for the project and mitigation and monitoring requirements, and has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, Comments, and Response to Comments on the Draft EIR, and has been completed in compliance with CEQA; and

WHEREAS, the EIR was presented to the Park District’s Board of Directors who reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR prior to approving the project; and

WHEREAS, the EIR has been prepared, publicized, circulated, and reviewed in accordance with applicable law, and reflects the independent judgment of the Park District; and

WHEREAS, feasible alternatives to the proposed project have been analyzed, and it has been determined that none of the alternatives is feasible nor desirable; and

WHEREAS, the MMRP and the Findings Report were distributed to the Park District’s Board of Directors on March 14, 2019, who reviewed and considered the information contained in these CEQA components prior to approving the project; and

WHEREAS, the Park District is the custodian of the documents and other material that constitute the record of the proceedings upon which its decision is made at its administrative office located at 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland, California, 94605;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby certifies that the Environmental Impact Report for the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline LUPA is complete, and that it has been prepared in compliance with CEQA and its Guidelines, and reflects the Park District’s independent judgment and analysis, and was presented to the Board of Directors that reviewed and considered the information in the final EIR; and

117 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors adopts all identified feasible mitigation measures and the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors adopts the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors approves the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline LUPA; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager is hereby authorized and directed, on behalf of the Park District and in its name, to execute and deliver such documents and such acts as may be deemed necessary or appropriate to accomplish the intentions of this resolution.

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and adopted this 19th day of March 2019, by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

118 Page Left Blank Intentionally

119 Figure 1. Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline Land Use Plan Amendment and Final Environmental Impact Report Feet [ 0 500 1,000

Pt. Richmond "

Cutting Blvd

San Francisco d lv B Bay d r a r r a G Santa Fe Channel

Ca na l B lvd

Miller / Knox Regional Shoreline

Overview

Crockett Hills

Wildcat Briones Canyon

Brooks Island Miller / Knox Regional Preserve Regional Shoreline Redwood

120 O:\GIS\CMcKaskey\Projects_2019\ASD\Planning\MK_LUPA_finalEIR\MK_LUPA_finalEIR.mxd2/15/2019 Date: Page Left Blank Intentionally

121 MILLER/KNOX REGIONAL SHORELINE – LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

Responsible for Responsible for Mitigation Measure Timing Implementing Monitoring BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation 4.1-1a: Nesting Raptor Preconstruction Survey and Establishment of Protective Before and Design Project Manager, Design Project Buffers. The District would implement the following measures to reduce impacts on nesting During Stewardship, and Manager and raptors: Construction Construction Inspector Construction Inspector • To minimize the potential for loss of nesting raptors, tree removal activities would only occur during the nonbreeding season (September 1-January 31). If all suitable nesting habitat is removed during the nonbreeding season, no further mitigation would be required. • Before removal of any trees or other vegetation, or ground disturbing activities between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist would conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting raptors and would identify active nests within 500 feet of the site. The surveys would be conducted before the beginning of any construction activities between February 1 and August 31.

122 • Impacts to nesting raptors would be avoided by establishing appropriate buffers around active nest sites identified during preconstruction raptor surveys. Activity would not commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined, in coordination with CDFW, that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or reducing the buffer would not likely result in nest abandonment. CDFW guidelines require implementation of a 500-foot buffer for raptors, but the size of the buffer may be adjusted if a qualified biologist and the District, in consultation with CDFW, determine that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. Monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist during and after construction activities would be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest • Trees would not be removed during the breeding season for nesting raptors unless a survey by a qualified biologist verifies that there is not an active nest in the tree. Mitigation 4.1-1b: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Burrowing Owl. The District would Before and Design Project Manager Design Project implement the following measures to reduce impacts on burrowing owl: During and Stewardship Manager and • The District would retain a qualified biologist to conduct focused preconstruction surveys Construction Stewardship for burrowing owls in areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of areas that would be disturbed by implementation of LUPA recommendations. Surveys would be conducted before the start of construction activities and in accordance with Appendix D of CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) • If no occupied burrows are found, a letter report documenting the survey methods and results would be submitted to CDFW and no further mitigation would be required. • If a burrow occupied by a burrowing owl is found, the District would consult with CDFW regarding protection buffers to be established around the occupied burrow and maintained

Miller Knox MMRP-16 Responsible for Responsible for Mitigation Measure Timing Implementing Monitoring throughout construction. Required buffers range from 150 to 1,500 feet depending on the Miller/Knox conditions and burrowing owl use of the burrow. Exclusion of burrowing owls during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) would be prohibited. Mitigation 4.1-1c: Preconstruction Special-Status Nesting and Other Bird Surveys and Before and Design Project Manager Design Project Establishment of Protective Buffers. The District would implement the following measures to During and Stewardship Manager and reduce impacts on nesting special-status and other bird species: Construction Stewardship • To minimize the potential for disturbance or loss of grasshopper sparrow, loggerhead shrike, saltmarsh common yellowthroat, or other bird nests, vegetation removal activities would only occur during the nonbreeding season (September 1-January 31). If all suitable nesting habitat is removed during the nonbreeding season, no further mitigation would be required. • Before removal of any vegetation or any ground disturbance between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist would conduct preconstruction surveys for nests on any structure or vegetation slated for removal. The surveys would be conducted no more than 14 days before construction commences. If no active nests are found during focused surveys, no further action under this measure would be required. If active nests are located during the preconstruction surveys, the biologist would notify CDFW. If necessary, modifications to

123 design to avoid removal of occupied habitat while still achieving LUPA objectives may be required. If avoidance is not feasible or conflicts with LUPA objectives, construction would be prohibited within a minimum of 100 feet of the nest to avoid disturbance until the nest or colony is no longer active. Mitigation 4.1-1d: Preconstruction Bat Survey and Exclusion. The District would implement the Before and Design Project Manager Design Project following measures to reduce impacts on special-status bats: During and Stewardship Manager and • Before commencing any tree removal or building demolition activities, a qualified biologist Construction Stewardship would conduct surveys for roosting bats. If evidence of bat use is observed, the species and number of bats using the roost will be determined. Bat detectors may be used to supplement survey efforts. If no evidence of bat roosts is found, then no further study will be required. • If pallid bats or Townsend’s big-eared bats are found in the survey, bats would be excluded from the roosting site before the tree or building is removed. A mitigation program addressing compensation, exclusion methods, and roost removal procedures would be developed by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW. Exclusion efforts may be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young). Once it is confirmed that bats are not present in the original roost site, the tree or building may be removed. Mitigation 4.1-1e: Preconstruction Woodrat Survey and Nest Relocation. The District would Before Design Project Manager. Design Project implement the following measures to reduce impacts on San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat: Construction And Stewardship Manager and • Within 30 days before implementation of LUPA recommendations involving vegetation Stewardship removal, a qualified biologist would inspect the potential area of disturbance and adjacent areas for woodrat houses. If none are found, then no additional measures are necessary.

Miller Knox MMRP-16 Responsible for Responsible for Mitigation Measure Timing Implementing Monitoring • If a woodrat house is identified within a work area, an exclusion zone would be erected around the existing woodrat houses using flagging or a temporary fence that does not inhibit the natural movements of wildlife (such as steel T-posts and a single strand of yellow rope or similar materials). The work area would be relocated as necessary to avoid removing woodrat houses, even if avoidance is by only a few feet. The orientation of the work area would allow for escape routes (i.e., the work area would not completely surround a protected woodrat house) to nearby suitable habitat. If woodrat houses cannot be avoided, CDFW would be contacted for approval to relocate individuals by live-trapping and building a nearby artificial house as a release site. Approval to relocate would be acquired from CDFW. Mitigation 4.1-2: Preconstruction Special-Status Plant Surveys and Compensatory Mitigation. Before Design Project Manager Design Project The District would implement the following measures to reduce impacts on special-status plants: Construction and Stewardship Manager and • Before construction-type activities and during the blooming period for the special-status Stewardship plant species with potential to occur at Miller/Knox, a qualified botanist would conduct focused surveys for special-status plants in areas where potentially suitable habitat would be removed or disturbed by implementation of LUPA recommendations. Table 4.1-4 summarizes the normal blooming periods for special-status plant species with potential to

124 occur at Miller/Knox, which generally indicates the optimal survey periods when the species are most identifiable. • If no special-status plants are found, the botanist would document the findings in a letter report to the District and no further mitigation would be required. • If special-status plant species are found, the plant will be avoided completely to avoid take, if possible. If special-status plant species are found that cannot be avoided during construction, the District would consult with CDFW and/or USFWS, as appropriate depending on species status, to determine the appropriate mitigation measures for direct and indirect impacts that could occur as a result of construction-type activities and would implement the agreed-upon mitigation measures to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat or individuals. Mitigation measures may include preserving and enhancing existing populations, creation of off-site populations on mitigation sites through seed collection or transplantation, and/or restoring or creating suitable habitat in sufficient quantities to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat and/or individuals. A mitigation and monitoring plan would be developed describing how unavoidable losses of special-status plants would be compensated. • If relocation efforts are part of the mitigation plan, the plan would include details on the methods to be used, including collection, storage, propagation, receptor site preparation, installation, long-term protection and management, monitoring and reporting requirements, success criteria, and remedial action responsibilities should the initial effort fail to meet long-term monitoring requirements. • Success criteria for preserved and compensatory populations would include: • The extent of occupied area and plant density (number of plants per unit area) in Miller Knox MMRP-16 Responsible for Responsible for Mitigation Measure Timing Implementing Monitoring compensatory populations would be equal to or greater than the affected occupied habitat. • Compensatory and preserved populations would be self-producing. Populations would be considered self-producing when: • plants reestablish annually for a minimum of five years with no human intervention such as supplemental seeding; and • re-established and preserved habitats contain an occupied area and flower density comparable to existing occupied habitat areas in similar habitat types in the project vicinity. • If off-site mitigation includes dedication of conservation easements, purchase of mitigation credits, or other off-site conservation measures, the details of these measures would be included in the mitigation plan, including information on responsible parties for long-term management, conservation easement holders, long-term management requirements, success criteria such as those listed above and other details, as appropriate to target the preservation of long-term viable populations.

125 Mitigation Measure 4.1-3a: Conduct a Wetland Delineation and Determine Amount of Fill or Before Design Project Manager Design Project Vegetation Removal. Before ground disturbing activities associated with implementing LUPA Construction and Stewardship Manager and recommendations, particularly the Lagoon Enhancement Project, the District would determine if Stewardship wetlands are potentially present in the affected work area. If wetlands are determined to be present, the District would conduct a wetland delineation and/or a preliminary jurisdictional determination. Based on these assessments, the District will identify the exact acreage of jurisdictional wetlands, if any, that would be filled as a result of implementation of LUPA recommendations. If jurisdictional wetlands are not present within the affected area, no further mitigation would be required. If jurisdictional wetlands would be affected by ground disturbing activities associated with implementation of LUPA recommendations, the District would implement the following mitigation measures. Mitigation Measure 4.1-3b: Avoid Effects to Sensitive Natural Communities by Fencing Before and Design Project Manager, Design Project Resources. Before any ground disturbing activities, all sensitive areas identified during the During Stewardship, and Manager. wetland delineation, including such as wetlands, natural drainages, and riparian vegetation, Construction Construction Inspector Stewardship, and would be flagged or fenced with brightly visible construction flagging and fencing under the Construction Inspector direction of the qualified biologist prohibiting access and activities within these non-construction or enhancement areas. This demarcation would be consistent with and incorporate the preliminary jurisdictional determination. Foot traffic by construction personnel would also be limited in these areas to prevent the introduction of invasive or weedy species. Periodic inspections during construction would be conducted by the monitoring biologist to maintain the integrity of exclusion fencing/flagging throughout the period of construction involving ground disturbance. These measures are consistent with the District 2013 Master Plan guidelines for management of riparian and wetland environments (District 2013c).

Miller Knox MMRP-16 Responsible for Responsible for Mitigation Measure Timing Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure 4.1-3c: Obtain Required Regulatory Authorizations if LUPA Activities would Before Design Project Manager Design Project Result in the Fill of Jurisdictional Wetlands. If it is determined, following delineation of wetlands Construction and Stewardship Manager and and other waters of the United States or state, that fill of these features cannot be avoided, then Stewardship the following measures would be implemented: • Before any ground disturbing activities that could have direct or indirect impacts to waters of the United States, the appropriate Section 404 permit would be obtained. Any waters of the United States that would be affected by implementation of the LUPA would be replaced or restored on a “no-net-loss” basis in accordance with USACE mitigation guidelines or the applicable USACE guidelines in place at the time of construction-type activities. In association with the Section 404 permit, if applicable, and before the issuance of any grading permit, Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the regional water quality control board and BCDC approval would be obtained. Mitigation Measure 4.1-3d: Obtain All Required Regulatory Authorizations if LUPA Activities Before Design Project Manager Design Project Would Result in Impacts to Aquatic or Riparian Habitats within CDFW Jurisdiction. If it is Construction and Stewardship Manager and determined that disturbance or fill of stream, lagoon, or riparian habitat cannot be avoided, then Stewardship the following measures would be implemented to avoid or compensate for the loss or

126 degradation of stream, lagoon, or riparian habitat, maintain consistency with Fish and Game Code Section 1602, and further reduce potential adverse effects on riparian habitats: • The District would notify CDFW before commencing any activity within the bed, bank, or riparian corridor of any waterway. If activities trigger the need for a Streambed Alteration Agreement, the proponent District would obtain an agreement from CDFW before the activity commences. The District would conduct construction activities in accordance with the agreement, including implementing reasonable measures in the agreement necessary to protect the fish and wildlife resources, when working within the bed or bank of waterways that function as a fish or wildlife resource or in riparian habitats associated with those waterways. • The District would compensate for permanent loss of riparian habitat at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio through contributions to a CDFW approved wetland mitigation bank or through the development and implementation of a Compensatory Stream and Riparian Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for creating or restoring in-kind habitat in the surrounding area. If mitigation credits are not available, stream and riparian habitat compensation would include establishment of riparian vegetation on currently unvegetated bank portions of lagoons or wetlands affected by the LUPA recommendations and enhancement of existing riparian habitat through removal of nonnative species, where appropriate, and planting additional native riparian plants to increase cover, continuity, and width of the existing riparian corridor along streams at Miller/Knox and surrounding areas. Construction activities and compensatory mitigation would be conducted in accordance with the terms of a streambed alteration agreement as required under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code.

Miller Knox MMRP-16 Responsible for Responsible for Mitigation Measure Timing Implementing Monitoring The Compensatory Stream and Riparian Mitigation and Monitoring Plan would include the following: • identification of compensatory mitigation sites and criteria for selecting these mitigation sites; • in kind reference habitats for comparison with compensatory riparian habitats (using performance and success criteria) to document success; • monitoring protocol, including schedule and annual report requirements (Compensatory habitat would be monitored for a minimum of 5 years from completion of mitigation, or human intervention (including recontouring and grading), or until the success criteria identified in the approved mitigation plan have been met, whichever is longer.); • ecological performance standards, based on the best available science and including specifications for native riparian plant densities, species composition, amount of dead woody vegetation gaps and bare ground, and survivorship; at a minimum, compensatory mitigation planting sites must achieve 80 percent survival of planted riparian native trees and shrubs by the end of the five-year maintenance and monitoring period or dead and dying trees would be replaced and monitoring continued until 80 percent survivorship is achieved; 127 • corrective measures if performance standards are not met; • responsible parties for monitoring and preparing reports; and • responsible parties for receiving and reviewing reports and for verifying success or prescribing implementation or corrective actions Mitigation 4.1-4: Tree Protection Requirements. The District would implement the following Before Design Project Manager Design Project measures to comply with local regulations regarding tree removal for implementation of LUPA Construction Manager recommendations on City property upon which the District does not have a lease agreement or easement: • The District would prepare a preconstruction arborist report for the Richmond Planning Commission indicating “significant” trees planned for removal and demonstrating that diligent effort has been made to retain as many “significant” trees as possible. Removal of “significant” trees may be permitted at the discretion of the Richmond Planning Commission depending on tree health, public safety issues, fire hazards, and native status of the tree. • Trees designated for preservation would be protected by prohibiting fill, grading, trenching, or construction within the drip line of the tree. • When a “significant” tree is removed, the tree would be replaced at a ratio of three new trees for every one tree removed. Replacement trees would be planted on the Miller/Knox, on adjacent private or public land, or within five miles of the site of removal.

Miller Knox MMRP-16 Responsible for Responsible for Mitigation Measure Timing Implementing Monitoring HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a: Determine Site-Specific Groundwater Depth at Dredged materials Before Design Project Manager District Project disposal site. The District shall determine the depth to groundwater within the upper three feet Construction Manager of the soil profile at all potential dredged material disposal sites before implementing the Lagoon Enhancement Project. No dredged materials shall be placed within a jurisdictional wetland or in any area where groundwater is found within 24 inches of the ground surface (24 inches of separation is the vertical distance from groundwater recommended by the Cornell University composting program, which is the EPA recommended information source for small scale composting [Richard 1996]). Mitigation Measure 4.3-3b: Sediment Analysis Plan and Reporting. Before the start of dredging Before Design Project Manager Design Project under the Lagoon Enhancement Project, the District shall coordinate with the San Francisco Construction Manager RWQCB and prepare a sediment analysis plan and complete sediment testing to determine the levels of pollutants of concern and soil chemistry within the sediments relevant to suitability for use in a native plant garden. Samples shall be collected from undisturbed sediment cores which are representative of the entire depth and area of the sediments to be dredged. Sediment analysis reporting shall be included with the Water Quality Certification (Section 401) application to San Francisco RWQCB for this activity. The District shall consult with applicable regulatory 128 agencies such as the San Francisco RWQCB to determine whether sediments are suitable for disposal in an upland area. If lagoon sediments are contaminated to a degree that upland disposal of these sediments would threaten surface and ground water resources, dredged sediments would be disposed of at an alternative permitted location approved by applicable regulatory agencies, such as CalRecycle and San Francisco RWQCB. HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Measure 4.4-2: Prepare and Implement a Management Plan for Accidental Exposure Before Design Project Manager Design Project to Underground Contamination. Before issuance of grading permits, a management plan for Construction Manager accidental exposure to underground contamination shall be prepared by the District or the District’s contractor or construction manager. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) before any ground disturbing activities. The management plan shall include measures to reduce potential hazards to workers, the public, and the environment associated with exposure to contaminated soil or groundwater during construction- related activities. The management plan shall include provisions for halting work, agency notification, managing impacted materials, sampling and analytical requirements and disposal procedures. Specifically, the construction hazardous materials management plan shall: • describe the necessary actions to be taken if evidence of contaminated soil or groundwater is encountered during any construction-type activities; • describe the types of evidence that could indicate potential hazardous materials contamination, such as soil discoloration, petroleum or chemical odors, or buried building materials; • include measures to protect worker safety if signs of contamination are encountered; • identify sampling and analysis protocols for various substances that might be encountered; Miller Knox MMRP-16 Responsible for Responsible for Mitigation Measure Timing Implementing Monitoring • list required regulatory agency contacts if contamination is found; • include recommendations on soil management in the event that aerially deposited lead is discovered in existing road right-of-way; • identify legal and regulatory processes and thresholds for cleanup of contamination; • include provisions for delineation, removal, and disposal of any contaminants identified as exceeding human health risk levels; and • require that the project contractor follow all procedural direction given by CCHS to ensure that suspect soils are isolated, protected from runoff, and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the licensed receiving facility. CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure 4.5-1a: Document Historic Buildings Before Removal. The District shall Before Design Project Manager Design Project complete documentation of the historic warehouse and pumphouse buildings before any Construction Manager demolition/construction work is conducted. Documentation shall consist of written history of the property, plans, and drawings of the historic resources, and photographs, as described below: • Written History. The report shall be reproduced on archival bond paper.

129 • Plans and Drawings. An architectural historian (or historical architect, as appropriate) shall conduct research into the availability of plans and drawings of the Historic Warehouse Building as the building currently exists. If such plans/drawings exist, their usefulness as documentation for the building shall be evaluated by the architectural historian. If deemed adequate, the plans/drawings shall be reproduced on archival mylar. If no plans/drawings are available, or if the existing plans/drawings are not found to be useful in documenting the historic resource, a historical architect shall prepare dimensioned plans and exterior elevations of the building. A combination of existing and new drawings is acceptable. All drawings shall be reproduced on archival mylar. The architectural historian shall conduct research into the existence of the original architectural plans and drawings of the building. If found, the plans shall be reproduced on archival mylar. Alternatively, the architectural plans can be scanned and saved as TIFF files. The scanning resolution shall be not less than 300 dpi. All digital files, including drawing files, shall be saved on media and labeled following the Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation Digital Photography Specifications. • Photographs. Digital photographs shall be taken of the historic warehouse and pumphouse buildings following the Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation Digital Photography Standards. The documentation shall be prepared by an architectural historian, or historical architect as appropriate, meeting the Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, Professional Qualification Standards. The documentation shall be submitted to the Contra Costa County Library, Contra Costa County Museums, and the Richmond Historic Register.

Miller Knox MMRP-16 Responsible for Responsible for Mitigation Measure Timing Implementing Monitoring Mitigation Measure 4.5-1b. Ensure Appropriate Rehabilitation Plans for the Pumphouse Before Design Project Manager Design Project Building. To ensure the protection of the historic integrity of the NRHP-eligible pumphouse Construction Manager throughout the rehabilitation period, the District shall prepare a rehabilitation plan for the pumphouse building that meets the Secretary’s Standards to the greatest degree feasible. The SOI Guidelines contain flexibility for rehabilitation of historic structures to accommodate a wide range of adapted re-uses. Specific protection measures and recommendations shall be developed in conjunction with an architect and site design team experienced in historic preservation work. Protection measures for the rehabilitation plan shall include but are not limited to, the following: • Historic finishes and materials shall be protected with appropriate methods. • Infrastructure upgrades (e.g., conduit in walls) shall be installed where they will not affect significant historic fabric. • Training on protection of historical features shall be provided for all construction workers before the beginning of work on-site. • In addition to the protective measures, above, cleaning of historic finishes using “the gentlest means possible” as directed by the Standards for Rehabilitation shall be used. Mitigation Measure 4.5-2: Protection of Discovered Archaeological Resources. Before Design Project Manager Design Project

130 • Before any ground disturbing activities, the District shall retain a qualified archaeologist to Construction Manager conduct archaeological surveys. The District shall follow recommendations identified in the survey report, which may include activities such as subsurface testing, designing and implementing a Worker Environmental Awareness Program, monitoring of ground- disturbing activity by a qualified archaeologist, avoidance of sites, or preservation in place. • In the event that evidence of any prehistoric or historic-era subsurface archaeological features or deposits are discovered during construction-related earth-moving activities (e.g., ceramic shard, trash scatters, lithic scatters), all ground-disturbing activity in the area of the discovery shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. If the find is a prehistoric archeological site, the appropriate Native American group shall be notified. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the CRHR standards of significance for cultural resources, activity may proceed. If the archaeologist determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, a data recovery plan shall be prepared. If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified archaeologist (i.e., because the find is determined to constitute either an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource), the archaeologist shall work with the District to avoid disturbance to the resources, and if complete avoidance is not feasible in light of project design, economics, logistics, and other factors, follow accepted professional standards in recording any find including submittal of the standard DPR Primary Record forms (Form DPR 523) and location information to Northwest Information Center. • In addition to adhering to applicable District Master Plan policies and Article 23 of the District’s General Conditions, the District shall comply with existing local regulations and policies that exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that protect archaeological resources.

Miller Knox MMRP-16 Responsible for Responsible for Mitigation Measure Timing Implementing Monitoring TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Mitigation Measure 4.8-1: Construction Traffic Control Plan. Before the beginning of construction Before Design Project Manager Design Project or issuance of building permits, the applicant or their construction contractor shall consult with the Construction Manager City of Richmond Department of Public Works to determine if a Construction Traffic Control Plan would be required for the specific LUPA activity. If required, the applicant or their construction contractor shall prepare a Construction Traffic Control Plan to the satisfaction of the City of Richmond Department of Public Works, Police Department, and Fire Department. The plan will ensure that acceptable operating conditions, bicycle and pedestrian safety, and emergency access, are maintained. At a minimum, the plan shall include (but is not limited to) the following: • Description of trucks including: number and size of trucks per day, expected arrival/departure times, truck circulation patterns, and approved truck routes. • Description of staging area including: location, maximum number of trucks simultaneously permitted in staging area, use of traffic control personnel, specific signage. • Description of street closures and/or bicycle and pedestrian facility closures including: duration, advance warning and posted signage, safe and efficient access routes for existing park users and emergency vehicles, and use of manual traffic control. 131 • Description of driveway access plan including: provisions for safe vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle travel, minimum distance from any open trench, special signage, and private vehicle accesses. • Preservation of emergency vehicle access. AIR QUALITY Mitigation Measure 4.9-1: Incorporate BAAQMD’s Recommended BMPs for Fugitive Dust During Design Project Manager Design Project Emissions. The East Bay Regional Park District (District) would require all its construction Construction and Construction Manager and contractors to implement a dust control plan that shall include the following Basic Construction Inspector Construction Inspector Mitigation Measures as recommended by BAAQMD: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear Miller Knox MMRP-16 Responsible for Responsible for Mitigation Measure Timing Implementing Monitoring signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations NOISE AND VIBRATION Mitigation Measure 4.11-1: Reduce Construction Noise Levels During Demolition Phase of Before and Design Project Manager Design Project Keller Beach Facility and Amenity Upgrades. The noise generation of future construction During and Construction Manager and projects proposed in the LUPA have been modeled based on conservative assumptions, to avoid Construction Inspector Construction Inspector the risk of understating impacts. Actual construction noise may vary from the assumptions used in this analysis. Thus, when design details for the facility and amenity upgrades at Keller Beach are developed, specific construction activities, equipment, and locations will be more precisely defined. Prior to construction, the District will confirm reasonably expected construction noise

132 levels associated with the Keller Beach facility and amenity upgrades, based on the project design details and planned equipment. If the confirmation finds that the demolition phase noise level does not exceed the City’s standard of 75 dB Lmax for single-family residences, then no further mitigation is required. If the District finds that the demolition phase noise levels would exceed the City’s standard of 75 dB Lmax for single-family residences near Keller Beach, or decides not to confirm construction noise levels associated with the Keller Beach facility and amenity upgrades, then the District will require the contractor to install a temporary noise curtain as close as possible to noise-generating demolition activities such that the curtain obstructs the direct line of sight between the noise- generating construction activity and the nearby sensitive receptors. Temporary noise curtains shall consist of durable, flexible composite material featuring a noise barrier layer bounded to sound- absorptive material on one side. The noise barrier layer shall consist of rugged, impervious, material with a surface weight of at least one pound per square foot. Such barriers typically result in at least 5 dB of noise reduction. Taller barriers provide increased noise reduction (FTA 2006). The District may also specify noise emission standards for individual equipment, if needed to achieve adequate noise levels at sensitive receptors, such as using an excavator for concrete pad removal instead of a concrete saw, where feasible and consistent with building codes and other applicable laws and regulations. Using an excavator instead of a concrete saw would result in a noise reduction of up to 3.1 dB at the nearest sensitive receptor (see Appendix C for detailed calculations). The District shall monitor noise and confirm that the temporary noise curtain and/or implementation of noise emission standards for individual equipment would reduce construction noise levels at Keller Beach, such that noise levels would not exceed 79.4 dB Lmax, measured at the park boundary nearest to the sensitive receptors north of Keller Beach (see Appendix C for detailed calculations).

Miller Knox MMRP-16 Responsible Responsible Environmental Protection Feature Area of Concern Timing for for Monitoring Implementing All future shoreline work (such as reinforcement of riprap from land-based Biological Resources: Before Design Project Design Project equipment) would be accomplished through construction techniques entirely on dry Water Quality, Construction Manager Manager land and no in water work or disturbance of Bay tidal flats would occur, to the degree Special-Status feasible. If avoiding disturbance to Bay muds proves infeasible as project-level design Species, and is refined, applicable permits would be obtained and future CEQA evaluations would Potentially be conducted as required. Hazardous Materials Standard stormwater runoff and erosion controls to avoid inadvertent discharges to Hydrology and Water Before and Design Project Design Project the Bay include the following: Quality: Water During Manager and Manager and  Runoff control BMPs: These measures include grading surfaces to control sheet Quality Construction Construction Construction flow, barriers or berms that force sheet flows around protected areas, and Inspector Inspector stormwater conveyances such as channels, drains, and swales. These practices and features collect runoff and redirect it to prevent contamination to surface waters. Calculations will be made for anticipated runoff, and the stormwater conveyances would be constructed, designed, and located to accommodate these flows.  Erosion control blankets/mats, geotextiles, plastic covers: These erosion control methods will be used on flat or sloped surfaces to keep soil in place and can be used 133 to cover disturbed soil to prevent runoff.  Gravel/sandbag barrier: A temporary sediment barrier will be constructed using gravel or sand filled bags to prevent sediment from disturbed areas from reaching existing drainages by reducing the volume of sheet flows.  Hydraulic, straw, and wood mulch: The use of these various mulches will temporarily stabilize soil on surfaces with little or no slope.  Preservation of existing vegetation: Preserving the existing vegetation to the maximum extent possible will provide protection of exposed surfaces from erosion and can keep sediment in place.  Scheduling and planning: Appropriate scheduling and planning provide ways to minimize disturbed areas, which reduces the amount of activity in the project area that requires protection and minimizes the duration of exposure of disturbed soils to erosion.  Stabilized construction entrance/exit: A graveled area or pad can be built at points where vehicles enter and leave a construction site. This BMP provides a buffer area where vehicles can drop their mud and sediment to avoid transporting it onto public roads, to control erosion from surface runoff and to help control dust.  Storm drain inlet protection: Protection consists of devices and procedures that detain or filter sediment from runoff, thereby preventing them from reaching drainage systems that will be used following construction, as well as surface waters.  Spill prevention and control: Any spills or releases of materials will be cleaned up immediately and comprehensively. Appropriate and easily accessible cleanup Miller Knox MMRP-16 equipment, including spill kits containing absorbents, will be located in several areas around the site. Used cleanup materials will be disposed of properly and in accordance with applicable regulations. Hazardous or toxic material spills must be treated as hazardous waste and be treated and disposed of accordingly. A comprehensive suite of BMPs would protect water quality during vegetation Hydrology and Water Before and Design Project Design Project management at Miller/Knox. The following BMPs would be applied as applicable: Quality: Water During Manager and Manager and Hand Treatment BMPs Quality Construction Construction Construction Inspector Inspector  Treatment actions shall not be conducted during storms.  Treatment actions shall avoid, when feasible, excessive foot traffic on steep slopes which could cause compaction and/or erosion to occur.  Hand labor personnel shall avoid driving support and haul trucks off established roads. If such traffic is determined by the District and hand labor personnel to be necessary, inspection will be conducted to ensure that the ground is not saturated before traveling off-road, and that the ground can fully support the vehicles without excessive rutting of surface soils. Any ruts created as a result of off-road activities will be repaired and covered with mulch and/or wood chips to reduce potential runoff from these areas and reduce their potential for erosion.  Hand labor personnel shall take care to handle fuels and lubricants such that spilling 134 and runoff of these substances does not occur. Mechanical Treatment BMPs  Use caution when conducting any mechanical treatment actions during the area’s rainy season. Treatment actions shall be stopped temporarily if rainfall or other inclement weather makes access inadvisable, or if continued vehicular travel or mechanical action is determined to cause unacceptable damage to roads, trails, or other lands.  Surveys shall be conducted that identify and delineate on-site soil and hydrological conditions before initiation of any mechanical treatment techniques. Any planned mechanical treatment actions shall include all necessary measures to minimize activity in sensitive areas that could be wetter than normal, or in areas near hydrological resources. Wet areas will be clearly marked for high visibility and avoided by treatment operations until such time as they are determined to be sufficiently capable of supporting any mechanical treatment activities without causing excess rutting, erosion, or sedimentation to occur.  All mechanical treatment actions shall use equipment, methods, and/or techniques that minimize ground disturbance and alterations to the existing soil structure.  Mechanical treatment actions shall be temporarily stopped and alternative treatment or removal methods considered if a single pass of equipment produces ruts deeper than 6 inches across a significant area of the site.  Materials shall not be dragged across park roads and drainage areas unless specifically allowed by the District, and only then along routes recommended by

Miller Knox MMRP-16 equipment operators and approved by the District.  Personnel will avoid driving support and haul trucks off of established roads. Where this is necessary, personnel shall ensure that the ground is not saturated before traveling off road and that the ground can support the vehicles without excessive rutting. Any ruts created shall be repaired and covered with mulch and/or wood chips.  Personnel will install and use brush barriers, vehicle turnouts, straw bales, wattle, or other methods as needed to control and capture potential runoff resulting from mechanical treatment actions. Other methods for controlling and capturing potential runoff could include broad-based dips, creating ditchlines inside of current drainage patterns (i.e., closer to treatment actions to capture runoff before reaching the drainage area), crossdrains, filter areas, sediment traps or pits, silt fences, hay bales, check dams or the in/outsloping and crowning of roads.  Maintain all roads in a desirable condition to prevent problems that may result from their use, such as washouts, slumping, clogging or bending culverts, and drainage erosion. Any damages that occur to roads as a direct result of treatment actions shall be repaired upon completion of the treatment action.  Refueling areas will be designated for larger projects requiring mechanical treatment actions. Fuel tanks and refueling areas will be provided with secondary containment,

135 where feasible. Materials and supplies needed to promptly clean up spills will be adequately maintained and located on-site, and personnel will be familiar with proper cleanup and disposal techniques. Examples of containment and cleanup methods and materials include using drip pans and absorbent pads for all vehicle and equipment fueling; equipping all fuel nozzles with automatic shut-off capability to contain fuel dripping and leakage; ensuring all vehicle fueling operations are not left unattended; inspecting vehicles and equipment each day to identify any fuel, oil, or hydraulic leaks; and repairing any identified leaks immediately before further use or storage of the leaking equipment to minimize further impact to the site. Vehicles with persistent or recurring leaks will be removed from the site until such leaks are properly repaired. On-site fueling of vehicles and equipment will only be performed when off-site fueling is determined by the District to be impractical. Chemical Treatment BMPs  The District and its contractors will ensure that any pesticide or other chemical applications are performed only by licensed or certified pest control operators registered to perform such services in the County where the treatment is to take place, and only under a prescription prepared by a licensed pesticide advisor. The pest control operator must record and provide written accounts of the total amount of pesticides and other chemicals applied each month, as well as type(s) of pesticides or chemicals used and total areas treated with each pesticide or other chemical. These data must be reported to the County Agricultural Commissioner as well as to the District’s Integrated Pest Management Program. Operators must maintain accurate and calibrated application equipment to ensure correct amounts of pesticides and other chemicals are applied. Miller Knox MMRP-16  Any chemical treatment actions must be performed according to the District integrated pest management (IPM) policies and practices; pest control operators selected by the District or its contractors shall consult and use the advice and recommendations of the District’s integrated pest management specialists and adhere to District pest management guidelines. For example, species-specific (instead of broad-spectrum) herbicides shall be used wherever possible to avoid injury to non-target plants.  IPM specialists will oversee chemical application practices to ensure compliance with state and federal regulations and District IPM policies. Pesticide application prescriptions will include suitable distances from wetlands and water bodies, in compliance with the California Department of Food and Agriculture Regulations and state-approved product labeling. District IPM specialists will review application data to ensure the minimum amount of suitable chemicals are used during treatment actions to achieve the desired results. The potential for vegetation management activities in Miller/Knox to increase landside Geology and Soils: Before Design Project Design Project activity or slope instability was previously addressed in the 2009 Wildfire Hazard Landslide/Slope Construction Manager Manager Reduction and Resource Management Plan (WHRRMP) EIR prepared by the District. Instability The District will implement the following before any vegetation removal activity in areas of slope instability or with high landslide potential: 136 District staff shall refer to:  the most currently available landslide mapping from the U.S. Geologic Survey or the California Geological Survey for Miller/Knox (for example, the USGS 1997, Summary Distribution of Slides and Earth Flows in the San Francisco Bay Region, California. OFR 97-745c); or  GIS slope steepness mapping for Miller/Knox. If all of the following criteria are satisfied, then no further action to address potential landslide activation would be required:  the area to be treated within the recommended treatment area is located in an area listed as “stable,” “few landslides,” or equivalent;  the average slope steepness of the recommended treatment area is less than 10 degrees (about 18 percent);  there is no visible evidence of landslide activity (e.g., scarps, crooked trees, landslide-generated debris piles) within the recommended treatment area, as documented by a field reconnaissance; and  there are no habitable structures within 100 feet of the toe of the slope downgradient of the recommended treatment area. District staff shall determine on a case-by-case basis whether to retain a qualified professional (e.g., engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer) to conduct a geotechnical reconnaissance to evaluate the potential impacts of vegetation reduction activities or vegetation type conversion on future landslide potential if:

Miller Knox MMRP-16  habitable structure(s) are located within 100 feet of the toe of the slope downhill of the treatment area; and  the prescribed treatment would include the use of heavy equipment or machinery and significant ground disturbing activities (i.e., this requirement would not apply to methods such as hand treatment, weed-eating, or chemical treatment), and one or more of the following conditions is identified:  the treatment area is listed as “unstable,” “many landslides” on applicable slope stability mapping;  the average slope steepness of the treatment area is greater than 10 degrees (about 18 percent);  there is visible evidence of landslide activity (e.g., scarps, crooked trees, landslide- generated debris piles) within the treatment area, as documented by a field reconnaissance; or  all recommendations of the qualified professional (which may include avoidance of the proposed activity) shall be documented in writing, provided to the District, and implemented. An exhibit/display of the history of the warehouse building would be incorporated Cultural Resources: N/A Design Project Design Project into the Ferry Point Planning Area to include information such as historic and current Historic Resources Manager Manager 137 photographs, interpretive text, drawings, videos, interactive media, and oral histories. The exhibit/display would be developed in consultation with Contra Costa County, local historical organizations, and those with an interest in the history of Miller/Knox. Additionally, the exhibit/display would be displayed in a location within Miller/Knox that is accessible to the public and may be incorporated into the interpretive exhibit. Construction equipment maintenance and muffling: All construction equipment shall Noise: Construction During Construction Construction be properly maintained and equipped with noise-reduction intake and exhaust Noise Construction Inspector Inspector mufflers and engine shrouds, in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations. Equipment engine shrouds shall be closed during equipment operation. All demolition debris would be disposed in accordance with California Code of Public Services and During Construction Construction Regulations Title 24, Part 11. Section 5.408 of this code establishes mandatory Utilities: Solid Waste Construction Inspector Inspector requirements for construction waste reduction, disposal, and recycling for and Construction nonresidential building structures. In particular, Section 5.408.1 requires recycling Debris and/or salvaging for reuse of a minimum of 50 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste. In addition, Section 5.408 requires preparation of a construction waste management plan, selection of a waste management company that can provide verifiable documentation, alternatives for waste stream reduction, and requirements for managing excavated soils and land clearing debris.

Miller Knox MMRP-16 Attachment 3

CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the

Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline Land Use Plan Amendment Final Program Environmental Impact Report

State Clearinghouse No. 2013052070

PREPARED BY

East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605-0381

March 2019

138 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

A Introduction ...... 3 B Project Description ...... 3 C Project Purpose and Objectives ...... 4 D Planning and the Environmental Review Process ...... 5 E Effects Found Not to be Significant ...... 7 F Findings for Signifcant but Mitigated Effects ...... 8 G Findings for Significant and Unavoidable Effects ...... 21 H Mitigation Monitioring and Reporting Program and Environmental Protection Features ...... 22 I Alternatives ...... 22 J Statement of Overriding Considerations ...... 27 K Statement of Loction and Custodian Documents ...... 28 L Recirculation Not Required ...... 28 M Incorporation by Reference ...... 28 N Conclusion ...... 28

1 139 CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE MILLER/KNOX REGIONAL SHORELINE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT FINAL PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT State Clearinghouse #2013052070

A. INTRODUCTION The following Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are hereby adopted by the East Bay Regional Park District (“District”) Board of Directors (“Board”) for the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline Land Use Plan Amendment (“Project”) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code §21081, 21081.5, and CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, California Code of Regulations §15091 through 15093. These findings summarize the environmental analysis and conclusions of the full Program Environmental Impact Report (“PEIR”). The PEIR consists of the September 2018 Draft Program Environmental Impact Report (“DPEIR”) and the January 2019 Final Program Environmental Impact Report (“FPEIR”), which includes the Responses to Comments on the DPEIR and revisions to the DPEIR. In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, whenever significant effects cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance, the District as the decision-making agency is required to balance, as applicable, the benefits of the project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered “acceptable,” in which case the lead agency must adopt a formal statement of overriding considerations. The PEIR identified one significant and unavoidable impact associated with historic resources. Thus, a statement of overriding considerations is required and provided herein. In determining to approve the Project, the District’s Board makes and adopts the following findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations and adopts and incorporates into the Project the mitigation measures identified in the PEIR, all based on substantial evidence in the whole record of this proceeding in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. These findings reflect the independent judgment of the District. The District’s Board reviewed and considered the information contained in the PEIR prior to making these findings and approving the Project. These findings summarize the environmental determinations of the PEIR about Project impacts before and after mitigation, and do not attempt to repeat the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the PEIR. Instead, these findings provide a summary description of and basis for each impact in the PEIR, describe the applicable mitigation measures identified in the PEIR, and state the District’s findings and rationale therefor on the significance of each impact with the adopted mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the PEIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the PEIR supporting the PEIR’s determinations regarding mitigation measures and the Project’s impacts. In adopting mitigation measures below, the District Board intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures identified in the PEIR. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure identified in the PEIR has been inadvertently omitted from these findings, such mitigation measure is hereby referred to, adopted, and incorporated in the findings below by reference. In addition, in the event the language of a mitigation measure set forth below fails to accurately reflect the mitigation measure in the PEIR due to a clerical error, the language of the mitigation measure as set forth in the PEIR shall control unless the language of the mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly modified by these findings. B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project consists of the recommendations included in the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline Land Use Plan Amendment (“LUPA”) for five geographic planning areas within the park. These recommendations, by planning area, include the following:

2 140 Lagoon Planning Area 1. Implement the Lagoon Enhancement Project. 2. Establish a new paved trail on the east side of the lagoon. 3. Designate the island as a Special Management Feature. 4. Replace under-utilized area of irrigated turf with drought-tolerant, climate-smart vegetation. 5. Refurbish existing amenities, Including picnic areas and barbeques. Bray Property Planning Area 1. Provide an area for disposal of dredging spoils from the lagoon. 2. Provide a green-waste area for operations and public education. 3. Develop a promenade connecting the Ferry Point Pier to the Lagoon Planning Area through the Bray Property Planning Area. 4. Establish native plant communities as demonstration gardens with connecting paths. 5. Develop Recreational Program and Storage Building for District use in outdoor education, interpretive programs, and volunteer activities. Ferry Point Planning Area 1. Develop a promenade connecting the Ferry Point Pier to the Lagoon Planning Area through the Bray Oil Property Planning Area. 2. Provide drought-tolerant, climate-smart turf in the open areas. 3. Provide additional picnic areas and benches. 4. Expand parking adjacent to the existing staging area. 5. Rehabilitate the historic pumphouse building for passive interpretive use. 6. Replace the historic warehouse building with day-use and scenic vista point area. Bayshore Planning Area 1. Remove the abandoned railroad tracks within District jurisdiction and develop a section of the San Francisco Bay Trail between Keller Beach and Ferry Point. 2. Formalize access between the Bayshore and the Lagoon Planning Areas. 3. Upgrade landscaping at Keller Beach. 4. Upgrade amenities including the restroom, drinking fountain, outdoor shower, picnic tables and benches at Keller Beach. 5. Conduct an engineering design development study along the Bayshore and implement shoreline features to improve resilience and climate change adaptation. Ridgeland Planning Area 1. Develop new staging areas off Dornan Drive and off Canal Boulevard. 2. Develop trailheads and new vista points, repair trails damaged by erosion, and decommission trails too damaged for repair. 3. Continue to implement the District’s Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan recommendations and implement Integrated Pest Management and grazing recommendations to enhance habitat and site conditions in this planning area. C. PROJECT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES The Project purpose and objectives included in the LUPA and the PEIR are as follows: Purpose. The purpose of the Miller/Knox LUPA is to enhance the existing environmental and scenic values at Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline while providing additional recreational and interpretive opportunities for 1 141 park visitors, consistent with the District’s Vision and Core Mission as included in the District’s 2013 Master Plan. Objectives. The objectives of the LUPA are to: 1. Protect and enhance existing natural, historic and scenic resources. 2. Improve public access through additional trails, pathways, and parking. 3. Enhance physical fitness opportunities. 4. Provide additional interpretive and recreational programming. 5. Optimize opportunities for quiet reflection and passive recreation. 6. Incorporate strategies for climate adaptation, sea-level rise, and resilience. D. PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS The District has provided several public participation opportunities associated with the Miller/Knox LUPA to date. In addition to public participation opportunities, District staff has posted information regarding the LUPA at the kiosks at Miller/Knox and has responded to on-going questions and information requests. The District’s primary goal has been to engage the public and other interested parties and stakeholders in the preparation of the LUPA and associated DPEIR and FPEIR. In the various forums, District staff has provided information regarding the District’s project planning and development process, policy framework, and requirements pursuant to CEQA. The District complied with the 2013 Master Plan policies pertaining to public participation through these meetings, notifications, and on-going communication with interested persons. The following is a summary of the Miller/Knox outreach and public participation opportunities to date. 2013 District Park Advisory Committee Meeting. District staff introduced the Miller/Knox LUPA at the February 25, 2013 Park Advisory Committee (PAC) Meeting. This meeting was noticed on the District’s website consistent with standard agenda and meeting notification. District staff presented the major themes of the LUPA, the five planning areas, the goals of the LUPA recommendations for each of the planning areas, and the plans for publishing the Notice of Preparation. 2013 Point Richmond Neighborhood Council Meeting. District staff presented the preliminary LUPA recommendations to the Point Richmond Neighborhood Council Meeting on March 27, 2013. This was a public meeting hosted by the Point Richmond Neighborhood Council. The District announced that the Notice of Preparation (see next entry) would be published and that a public scoping meeting would be scheduled onsite at Miller/Knox. 2013 Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping Meeting. The District initiated the Miller/Knox LUPA in May 2013 with publication of a Notice of Preparation (2013 NOP) of an Environmental Document for the Miller/Knox LUPA. The 2013 NOP was posted at the Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder’s office, on the District’s website, and at the Miller/Knox information kiosks. It was direct mailed to neighbors adjacent to and in the vicinity of Miller/Knox as well as to agencies, organizations, and stakeholder groups. The 2013 NOP generally described the key elements under consideration, requested public comment, and provided notice of a public scoping meeting. The formal 30-day public comment period concluded June 28, 2013. The 2013 public scoping meeting was held at Miller/Knox on June 8, 2013. District staff provided a tour of the park, discussed the key elements under consideration, answered questions from meeting participants, and conducted a voluntary survey. From this survey, District staff learned that popular activities at Miller/Knox include hiking in the ridge lands, walking, especially along the shoreline, and visiting Keller Beach; that visitors particularly like the views and atmosphere at Miller/Knox; and that there was general support for improving existing facilities such as picnic tables, benches, restrooms, and showers, and for providing additional facilities including the Bay Trail along the shoreline, additional trails, and a boat ramp at Ferry Point Beach. There was also a desire for minimum development and more natural areas. 2013 Board of Directors Site Visit. The District conducted a tour of Miller/Knox for the District’s Board of Directors on August 6, 2013. This meeting was noticed on the District’s webpage consistent with the District’s

2 142 standard agenda and meeting notification for Board meetings. The District’s Board and participating members of the public were led on a tour of Miller/Knox and the LUPA recommendations were discussed. 2017 Re-Issued Notice of Preparation and Public Scoping Meeting. The District re-issued the NOP on June 26, 2017 because the previous NOP was issued over four years prior; improvements have been made to Miller/Knox which were not subject to the LUPA or associated environmental documents, but which have changed the baseline conditions; and changes have been made to the State CEQA Guidelines. The 2017 NOP was posted at the Contra Costa County Clerk Recorder’s office, on the District’s website, and at the Miller/Knox information kiosks. It was direct mailed and/or emailed to neighbors adjacent to and in the vicinity of Miller/Knox, individuals who requested such notices, as well as to agencies, organizations, and stakeholder groups. Information regarding the 2017 public scoping meeting was also highlighted on the District’s Facebook page. The District conducted a second public scoping meeting on July 19, 2017. Approximately 24 individuals attended the 2017 scoping meeting and the District received 24 comment letters from individuals, agencies, and organizations. Public comment, both at the 2017 scoping meeting and written comments during the public scoping period on the NOP, indicated general support for the LUPA recommendations. Concerns were expressed regarding the Lagoon Enhancement Project recommendation to breach the lagoon to San Francisco Bay and suggestions were received to instead dredge the lagoon to achieve the desired water quality goals. As a result, District staff evaluated dredging the lagoon and revised the LUPA recommendations to include dredging as the preferred alternative. 2017 District Park Advisory Committee Meeting. The District presented an update on the Miller/Knox LUPA to the District’s PAC on July 24, 2017. This meeting was noticed on the District’s website consistent with the District’s standard agenda and meeting notification for these meetings. District staff shared information regarding projects and special studies that had been completed since 2013, the LUPA recommendations, a summary of the 2017 NOP public comment, an overview of the environmental document, and the key environmental issues that had been identified. The PAC indicated support of the LUPA recommendations. 2017 District Board Executive Committee Meeting. The District presented an update on the Miller/Knox LUPA to the District’s Board Executive Committee on October 5, 2017. This meeting was noticed on the District’s website consistent with the District’s standard agenda and meeting notification for these meetings. District staff shared information regarding projects and special studies that had been completed since 2013, the LUPA recommendations, a summary of the 2017 NOP public comment, an overview of the environmental document, and the key environmental issues that had been identified. The Board Executive Committee indicated support of the LUPA recommendations and encouraged the District to evaluate dredging the lagoon rather than breaching the lagoon to San Francisco Bay. As a result, District staff evaluated dredging the lagoon and revised the LUPA recommendations to include dredging as the preferred alternative. 2017 Agency Scoping Meeting. In addition to the public meetings discussed above, on October 12, 2017, the District and Ascent Environmental, Inc. (“Ascent”), the consulting firm preparing the environmental document for the LUPA, hosted a scoping meeting with regulatory agencies that will have discretionary authority over certain LUPA recommendations through the regulatory permitting process. This meeting was not open to the public and targeted outreach to the regulatory agencies, which further satisfies District Master Plan policies pertaining to participation and outreach. Representatives from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), and the State Lands Commission (SLC) participated in the meeting. Agency input included support for dredging the lagoon over breaching the lagoon to San Francisco Bay; encouraged the evaluation of habitat values for the existing lagoon and other aquatic features; suggestions to utilize BCDC’s Adapting to Rising Tides Program for information associated with climate change and sea- level rise; recommended accommodations for public transit and public parking; and clarification of lands within SLC jurisdiction and City of Richmond jurisdiction relative to Ferry Point pier and terminal was provided. The LUPA and the DPEIR address all input received from Agency representatives.

3 143 On June 14, 2017, the District and Ascent conducted a check-in meeting with BCDC staff to ensure that the approach and strategy regarding the analysis of climate change and sea level rise was acceptable. BCDC staff agreed to the approach and strategy, which is discussed in Section 4.10 of the DPEIR. Tribal Outreach. Assembly Bill (AB) 52, signed by the California Governor in September of 2014, requires that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review must, upon written request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation once the lead agency determines that the application for the project is complete. The District provided notification by mail on October 24, 2017 to eight tribes who are included on the Native American Heritage Commission list of tribal contacts for the area that includes Miller/Knox. The notification letters sent to the tribes included the location of Miller/Knox, background information about the LUPA, LUPA objectives, and a summary of location and recommendations within each of the planning areas. These tribal contacts were also provided copies of the re-issued NOP when it was published on June 26, 2017. None of the eight tribes responded within the 30-day time period, and no tribal consultation was undertaken. The tribal contacts were provided with a Notice of Availability of the Draft LUPA and Draft Program EIR as part of the required 45-day public review required by CEQA. 2018 Notice of Availability and Notice of Completion. The District published a Notice of Availability (“NOA”) for the DPEIR on September 4, 2017. This initiated the 45-day public review and comment period for the DPEIR pursuant to §21092 of the State Public Resources Code. The NOA was posted onsite at Miller/Knox and on the District’s website. The NOA was mailed and e-mailed to those on the Project contact lists. The DPEIR and Draft LUPA were also published on the District’s website and printed copies were made available at the District’s administrative office and at the Richmond Public Library, 135 Washington Avenue, Richmond. The public review for the DPEIR was September 4- October 19, 2018. The District hosted a public input meeting on the DPEIR on Tuesday, September 11 at 6:00 p.m. at the Point Richmond Community Center, 139 Washington Avenue, Richmond. At this meeting, the District presented the DPEIR and accepted verbal comments. Nine individuals provided verbal comments at the public input meeting. In addition to verbal comments, the District received a total of 20 written emails/comment letters from 17 individuals and public agencies during the public review period. Responses to all comments received during the public review period are included in the Response to Comments document as part of the FPEIR. The District filed a Notice of Completion and Environmental Document Transmittal (“NOC”) with the State Clearinghouse on September 4, 2018. The District published the FPEIR on February 5, 2019 and it was made available to the public and the District’s Board at this time. 2019 Board Executive Committee Meeting. Park District staff presented the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline LUPA to the Park District’s Board Executive Committee on February 7, 2019. This meeting was noticed on the District’s website consistent with the District’s standard agenda and meeting notification for these meetings. District staff shared information regarding the final LUPA recommendations and an overview of the PEIR. The Board Executive Committee recommended approval of the final LUPA recommendations and certification of the PEIR. 2019 Park Advisory Committee Meeting. Park District staff presented the Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline LUPA to the Park District’s Park Advisory Committee on February 25, 2019. This meeting was noticed on the District’s website consistent with the District’s standard agenda and meeting notification for these meetings. District staff shared information regarding the final LUPA recommendations and an overview of the PEIR. The Park Advisory Committee recommended approval of the final LUPA recommendations and certification of the PEIR. E. EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT Through project scoping and the environmental analysis contained within the PEIR, it was determined that the Project would not result in a potentially significant effect, or would have a less than significant effect on the environment with respect to: agricultural and forest resources; population and housing; land use and planning;

4 144 public services; public utilities; potential energy impacts; aesthetics, recreation resources and public access; and greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. A summary of the reasons for these determinations can be found in Chapter 4.0 of the DPEIR, starting on page 4-4. No further findings are required for these subject areas.

F. FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT BUT MITIGATED EFFECTS The DPEIR identifies potentially significant impacts associated with the Project, which are reduced to a “less than significant” level by mitigation measures identified in the DPEIR and FPEIR. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) includes the full text of each mitigation measure, which has been adopted concurrently with these findings. These potentially significant impacts for which mitigation measures have been adopted are described below. Biological Resources Impact 4.1-1: Disturbance to or Loss of Special-Status Wildlife Species and Habitat Recommendations for the LUPA Planning Areas include partial demolition of a historic warehouse building and reuse as a day-use picnic area, rehabilitation of a historic pumphouse building for passive interpretive use, removal of trees and other vegetation, lagoon dredge disposal, and construction of trails and other features such as paved parking areas, picnic areas, restrooms, and the recreational programs and storage building. While the LUPA recommendations also include elements that would improve habitat for special-status species, including restoration of native habitats including grassland, wetland, and lagoon habitats, implementation of some recommendations could result in disturbance or loss of individuals due to removal of habitat such as buildings, vegetation, and trees, ground disturbing activities such as during construction of trails and installation of new and/or improved picnic areas, and the recreational programs and storage building, or modifications to aquatic habitat such as during lagoon enhancement. The loss of special-status wildlife species and their habitat would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation 4.1-1a: Nesting raptor preconstruction survey and establishment of protective buffers. The District would implement the following measures to reduce impacts on nesting raptors: • To minimize the potential for loss of nesting raptors, tree removal activities would only occur during the nonbreeding season (September 1-January 31). If all suitable nesting habitat is removed during the nonbreeding season, no further mitigation would be required. • Before removal of any trees or other vegetation, or ground disturbing activities between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist would conduct preconstruction surveys for nesting raptors and would identify active nests within 500 feet of the site. The surveys would be conducted before the beginning of any construction activities between February 1 and August 31. • Impacts to nesting raptors would be avoided by establishing appropriate buffers around active nest sites identified during preconstruction raptor surveys. Activity would not commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined, in coordination with CDFW, that the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or reducing the buffer would not likely result in nest abandonment. CDFW guidelines require implementation of a 500-foot buffer for raptors, but the size of the buffer may be adjusted if a qualified biologist and the District, in consultation with CDFW, determine that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. Monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist during and after construction activities would be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest • Trees would not be removed during the breeding season for nesting raptors unless a survey by a qualified biologist verifies that there is not an active nest in the tree. Mitigation 4.1-1b: Avoid and minimize impacts to burrowing owl. The District would implement the following measures to reduce impacts on burrowing owl: • The District would retain a qualified biologist to conduct focused preconstruction surveys for burrowing owls in areas of suitable habitat within 500 feet of areas that would be disturbed by implementation of LUPA recommendations. Surveys would be conducted before the start of

5 145 construction activities and in accordance with Appendix D of CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012) • If no occupied burrows are found, a letter report documenting the survey methods and results would be submitted to CDFW and no further mitigation would be required. • If a burrow occupied by a burrowing owl is found, the District would consult with CDFW regarding protection buffers to be established around the occupied burrow and maintained throughout construction. Required buffers range from 150 to 1,500 feet depending on the Miller/Knox conditions and burrowing owl use of the burrow. Exclusion of burrowing owls during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) would be prohibited. Mitigation 4.1-1c: Preconstruction special-status nesting and other bird surveys and establishment of protective buffers. The District would implement the following measures to reduce impacts on nesting special-status and other bird species: • To minimize the potential for disturbance or loss of grasshopper sparrow, loggerhead shrike, saltmarsh common yellowthroat, or other bird nests, vegetation removal activities would only occur during the nonbreeding season (September 1-January 31). If all suitable nesting habitat is removed during the nonbreeding season, no further mitigation would be required. • Before removal of any vegetation or any ground disturbance between February 1 and August 31, a qualified biologist would conduct preconstruction surveys for nests on any structure or vegetation slated for removal. The surveys would be conducted no more than 14 days before construction commences. If no active nests are found during focused surveys, no further action under this measure would be required. If active nests are located during the preconstruction surveys, the biologist would notify CDFW. If necessary, modifications to design to avoid removal of occupied habitat while still achieving LUPA objectives may be required. If avoidance is not feasible or conflicts with LUPA objectives, construction would be prohibited within a minimum of 100 feet of the nest to avoid disturbance until the nest or colony is no longer active. Mitigation 4.1-1d: Preconstruction bat survey and exclusion. The District would implement the following measures to reduce impacts on special-status bats: • Before commencing any tree removal or building demolition activities, a qualified biologist would conduct surveys for roosting bats. If evidence of bat use is observed, the species and number of bats using the roost will be determined. Bat detectors may be used to supplement survey efforts. If no evidence of bat roosts is found, then no further study will be required. • If pallid bats or Townsend’s big-eared bats are found in the survey, bats would be excluded from the roosting site before the tree or building is removed. A mitigation program addressing compensation, exclusion methods, and roost removal procedures would be developed by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW. Exclusion efforts may be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young). Once it is confirmed that bats are not present in the original roost site, the tree or building may be removed. Mitigation 4.1-1e: Preconstruction woodrat survey and nest relocation. The District would implement the following measures to reduce impacts on San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat: • Within 30 days before implementation of LUPA recommendations involving vegetation removal, a qualified biologist would inspect the potential area of disturbance and adjacent areas for woodrat houses. If none are found, then no additional measures are necessary. • If a woodrat house is identified within a work area, an exclusion zone would be erected around the existing woodrat houses using flagging or a temporary fence that does not inhibit the natural movements of wildlife (such as steel T-posts and a single strand of yellow rope or similar materials). The work area would be relocated as necessary to avoid removing woodrat houses, even if avoidance is by only a few feet. The orientation of the work area would allow for escape routes (i.e., the work area would not completely surround a protected woodrat house) to nearby suitable habitat. If

6 146 woodrat houses cannot be avoided, CDFW would be contacted for approval to relocate individuals by live-trapping and building a nearby artificial house as a release site. Approval to relocate would be acquired from CDFW. Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-1a through 4.1-1e would reduce the impact associated with the disturbance to or loss of special status wildlife species and habitat to a less-than-significant level by implementing practices and procedures during the pre-construction period of the Project that would ensure Project implementation would not have substantial adverse effects on special-status wildlife species and habitat. Specifically: • Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-1a would reduce significant impacts on nesting raptors because active raptor nests would be avoided and protected from construction activities. • Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-1b would reduce significant impacts because burrowing owls and their burrows would be avoided and protected from construction activities. • Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-1c would reduce significant impacts because grasshopper sparrow, loggerhead shrike, saltmarsh common yellowthroat, or other bird nests would be avoided and protected from construction activities. • Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-1d would reduce impacts on special-status bats because preconstruction surveys would be conducted, and active bat roosts would be protected from construction activities. • Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-1e would reduce impacts on San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats because preconstruction surveys would be conducted, and woodrat houses would be protected from construction activities. The District’s Board finds mitigation measures 4.1-1a through 4.1-1e are feasible, adopts such measures, and finds these measures will lessen to an insignificant level the potentially significant impacts of the Project on special status wildlife species and habitat. Impact 4.1-2: Disturbance to or Loss of Special-Status Plant Species and Habitat LUPA recommendations include removal of vegetation, removal and storage of lagoon dredge material, and construction of trails and other features such as restrooms, and the recreational programs and storage building. While the recommendations also include elements that would improve habitat for special-status plants and other native plant species, including restoration of native habitats including grassland (such as within the Bray Planning Area, Ferry Point Planning Area, and Ridgeland Planning Area) and lagoon habitat (designating the lagoon island as a Special Management Feature) implementation of some recommendations could result in disturbance or loss of special-status plants because of vegetation removal and ground disturbance activities such as construction of staging areas, disposal of dredge material in the Bray Planning Area, trail construction and maintenance in the Ridgeland Planning Area. The loss of special-status plant species and their habitat would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation 4.1-2: Preconstruction special-status plant surveys and compensatory mitigation. The District would implement the following measures to reduce impacts on special-status plants: • Before construction-type activities and during the blooming period for the special-status plant species with potential to occur at Miller/Knox, a qualified botanist would conduct focused surveys for special- status plants in areas where potentially suitable habitat would be removed or disturbed by implementation of LUPA recommendations. Table 4.1-4 summarizes the normal blooming periods for special-status plant species with potential to occur at Miller/Knox, which generally indicates the optimal survey periods when the species are most identifiable. • If no special-status plants are found, the botanist would document the findings in a letter report to the District and no further mitigation would be required.

7 147 • If special-status plant species are found, the plant will be avoided completely to avoid take, if possible. If special-status plant species are found that cannot be avoided during construction, the District would consult with CDFW and/or USFWS, as appropriate depending on species status, to determine the appropriate mitigation measures for direct and indirect impacts that could occur as a result of construction-type activities and would implement the agreed-upon mitigation measures to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat or individuals. Mitigation measures may include preserving and enhancing existing populations, creation of off-site populations on mitigation sites through seed collection or transplantation, and/or restoring or creating suitable habitat in sufficient quantities to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat and/or individuals. A mitigation and monitoring plan would be developed describing how unavoidable losses of special-status plants would be compensated. • If relocation efforts are part of the mitigation plan, the plan would include details on the methods to be used, including collection, storage, propagation, receptor site preparation, installation, long-term protection and management, monitoring and reporting requirements, success criteria, and remedial action responsibilities should the initial effort fail to meet long-term monitoring requirements. • Success criteria for preserved and compensatory populations would include: • The extent of occupied area and plant density (number of plants per unit area) in compensatory populations would be equal to or greater than the affected occupied habitat. • Compensatory and preserved populations would be self-producing. Populations would be considered self-producing when: • plants reestablish annually for a minimum of five years with no human intervention such as supplemental seeding; and • re-established and preserved habitats contain an occupied area and flower density comparable to existing occupied habitat areas in similar habitat types in the project vicinity. • If off-site mitigation includes dedication of conservation easements, purchase of mitigation credits, or other off-site conservation measures, the details of these measures would be included in the mitigation plan, including information on responsible parties for long-term management, conservation easement holders, long-term management requirements, success criteria such as those listed above and other details, as appropriate to target the preservation of long term viable populations. Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 would reduce potential impacts associated with disturbance to or loss of special-status plant species and habitat to a less-than-significant level by implementing practices and procedures during the pre-construction period of the Project that would ensure Project implementation would not have substantial adverse effects on special-status plant species and habitat Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 would reduce impacts special-status plants because it would require the District to identify and avoid special-status plants or provide compensation for loss of special-status plants through enhancement of existing populations, creation and management of off-site populations, conservation easements, or other appropriate measures. The District’s Board finds Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 is feasible, adopts this mitigation measure, and finds that this mitigation measure will lessen to an insignificant level the potentially significant impacts of the Project on special status plant species and habitat. Impact 4.1-3: Disturbance and Loss of Wetlands, Other Waters of the United States, Waters of the State, and Riparian Habitat Wetlands, other waters of the United States, and waters of the state are present within Miller/Knox, including a seasonal wetland within the Ridgeland Planning Area, the brackish lagoon, and the San Francisco Bay within the boundary of Miller/Knox. Additionally, riparian habitat (such as willow) is present adjacent to the seasonal wetland areas. While the District intends to fully avoid these features, implementation of LUPA recommendations, such as trail improvements, construction of new trails, lagoon dredge disposal, and the partial demolition of the historic warehouse building could result in inadvertent disturbance to seasonal wetland habitat

8 148 or riparian habitat. Loss or degradation of any of these waters or riparian habitat would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.1-3a: Conduct a wetland delineation and determine amount of fill or vegetation removal. Before ground disturbing activities or implementing the Lagoon Enhancement Project, the District would conduct a wetland delineation to determine if wetlands are potentially present in Miller/Knox. The District would submit this delineation report to USACE and would request a preliminary jurisdictional determination. Based on the jurisdictional determination, the District would determine the exact acreage of jurisdictional wetlands, if any, that would be filled as a result of implementation of LUPA recommendations. If wetland habitats and natural drainages are not delineated on site, then no further mitigation would be required. However, if any jurisdictional wetland habitats or natural drainages are delineated where ground disturbing LUPA activities could take place, then the following mitigation would be required. Mitigation Measure 4.1-3b: Avoid effects to sensitive natural communities by fencing resources. Before any ground disturbing activities, all sensitive areas identified during the wetland delineation (e.g., wetlands, natural drainages, riparian vegetation) would be flagged or fenced with brightly visible construction flagging and fencing under the direction of the qualified biologist prohibiting access and activities within these non- construction or enhancement areas. This demarcation would be consistent with and incorporate the preliminary jurisdictional determination. Foot traffic by construction personnel would also be limited in these areas to prevent the introduction of invasive or weedy species. Periodic inspections during construction would be conducted by the monitoring biologist to maintain the integrity of exclusion fencing/flagging throughout the period of construction involving ground disturbance. These measures are consistent with the District 2013 Master Plan guidelines for management of riparian and wetland environments (District 2013c). Mitigation Measure 4.1-3c: Obtain required regulatory authorizations if LUPA activities would result in the fill of jurisdictional wetlands. If it is determined, following delineation of wetlands and other waters of the United States or state, that fill of these features cannot be avoided, then the following measures would be implemented: • Before any ground disturbing activities that could have direct or indirect impacts to waters of the United States, the appropriate Section 404 permit would be obtained. Any waters of the United States that would be affected by implementation of the LUPA would be replaced or restored on a “no-net- loss” basis in accordance with USACE mitigation guidelines (or the applicable USACE guidelines in place at the time of construction-type activities). In association with the Section 404 permit (if applicable) and before the issuance of any grading permit, Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the regional water quality control board and BCDC approval would be obtained. Mitigation Measure 4.1-3d: Obtain all required regulatory authorizations if LUPA activities would result in impacts to aquatic or riparian habitats within CDFW jurisdiction. If it is determined that disturbance or fill of stream, lagoon, or riparian habitat cannot be avoided, then the following measures would be implemented to avoid or compensate for the loss or degradation of stream, lagoon, or riparian habitat, maintain consistency with Fish and Game Code Section 1602, and further reduce potential adverse effects on riparian habitats: • The District would notify CDFW before commencing any activity within the bed, bank, or riparian corridor of any waterway. If activities trigger the need for a Streambed Alteration Agreement, the proponent District would obtain an agreement from CDFW before the activity commences. The District would conduct construction activities in accordance with the agreement, including implementing reasonable measures in the agreement necessary to protect the fish and wildlife resources, when working within the bed or bank of waterways that function as a fish or wildlife resource or in riparian habitats associated with those waterways. • The District would compensate for permanent loss of riparian habitat at a minimum of a 1:1 ratio through contributions to a CDFW approved wetland mitigation bank or through the development and implementation of a Compensatory Stream and Riparian Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for creating or restoring in-kind habitat in the surrounding area. If mitigation credits are not available, stream and riparian habitat compensation would include establishment of riparian vegetation on currently 9 149 unvegetated bank portions of lagoons or wetlands affected by the LUPA recommendations and enhancement of existing riparian habitat through removal of nonnative species, where appropriate, and planting additional native riparian plants to increase cover, continuity, and width of the existing riparian corridor along streams at Miller/Knox and surrounding areas. Construction activities and compensatory mitigation would be conducted in accordance with the terms of a streambed alteration agreement as required under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. The Compensatory Stream and Riparian Mitigation and Monitoring Plan would include the following: • identification of compensatory mitigation sites and criteria for selecting these mitigation sites; • in kind reference habitats for comparison with compensatory riparian habitats (using performance and success criteria) to document success; • monitoring protocol, including schedule and annual report requirements (Compensatory habitat would be monitored for a minimum of 5 years from completion of mitigation, or human intervention (including recontouring and grading), or until the success criteria identified in the approved mitigation plan have been met, whichever is longer.); • ecological performance standards, based on the best available science and including specifications for native riparian plant densities, species composition, amount of dead woody vegetation gaps and bare ground, and survivorship; at a minimum, compensatory mitigation planting sites must achieve 80 percent survival of planted riparian native trees and shrubs by the end of the five-year maintenance and monitoring period or dead and dying trees would be replaced and monitoring continued until 80 percent survivorship is achieved; • corrective measures if performance standards are not met; • responsible parties for monitoring and preparing reports; and • responsible parties for receiving and reviewing reports and for verifying success or prescribing implementation or corrective actions. Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.1-3a through 4.1-3d would reduce the impact associated with wetlands, other Waters of the United States, Waters of the State, and riparian habitat to a less-than- significant level by implementing practices and procedures during the pre-construction and construction periods of the Project, such as conducting a wetland delineation, fencing sensitive resources, obtaining necessary authorizations and permits, and providing compensatory mitigation, if required. The District’s Board finds Mitigation Measures 4.1-3a through 4.1-3d are feasible, adopts such measures, and finds these measures will lessen to an insignificant level the potentially significant impacts of the Project on wetlands, other Waters of the United States, Waters of the State, and riparian habitat. Impact 4.1-4: Conflict with City of Richmond Municipal Code Tree Preservation Policy Implementation of LUPA recommendations could result in the removal of or damage to trees, including native coast live oak and non-native trees (e.g., blue gum, Monterey pine). Activities such as maintenance and construction of trails and establishment of new paved staging areas could result in direct tree removal and indirect impacts to root systems which could conflict with Richmond tree preservation regulations. Direct loss or damage to trees conflicting with local policies would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation 4.1-4: Tree protection requirements. The District would implement the following measures to comply with local regulations regarding tree removal: • The District would prepare a preconstruction arborist report for the Richmond Planning Commission indicating “significant” trees planned for removal and demonstrating that diligent effort has been made to retain as many “significant” trees as possible. Removal of “significant” trees may be permitted at the discretion of the Richmond Planning Commission depending on tree health, public safety issues, fire hazards, and native status of the tree. • Trees designated for preservation would be protected by prohibiting fill, grading, trenching, or construction within the drip line of the tree.

10 150

• When a “significant” tree is removed, the tree would be replaced at a ratio of three new trees for every one tree removed. Replacement trees would be planted on the Miller/Knox, on adjacent private or public land, or within five miles of the site of removal. Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 would reduce the impact associated with the City of Richmond Municipal Code Tree Preservation Policy by requiring protection of “significant” trees or replacing removed “significant” trees at a 3:1 ratio, and by maintaining compliance with Richmond municipal code tree preservation policy. The District’s Board finds Mitigation Measure 4.1-4 is feasible, adopts this mitigation measure, and finds that this mitigation measures will lessen to an insignificant level the potentially significant impacts of the Project associated with conflicts with the City of Richmond’s Municipal Code Tree Preservation Policy. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4.3-3: Potential for Water Quality Degradation Due to Dredging Activities and Dredged Material Disposal Implementation of the Lagoon Enhancement Project would include dredging up to 10,000 cubic yards of sediments, which has the potential to temporarily affect water quality in the lagoon because of the disturbance of sediments. The proposed LUPA would prevent substantial adverse effects to lagoon water quality by conducting dredging activities in drained and isolated portions of the lagoon. However, the sediments in the lagoon bottom originated in the San Francisco Bay and could contain pollutants. Disposal of these sediments in the Bray Planning Area could result in groundwater contamination, because of the reported high groundwater table beneath that area. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.3-3a: Determine site-specific groundwater depth at dredged materials disposal site. The District shall determine the depth to groundwater within the upper three feet of the soil profile at all potential dredged material disposal sites before implementing the Lagoon Enhancement Project. No dredged materials shall be placed within a jurisdictional wetland or in any area where groundwater is found within 24 inches of the ground surface (24 inches of separation is the vertical distance from groundwater recommended by the Cornell University composting program, which is the EPA recommended information source for small scale composting [Richard 1996]). Mitigation Measure 4.3-3b: Sediment analysis plan and reporting. Before the start of dredging under the Lagoon Enhancement Project, the District shall coordinate with the San Francisco RWQCB and prepare a sediment analysis plan and complete sediment testing to determine the levels of pollutants of concern and soil chemistry within the sediments relevant to suitability for use in a native plant garden. Samples shall be collected from undisturbed sediment cores which are representative of the entire depth and area of the sediments to be dredged. Sediment analysis reporting shall be included with the Water Quality Certification (Section 401) application to San Francisco RWQCB for this activity. The District shall consult with applicable regulatory agencies such as the San Francisco RWQCB to determine whether sediments are suitable for disposal in an upland area. If lagoon sediments are contaminated to a degree that upland disposal of these sediments would threaten surface and ground water resources, dredged sediments would be disposed of at an alternative permitted location approved by applicable regulatory agencies, such as CalRecycle and San Francisco RWQCB. Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-3a and 4.3-3b would reduce the impact associated with potential water quality degradation due to dredging activities and dredged material disposal by implementing practices and procedures during the pre-construction period of the Project that would ensure Project implementation would not have substantial adverse effects on water quality. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3-3a and 4.3-3b reduce the potential for contaminated dredge sediments to contact groundwater. The District’s Board finds Mitigation Measures 4.3-3a and 4.3-3b are feasible, adopts such measures, and finds that these measures will lessen to an insignificant level the potentially significant impacts of the Project associated with water quality degradation due to dredging activities and dredged material disposal.

11 151 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact 4.4-1: Routine Transport, Use, or Disposal of Hazardous Materials The proposed LUPA recommendations would involve some routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during vehicle maintenance; vegetation management; demolition; and dredging of the lagoon. Compliance with existing regulations would maintain impacts associated with the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials at a less-than-significant level. However, sediments excavated during lagoon dredging may contain hazardous materials, which could expose workers and park visitors to health and safety risks. This would be a potentially significant impact. Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3b would reduce the impact associated with routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials by implementing practices and procedures during the preconstruction period of the Project that would ensure Project implementation would not have substantial adverse effects regarding the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3-3b requires the District to prepare a sediment analysis plan and complete sediment testing to determine the levels of pollutants of concern within the dredged sediments. If hazardous materials are present, the District would consult with the RWQCB to determine what protective measures, if any, are required and contaminated sediments would be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable permits as well as federal and state laws that are effective in reducing or eliminating hazards related to hazardous materials. Human health and safety impacts would be avoided through adherence to these procedures, conditions, and regulations. The District’s Board finds Mitigation Measure 4.3-3b is feasible, adopts this mitigation measure, and finds that this measure will lessen to an insignificant level the potentially significant impacts of the Project associated with routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials. Impact 4.4-2: Accidental Exposure to Contaminated Soil or Groundwater Implementation of the LUPA recommendations would involve grading, excavation, and other ground-disturbing activities which could result in accidental exposure of workers and the public to contaminated soil or groundwater. A records search of the SWRCB and DTSC databases identified one site of documented contamination located within Miller/Knox, which has since been remediated, and 16 sites within 0.25 mile of Miller/Knox, which would not be affected by ground-disturbing LUPA activities. However, it is a reasonable risk to recognize that construction at Miller/Knox could encounter previously undocumented underground contamination due to the historical uses of the park. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 4.4-2: Prepare and implement a management plan for accidental exposure to underground contamination. Before issuance of grading permits, a management plan for accidental exposure to underground contamination shall be prepared by the District or the District’s contractor or construction manager. The plan shall be reviewed and approved by Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) before any ground disturbing activities. The management plan shall include measures to reduce potential hazards to workers, the public, and the environment associated with exposure to contaminated soil or groundwater during construction-related activities. The management plan shall include provisions for halting work, agency notification, managing impacted materials, sampling and analytical requirements and disposal procedures. Specifically, the construction hazardous materials management plan shall: • describe the necessary actions to be taken if evidence of contaminated soil or groundwater is encountered during any construction-type activities; • describe the types of evidence that could indicate potential hazardous materials contamination, such as soil discoloration, petroleum or chemical odors, or buried building materials; • include measures to protect worker safety if signs of contamination are encountered; • identify sampling and analysis protocols for various substances that might be encountered; • list required regulatory agency contacts if contamination is found; • include recommendations on soil management if aerially deposited lead is discovered in existing road right-of-way;

12 152 • identify legal and regulatory processes and thresholds for cleanup of contamination; • include provisions for delineation, removal, and disposal of any contaminants identified as exceeding human health risk levels; and • require that the project contractor follow all procedural direction given by CCHS to ensure that suspect soils are isolated, protected from runoff, and disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the licensed receiving facility. Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4.2 would reduce the impact associated with accidental exposure to contaminated soil or groundwater to hazardous or acutely hazardous materials by implementing practices and procedures during the pre-construction period of the Project that would ensure Project implementation would not have substantial adverse effects associated with accidental exposure to contaminated soil or groundwater. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4.2 would require a construction hazardous materials management plan for accidental exposure to underground contamination which would contain provisions for halting work, agency notification, managing impacted materials, sampling and analytical requirements and disposal procedures. These measures would reduce potential hazards to workers, the public, schools, and the environment associated with exposure to previously unknown hazardous materials during ground disturbing activities. The District’s Board finds Mitigation Measure 4.4.2 is feasible, adopts this mitigation measure, and finds that this mitigation measure will lessen to an insignificant level the potentially significant impacts of the Project associated with accidental exposure to contaminated soil or groundwater. Impact 4.4-3: Exposure of Schools to Hazardous or Acutely Hazardous Materials Of the five planning areas, only the Ridgeland Planning Area is within one-quarter mile of an existing school, the Washington Elementary School. Hazardous materials that could be used within the Ridgeland Planning Area include the use of vehicle fuels and fluids and herbicides. The emission of air pollutants from vehicles and mechanical equipment is discussed in Impact 4.9-2 of Section 4.9, “Air Quality.” Compliance with applicable federal, state, and District regulations would minimize the risk of public exposure to the routine use of hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level. However, given the historical uses of Miller/Knox there is a reasonable risk to recognize that construction could encounter previously undocumented underground contamination, which could be excavated during ground disturbing activities, exposing nearby schools to hazardous materials. This impact would be potentially significant. Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4.2 (described above) would reduce the impact associated with accidental exposure to contaminated soil or groundwater and exposure of schools to hazardous or acutely hazardous materials by implementing practices and procedures during the pre-construction period of the Project that would ensure Project implementation would not have substantial adverse effects associated with accidental exposure to contaminated soil or groundwater and exposure of schools to hazardous or acutely hazardous materials. Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.4.2 would require a construction hazardous materials management plan for accidental exposure to underground contamination which would contain provisions for halting work, agency notification, managing impacted materials, sampling and analytical requirements and disposal procedures. These measures would reduce potential hazards to workers, the public, schools, and the environment associated with exposure to previously unknown hazardous materials during ground disturbing activities. The District’s Board finds Mitigation Measure 4.4.2 is feasible, adopts this mitigation measure, and finds that this mitigation measure will lessen to an insignificant level the potentially significant impacts of the Project associated with accidental exposure to contaminated soil or groundwater.

13 153 Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 4.5-1: Change in the Significance of a Historical Resource Implementation of the LUPA recommendations would result in the rehabilitation of the historic pumphouse building. If not restored in a manner that maintains the historic integrity of the building, the rehabilitation could result in a significant impact.

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1b. Ensure appropriate rehabilitation plans for the pumphouse building. To ensure the protection of the historic integrity of the NRHP-eligible pumphouse throughout the rehabilitation period, the District shall prepare a rehabilitation plan for the pumphouse building that meets the Secretary’s Standards to the greatest degree feasible. The SOI Guidelines contain flexibility for rehabilitation of historic structures to accommodate a wide range of adapted re-uses. Specific protection measures and recommendations shall be developed in conjunction with an architect and site design team experienced in historic preservation work. Protection measures for the rehabilitation plan shall include but are not limited to, the following: • Historic finishes and materials shall be protected with appropriate methods. • Infrastructure upgrades (e.g., conduit in walls) shall be installed where they will not affect significant historic fabric. • Training on protection of historical features shall be provided for all construction workers before the beginning of work on-site. • In addition to the protective measures, above, cleaning of historic finishes using “the gentlest means possible” as directed by the Standards for Rehabilitation shall be used. Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-1b would ensure impacts to the pumphouse are less than significant by requiring compliance with the Secretary of Interior Rehabilitation Standards, which will maintain the historic integrity of the pumphouse.

The District’s Board finds Mitigation Measure 4.5-1b is feasible, adopts this mitigation measure, and finds that this measure will lessen to an insignificant level the potentially significant cultural impacts of the Project associated with rehabilitation of the pumphouse.

Impact 4.5-2: Disturb Unique Archaeological Resources Implementation of the LUPA recommendations could cause a substantial change in the significance of an archaeological resource. There are no known archaeological resources within Miller/Knox; however, ground- disturbing activities related to implementation of the LUPA could result in discovery of a previously unidentified resource and/or cause a substantial change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. This would be a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.5-2: Protection of Discovered Archaeological Resources. • Before any ground disturbing activities, the District shall retain a qualified archaeologist to conduct archaeological surveys. The District shall follow recommendations identified in the survey report, which may include activities such as subsurface testing, designing and implementing a Worker Environmental Awareness Program, monitoring of ground-disturbing activity by a qualified archaeologist, avoidance of sites, or preservation in place. • If evidence of any prehistoric or historic-era subsurface archaeological features or deposits are discovered during construction-related earth-moving activities (e.g., ceramic shard, trash scatters, lithic scatters), all ground-disturbing activity in the area of the discovery shall be halted until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. If the find is a prehistoric archeological site, the appropriate Native American group shall be notified. If the archaeologist determines that the find does not meet the CRHR standards of significance for cultural resources, activity may proceed. If the archaeologist determines that further information is needed to evaluate significance, a data recovery plan shall be prepared. If the find is determined to be significant by the qualified 14 154 archaeologist (i.e., because the find is determined to constitute either an historical resource or a unique archaeological resource), the archaeologist shall work with the District to avoid disturbance to the resources, and if complete avoidance is not feasible in light of project design, economics, logistics, and other factors, follow accepted professional standards in recording any find including submittal of the standard DPR Primary Record forms (Form DPR 523) and location information to Northwest Information Center. • In addition to adhering to applicable District Master Plan policies and Article 23 of the District’s General Conditions, the District shall comply with existing local regulations and policies that exceed or reasonably replace any of the above measures that protect archaeological resources. Finding. Compliance with the District’s General Conditions Article 23 and implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 would reduce impacts associated with accidental damage to unknown archaeological resources to a less-than-significant level by requiring the incorporation of professionally-accepted and legally-compliant procedures for the discovery of previously undocumented significant archaeological resources.

The District’s Board finds Mitigation Measure 4.5-2 is feasible, adopts this mitigation measure, and finds that this measure will lessen to an insignificant level the potentially significant impacts of the Project associated with accidental damage to unknown archaeological resources.

Transportation and Circulation Impact 4.8-1: Construction Impacts to Transportation and Circulation Construction activities and temporary construction vehicle traffic could increase traffic congestion and result in temporary travel disruptions in the area. Thus, depending on the timing and intensity of construction activities, roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities could experience a degradation in operating conditions on local streets. Although temporary, the presence of construction vehicles on local streets for extended time periods would be a potentially significant impact for local transportation. Mitigation Measure 4.8-1: Construction Traffic Control Plan. Prior to the beginning of construction or issuance of building permits, the applicant or their construction contractor shall consult with the City of Richmond Department of Public Works to determine if a Construction Traffic Control Plan would be required for the specific LUPA activity. If required, the applicant or their construction contractor shall prepare a Construction Traffic Control Plan to the satisfaction of the City of Richmond Department of Public Works, Police Department, and Fire Department. The plan will ensure that acceptable operating conditions, bicycle and pedestrian safety, and emergency access, are maintained. At a minimum, the plan shall include (but is not limited to) the following: • Description of trucks including: number and size of trucks per day, expected arrival/departure times, truck circulation patterns, and approved truck routes. • Description of staging area including: location, maximum number of trucks simultaneously permitted in staging area, use of traffic control personnel, specific signage. • Description of street closures and/or bicycle and pedestrian facility closures including: duration, advance warning and posted signage, safe and efficient access routes for existing park users and emergency vehicles and use of manual traffic control. • Description of driveway access plan including: provisions for safe vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle travel, minimum distance from any open trench, special signage, and private vehicle accesses. • Preservation of emergency vehicle access.

15 155 Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 would reduce impacts associated with construction impacts to transportation and circulation by requiring the preparation and implementation of a Construction Traffic Control Plan that would be reviewed and approved by the City of Richmond and all other responsible agencies, which would reduce the temporary impact to bicyclists and pedestrians and preserve emergency vehicle access. For these reasons, construction impacts of the proposed LUPA to roadway operations, bicycle and pedestrian safety, and emergency access would be reduced to a less- than-significant level. The District’s Board finds Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 is feasible, adopts this mitigation measure, and finds that this mitigation measure will lessen to an insignificant level the potentially significant impacts of the Project associated with construction impacts to transportation and circulation. Air Quality Impact 4.9-1: Emissions of ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5 Construction-type activities would result in emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5 from site preparation (e.g., excavation, grading, and vegetation clearing), lagoon dredging, trail improvements, grading and paving of staging areas and paved pathways, building construction, and building demolition. Construction-related activities in the worst-case scenario were modeled and were found not to exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for ROG, NOx, PM10 (exhaust), or PM2.5 (exhaust). Fugitive dust emissions would also be generated by ground disturbing activities and travel on unpaved areas (such as for the dredging and disposal activity related to the Lagoon Enhancement Project and the grading of staging areas), which contributes to the nonattainment status of particulate matter in the County. BAAQMD’s threshold for maintaining fugitive dust impacts at a less-than-significant level is the incorporation of its recommended fugitive dust BMPs. The proposed LUPA does not include any new major stationary sources of emissions. The only emissions generating long-term activities proposed are operation of the new recreational programs and storage building and potential associated new vehicle trips. However, this small number of new trips is conservative given that the recreational programs and storage building is intended to accommodate existing park programs and volunteer activities, rather than accommodate additional programs. Construction-phase emissions during the course of a day would be much greater than operational-phase emissions. Thus, because daily operational emissions would be far less than those generated during LUPA implementation, operational emissions would also not exceed BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for ROG, NOx, PM10 (exhaust), or PM2.5 (exhaust). However, if the LUPA recommendations do not adhere to BAAQMD’s recommended fugitive dust BMPs, they would conflict with the applicable air quality plan and violate air quality standards. Therefore, the impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure 4.9-1: Incorporate BAAQMD’s recommended BMPs for fugitive dust emissions. The East Bay Regional Park District (District) would require all its construction contractors to implement a dust control plan that shall include the following Basic Construction Mitigation Measures as recommended by BAAQMD: • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off site shall be covered. • All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. • All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

16 156 • All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. • Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 would reduce impacts associated with emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5 by requiring the incorporation of BAAQMD’s Basic Construction Mitigation Measures Recommended for all Proposed Projects, which contain BMPs for reducing fugitive dust emissions. Incorporation of these BMPs would ensure that construction emissions associated with the LUPA recommendations would be within BAAQMD’s thresholds of significance for fugitive dust emissions. Therefore, the proposed LUPA would not contribute to emission concentrations that exceed the NAAQS and CAAQS and would not violate or contribute substantially to the nonattainment status designated for any CAP in the county. The District’s Board finds Mitigation Measure 4.9-1 is feasible, adopts this mitigation measure, and finds that this measure will lessen to an insignificant level the potentially significant impacts of the Project associated with construction impacts to transportation and circulation. Noise and Vibration Impact 4.11-1: Short-Term Construction Noise Impacts Noise-intensive construction activities proposed in the LUPA include lagoon dredging; building demolition; removal of abandoned railroad tracks; facility and amenity upgrades at Keller Beach; trail improvement and decommissioning; construction of the recreational programs and storage building; and establishment of new, formalized, and expanded staging areas requiring site preparation, such as excavation, grading, and vegetation clearing, and paving. These activities might involve the use of heavy-duty construction equipment that would generate noise that could affect nearby sensitive receptors, such as residences in the area. Based on typical equipment noise reference levels, usage factors of individual pieces of equipment, and attenuation rates with distance to a receptor, combined equipment maximum noise levels were calculated for each noise-intensive LUPA recommendation. Based on these calculations, construction of the proposed facility and amenity upgrades at Keller Beach could result in a substantial temporary increase in noise levels that may exceed the City’s construction noise ordinance standard and affect residences in the immediate project vicinity. This impact would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure 4.11-1: Reduce Construction Levels During Demolition Phase of Keller Beach Facility and Amenity Upgrades. The noise generation of future construction projects proposed in the LUPA have been modeled based on conservative assumptions to avoid the risk of understating impacts. Actual construction noise may vary from the assumptions used in this analysis. Thus, when design details for the facility and amenity upgrades at Keller Beach are developed, specific construction activities, equipment, and locations will be more precisely defined. Prior to construction, the District will confirm reasonably expected construction noise levels associated with the Keller Beach facility and amenity upgrades, based on the project design details and planned equipment. If the confirmation finds that the demolition phase noise level does not exceed the City’s standard of 75 dB Lmax for single-family residences, then no further mitigation is required.

If the District finds that construction noise levels would exceed the City’s standard of 75 dB Lmax for single- family residences near Keller Beach, or decides not to confirm construction noise levels associated with the Keller Beach facility and amenity upgrades, then the District will require the contractor to install a temporary noise curtain as close as possible to noise-generating demolition activities such that the curtain obstructs the direct line of sight between the noise-generating construction activity and the nearby sensitive receptors. Temporary noise curtains shall consist of durable, flexible composite material featuring a noise barrier layer bounded to sound-absorptive material on one side. The noise barrier layer shall consist of rugged, impervious,

17 157 material with a surface weight of at least one pond per square foot. Such barriers typically result in at least 5 dB of noise reduction. Taller barriers prove increased noise reduction.

The District may also specify noise emission standards for individual equipment, if needed to achieve adequate noise levels at sensitive receptors, such as using an excavator for concrete pad removal instead of a concrete saw, where feasible and consistent with building codes and other applicable laws and regulations. Using an excavator instead of a concrete saw would result in a noise reduction of up to 3.1 dB at the nearest sensitive receptor.

The District shall monitor noise and confirm that the temporary noise curtain and/or implementation of noise emission standards for individual equipment would reduce construction noise levels at Keller Beach, such that noise levels would not exceed 79.4 dB Lmax, measured at the park boundary nearest to the sensitive receptors north of Keller Beach.

Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 would reduce impacts associated with short-term construction noise to a less-than-significant level by providing several options for the District to avoid exposure of the residences located near Keller Beach to construction generated noise levels that exceed 75 dBLmax, including possible re-evaluation of noise levels once project design details are known or implementing noise reduction measures such as specifying noise emission standards for individual equipment and installing a temporary noise curtain. With these measures, construction noise levels associated with the Keller Beach facility and amenity upgrades would not exceed applicable City standards and that a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels would not occur.

The District’s Board finds Mitigation Measure 4.11-1 is feasible, adopts this mitigation measure, and finds that this measure will lessen to an insignificant level the potentially significant impacts of the Project associated with construction impacts to noise.

G. FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE EFFECTS The PEIR identifies the following significant and unavoidable adverse impact associated with the Project, which can be reduced, although not to a less-than significant level, through implementation of mitigation measures identified in the PEIR.1 To the extent that these mitigation measures will not mitigate or avoid all significant effects on the environment, it is hereby determined that this significant and unavoidable adverse impact is acceptable for the reasons specified in Section J below2. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Impact 4.5-1: Change in the Significance of an Historical Resource Implementation of the LUPA recommendations would result in partial demolition of the historic warehouse building within the Ferry Point Planning Area. The warehouse building is a historic resource within the City because of its association with the Ferry Point Pier. Demolishing and replacing the building with another use would result in a significant impact because the historic resource would be partially eliminated. Mitigation Measure 4.5-1a: Document historic buildings before removal. The District shall complete documentation of the historic warehouse and pumphouse buildings before any demolition/construction work is conducted. Documentation shall consist of written history of the property, plans, and drawings of the historic resources, and photographs, as described below: • Written History. The report shall be reproduced on archival bond paper. • Plans and Drawings. An architectural historian (or historical architect, as appropriate) shall conduct research into the availability of plans and drawings of the Historic Warehouse Building as the building

1 California Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(1). 2 California Public Resources Code § 21081(a)(3). 18 158

currently exists. If such plans/drawings exist, their usefulness as documentation for the building shall be evaluated by the architectural historian. If deemed adequate, the plans/drawings shall be reproduced on archival mylar. If no plans/drawings are available, or if the existing plans/drawings are not found to be useful in documenting the historic resource, a historical architect shall prepare dimensioned plans and exterior elevations of the building. A combination of existing and new drawings is acceptable. All drawings shall be reproduced on archival mylar. The architectural historian shall conduct research into the existence of the original architectural plans and drawings of the building. If found, the plans shall be reproduced on archival mylar. Alternatively, the architectural plans can be scanned and saved as TIFF files. The scanning resolution shall be not less than 300 dpi. All digital files, including drawing files, shall be saved on media and labeled following the Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation Digital Photography Specifications. • Photographs. Digital photographs shall be taken of the historic warehouse and pumphouse buildings following the Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation Digital Photography Standards. The documentation shall be prepared by an architectural historian, or historical architect as appropriate, meeting the Secretary’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation, Professional Qualification Standards. The documentation shall be submitted to the Contra Costa County Library, Contra Costa County Museums, and the Richmond Historic Register.

Finding. The District’s Board finds Mitigation Measure 4.5-1a is feasible, adopts such measure, and finds that this measure will lessen the potentially significant impacts of the Project associated with a change in the significance of an historical resource for the historic warehouse building at Ferry Point, though not to a less- than-significant level. The District’s Board finds that even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, the impact associated with the partial demolition of the historic warehouse building will be a significant and unavoidable impact to cultural resources. H. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION FEATURES As referenced above in the findings, a MMRP has been prepared for the project and is to be adopted concurrently with these findings and statement of overriding considerations pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081(a)(1). The MMRP is a separate stand-alone document that will be used by the District to track compliance with the Project mitigation measures. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period, which includes pre-construction coordination, construction, and post-construction documentation.

Additionally, environmental protection features were identified by the District and incorporated into the Project to avoid significant environmental effects and can be found within the PEIR in Section 3.9. These environmental protection features are including in the MMRP and will be incorporated into the contract requirements for the Project construction under the responsibility of the designated Project Contractor and District to ensure no new significant impacts occur during construction of the Project.

I. ALTERNATIVES The FPEIR evaluated three Project alternatives as required by the State CEQA Guidelines §15126.6, which requires an EIR to “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, …[that] would feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to determine whether a Project alternative would feasibly reduce or eliminate significant impacts, while meeting most of the basic objectives of the proposed LUPA.

19 159 The range of alternatives studied in an EIR is governed by the “rule of reason,” requiring evaluation of only those alternatives “necessary to permit a reasoned choice.” Further, an agency “need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.” The analysis should focus on alternatives that are feasible, meaning that they may be accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking economic, environmental, social, and technological factors into account. Alternatives that are remote or speculative or that do not feasibly meet most of the project objectives need not be discussed. Furthermore, the alternatives analyzed for a project should focus on reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts associated with the project, as proposed. The purpose of the Project is to “enhance the existing environmental and scenic values at Miller/Knox while providing additional recreational and interpretive opportunities for park visitors, consistent with the District’s Vision and Core Mission as included in the 2013 Master Plan.” The objectives of the proposed LUPA are listed below. The evaluation of alternatives is conducted in the context of seeking to meet the Project purpose and most of these objectives. Specific objectives of the LUPA are to: • Protect and enhance existing natural, historic, and scenic resources. • Improve public access through additional trails, pathways, and parking. • Enhance physical fitness opportunities. • Provide additional interpretive and recreational programming. • Optimize opportunities for quiet reflection and passive recreation. • Incorporate strategies for climate adaptation, sea-level rise, and resiliency. Potentially significant impacts of the Project were identified for biological resources, hydrology and water quality, hazards and hazardous materials, archaeological resources, traffic, and air quality. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level, as discussed in these Findings. A significant impact to cultural resources was identified and determined to be significant and unavoidable. Specifically, the Project would result in the partial demolition of the historic warehouse building at Ferry Point. The Project would provide a day-use picnic area in its place and include mitigation involving information collection and photography prior to any demolition activities and interpretive opportunities for sharing information about the demolished structure and other historic resources of Ferry Point; however, because the warehouse building would be partially demolished, the impact would be significant and feasible mitigation measures are not sufficient to eliminate the impact or reduce it to a less-than-significant level. The District’s Board has reviewed the significant impacts associated with each of the Project alternatives and has compared them with the significant impacts associated with the Project. The District’s Board has also considered the feasibility of each alternative, considering a range of economic, environmental, social, legal, and other factors. The District’s Board concludes that each of the Project alternatives is infeasible and/or less desirable than the Project. The Board’s analysis and conclusions with respect to the Project alternatives is presented in this section. The following three Project alternatives were evaluated in the FPEIR: Alternative 1: No Project Alternative, also identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative, assumes that the Project is not approved and that the existing condition of Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline would continue. The lagoon would remain in the current condition and would not be comprehensively dredged – only on-going annual routine maintenance dredging would occur. Additionally, there would be no improvements or public access to the historic buildings at Ferry Point, development of a new recreational programs and storage building within the Bray property, parking capacity improvements, and development of the Grand Promenade, all of which would provide beneficial effects to public access and interpretation. LUPA recommendations expected to occur under the No Project Alternative through existing approvals or through a CEQA exemption process include: trail recommendations and vegetation management in the Ridgeland Planning Area; establishment of new picnic areas throughout Miller/Knox; creation of a trail along the east side of the lagoon; removal of the abandoned railroad tracks along the Bayshore and developing a section of San Francisco Bay Trail; formalized access across the railroad property; replacing irrigated turf with drought tolerant, climate-friendly species; establishing demonstration gardens and trails on the Bray Planning Area;

20 160 relocating the green-waste storage site to the Bray Planning Area; and routine maintenance dredging of the lagoon. • The No Project Alternative would result in reduced impacts to biological resource; geology and soils; hazards and hazardous materials; cultural resources; transportation and circulation; air quality; greenhouse gas emissions; noise and vibration; and public services and utilities relative to the Project. • The No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts to hydrology and water quality relative to the Project. • The No Project Alternative would result in greater impacts to aesthetics; recreation; and climate change relative to the Project. The No Project Alternative would not achieve the Project objectives. Specifically, it would not enhance existing natural, historic, and scenic resources; improve public access through additional trails, pathways, and parking; enhance physical fitness opportunities; provide additional interpretive and recreational programming; or incorporate strategies for climate adaptation, sea-level rise, and resiliency to the same degree as the Project. Under the No Project Alternative, Miller/Knox Regional Shoreline would remain in its current condition and only those LUPA recommendations that could be implemented through existing approvals or through the CEQA exemption process would occur. For these reasons, the District’s Board rejects the No Project Alternative. Alternative 2: Increased Rehabilitation Alternative would include all components of the Project except that instead of partially demolishing the historic warehouse building at Ferry Point and re-using it as a day-use picnic area, it would be rehabilitated for passive public use and interpretation along with the historic pumphouse building. The warehouse would be upgraded to current building codes to provide safe public access to the site. The building upgrade would preserve a portion of the historic elements of the building for public appreciation and interpretation. The warehouse would not be demolished or partially demolished and would serve as a passive historical interpretive feature to expand on the existing interpretative focus of Ferry Point. • The Increased Rehabilitation Alternative would result in reduced impacts to cultural resources relative to the Project. • The Increased Rehabilitation Alternative would result in similar impacts to biological resources; geology and soils; hydrology and water quality; hazards and hazardous materials; recreation and public access; transportation and circulation; air quality; greenhouse gas emissions and climate change; noise and vibration; public services and utilities relative to the Project. • The Increased Rehabilitation Alternative would result in greater impacts to aesthetics relative to the Project. The Increased Rehabilitation Alternative would require numerous architectural and structural upgrades; installation of new electrical, mechanical, and plumbing systems; emergency vehicle access; and new parking. Use as a District visitor center or museum would also require new staff. Furthermore, according to the conceptual cost estimate that was prepared as part of the 2015 Ferry Point Buildings Study, the full rehabilitation of both buildings would cost anywhere from $700,000 to $1.8 million more than what is currently proposed in the LUPA for the Ferry Point buildings.

While the Increased Rehabilitation Alternative would achieve most of the Project objectives, it would not meet the purpose and objectives of the LUPA and the District’s Master Plan as well as the proposed Project. Rehabilitating and restoring the historic pumphouse building for passive interpretive use and retaining as much of the historic warehouse building as possible for reuse as a day-use and scenic vista point area would better balance the objectives of the LUPA to preserve historic resources with the objectives of the LUPA to provide recreation, access, and scenic values. With the Increased Rehabilitation Alternative, a day-use and scenic vista area would not be developed for the public’s benefit. The Increased Rehabilitation Alternative would also not

21 161 be as effective as the Project at meeting the objective to incorporate strategies for climate adaptation and resiliency because solar panels would not be installed to provide electrical power for existing lighting on the fishing pier and irrigation for new plantings.

Compared to the Project, the Increased Rehabilitation Alternative would also not best meet the purpose of the LUPA “to enhance the existing environmental and scenic values at Miller/Knox while providing additional recreational and interpretive opportunities for park visitors, consistent with the District’s Vision and Core Mission as included in the 2013 Master Plan.” The District’s Core Mission, as stated in the Master Plan, is to “acquire, develop, manage, and maintain a high quality, diverse system of interconnected parklands which balances public usage and education programs with protection and preservation of our natural and cultural resources.” The Master Plan directs the District “to be especially cautious in planning for its long term financial security and maintaining its responsibility for the best use of public funding,” recognizing the need to balance competing District goals and funding priorities and to ensure sound fiscal policy (District 2013).

The Increased Rehabilitation Alternative does not best achieve the purpose of the LUPA and its objectives to achieve a balance between the goal of protecting historic values with the goals of enhancing natural and scenic resources and providing additional recreational opportunities, consistent with the Master Plan’s directive for the District to balance funding priorities and responsibly use public funding. For all the foregoing reasons, the District’s Board rejects the Increased Rehabilitation Alternative.

Alternative 3: Lagoon Breach Alternative would implement all components of the Project except that instead of implementing the Lagoon Enhancement Project, which would comprehensively dredge the lagoon to improve water quality, the lagoon would be breached to allow daily tidal action. This alternative would have beneficial impacts to natural Bay system processes by establishing a direct tidal connection between the lagoon and San Francisco Bay across a new sandy pocket beach, creating new tidal/estuarine ecosystem along extended margins of the lagoon, and integrating additional public access. The existing pump facilities would remain operational for use during exceptional wave events that could result in sand buildup within the inlet, providing optimal operational flexibility. The Lagoon Breach Alternative could excavate 240,000 cubic yards or more of material to deepen and widen the existing lagoon, which would be disposed of at an off-site location. • The Lagoon Breach Alternative would not result in reduced impacts to any of the impact areas relative to the Project. • The Lagoon Breach Alternative would result in similar impacts to hazards and hazardous materials; cultural resources; and aesthetics relative to the Project. • The Lagoon Breach Alternative would result in greater impacts to biological resources; geology and soils; hydrology and water quality; recreation and public access; transportation and circulation; air quality; noise and vibration; and public services and utilities relative to the Project. The Lagoon Breach Alternative would achieve the Project objectives essentially to the same degree as the Project. However, it would not reduce any of the potentially significant environmental impacts relative to the Project and would result in greater impacts in several of the impact areas relative to the Project. For these reasons, the District’s Board rejects the Lagoon Breach Alternative.

22 162

Alternatives Considered but Rejected for Further Analysis CEQA Guidelines §15126.6 sets forth several requirements regarding the consideration of alternatives in an EIR. This section, and related case law, hold that alternatives that are not reasonable or are infeasible need not be discussed at length; alternatives that do not offer substantial environmental advantages over the Project can be rejected from consideration; and alternatives that do not accomplish most of the basic objectives of the Project can be excluded from detailed analysis. Alternatives considered, but rejected from further analysis in the PEIR include: Parking Capacity Alternatives Dornan Drive Alternative 1 – District and City of Richmond Property. Dornan Drive Alternative 1 would provide a total of 33 parking spaces, including two ADA stalls, with some of the parking spaces and the access driveway from Dornan Drive located on City-owned property. Dornan Drive Alternative 1 would not require any tree removal but would require an easement from the City of Richmond. Dornan Drive Alternative 2 – District Property Only. Dornan Drive Alternative 2 would also provide a total of 33 parking spaces, including two ADA stalls. All parking spaces and the access driveway from Dornan Drive would be located on District-owned property. The access driveway would require removal of approximately seven coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees, ranging in breast-height diameter between 6 inches and 27 inches. Canal Boulevard Alternative 1- District Access Easement Only. Canal Boulevard Alternative 1 would be developed on an access easement held by the District on property owned by the City of Richmond. The staging area would include four parking spaces, two for any vehicle and two ADA stalls. Implementation of Canal Boulevard Alternative 1 would likely require removal of eucalyptus trees, such as five single-trunk trees and two multi-trunk trees, for a total of 11 distinct trunks with breast- height diameter ranging between 3 inches and 22 inches. Finding. The District’s Board finds that the Project would best meet the Project objectives, specifically the objective to improve public access through additional trails, pathways, and parking. The Project would enhance and formalize the existing parking area at Dornan Drive and would formalize existing off-street parking at Canal Boulevard, which would provide additional parking spaces for existing park visitors and would respond to the increased demand expected from the nearby, planned residential development projects, including the Terminal One and Quarry Residential developments. Implementation of either of the Dornan Drive Alternatives and the Canal Boulevard Alternative would result in 75 fewer parking spaces than the Project. Therefore, the Project would better achieve the objectives of the proposed LUPA by providing more parking spaces. Furthermore, the reduced parking alternatives would not avoid or substantially lessen any identified environmental impacts of the Project, because construction activities would be similar to the construction activities required to implement the Project for parking. Grading and paving activities would be slightly reduced; however, they would have similar impacts related to fugitive dust emissions and increased impervious surfaces. Although these impacts would be reduced under the moderate parking capacity improvements, the reduction would not be a substantial such that significant impacts would be avoided. Additionally, implementation of the Dornan Drive alternatives would remove more trees than the Project. Therefore, these alternatives have been rejected based on CEQA Section 15126.6(c): (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives and (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts and are not discussed further in this document. Given that this is a program-level EIR, alternative parking configurations, including those discussed above, could be considered in the future. Additionally, the District’s Board finds that the PEIR correctly rejected these alternatives from further analysis.

23 163 Historic Warehouse Demolition Alternative. The DPEIR also considered a complete demolition of the historic warehouse building on Ferry Point, instead of the Project, which includes partial demolition of the historic warehouse building and adaptive reuse as a day-use and scenic vista area. Under this alternative, the existing concrete structural side and roof beams would not be retained to delineate a structure for the picnic area. Instead, the entire structure would be demolished and removed from the Ferry Point Planning Area. Only the building footprint would remain. Finding. The District’s Board finds that the Project would best meet the Project objectives, specifically the objective to protect and enhance existing natural, historic, and scenic resources. The Project would retain part of the historic warehouse and re-purpose it to create a vista point and includes interpretation of the building’s history. For these reasons, it would better achieve the Project objective to protect and enhance existing historic and scenic resources. Furthermore, the historic warehouse demolition alternative would not avoid or substantially lessen any identified environmental impacts of the Project because construction/demolition activities would be similar to the construction/demolition activities required to implement the Project, and impacts to historic resources would be greater. Therefore, this alternative has been rejected based on CEQA Section 15126.6(c): (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives and (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts and is not discussed further in this document. The District’s Board further finds that the PEIR correctly rejected these alternatives from further analysis. Environmentally Superior Alternative The DPEIR identified the No Project Alternative as the Environmentally Superior Alternative because it would reduce most of the impacts resulting from LUPA implementation except for hydrology and water quality, aesthetic, and recreational impacts. However, the No Project Alternative would not meet all of the Project objectives. When the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the State CEQA Guidelines (§15126.6[e][2]) require selection of an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives evaluated, which here would be the Increased Rehabilitation Alternative. However, while the Increased Rehabilitation Alternative would avoid the impact to cultural resources, it would not achieve the objective of enhancing scenic quality/public visual access through development of a day-use area next to San Francisco Bay. A determination of which environmental condition is superior depends on a value decision about whether historic resource protection or scenic quality/public visual access is a higher priority environmental outcome.

J. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The PEIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources that can be lessened with the implementation of mitigation measures but not to a less-than-significant level. The impact would result from the partial demolition of the historic warehouse building to develop a day-use and scenic vista area. As a result, pursuant to Section 15093, the District must “balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region-wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks, when determining whether to approve the project.” Those specific reasons to support an action taken by the District must be included in a written statement of overriding considerations that is supported by substantial evidence within the administrative record. The District’s Board finds that the Project would provide the following benefits: • The Project would enhance native habitats and protect sensitive biotic resources. • The Project would improve and add new pedestrian and hiking trails, thereby increasing opportunities for physical fitness and improving connectivity through Miller/Knox.

24 164 • The Project would provide new and expanded parking and staging areas, so more members of the public could use the regional park. • The Project would improve and provide new picnic areas and other park amenities for the public to use. • The Project would preserve historic resources for public appreciation and interpretation and would provide educational panels and information to highlight the role of Ferry Point’s historic contribution to intermodal transportation, and its role in World War II and the development of the City of Richmond. • The Project would provide educational opportunities, including an outdoor classroom and educational panels. • The Project would provide much needed dredging for the lagoon to enhance active recreation and improve lagoon habitat and water quality. • The Project would provide a more cost-effective solution regarding the historic warehouse building than would the full restoration alternative. • The Project would improve and increase scenic resources including scenic vistas for the public to enjoy. • The Project would provide solar panels to provide electricity for existing and future operational needs, including lighting on the fishing pier and irrigation systems for future planting areas. • The Project would create new opportunities for quiet reflection and passive recreation. Having balanced the benefits of the LUPA against its significant and unavoidable cultural resources impact, the District’s Board finds that the benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable environmental effects related to the loss of a historic resource. Therefore, the adverse effects are acceptable given the importance of this Project to the overall mission of the District to provide “open space, parks, trails, safe and healthful recreation and environmental education.” The District Board further finds that each of the Project benefits discussed above is a separate and independent basis for these findings. K. STATEMENT OF LOCATION AND CUSTODIAN OF DOCUMENTS Public Resources Code §21081.6(a)(2) requires the District, as the Lead Agency, specify the location and custodian of the documents of other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision has been based. The following location is where review of the record may be performed: East Bay Regional Park District Administrative Office 2950 Peralta Oaks Court; Oakland, CA 94605 The District’s Board has relied on all the documents contained within the record of proceedings in reaching its decision on the project. L. RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED No significant new information was added to the DPEIR or the FPEIR as a result of the public comment process. The FPEIR responds to comments, and clarifies, amplifies, and makes insignificant modifications to the DPEIR. It does not identify any new significant effects on the environment or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact requiring major revisions to the DPEIR. Therefore, recirculation of the PEIR is not required. M.INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE These findings incorporate the text of the PEIR for the Project by reference and in their entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, the determination of the environmentally superior alternative, and the reasons for approving the Project in spite of the potential for a significant and unavoidable adverse impact. N. CONCLUSION

25 165 Based on the Findings and the information contained in the record, the District’s Board has found that each of the potentially significant effects of the Project are mitigated to a less-than-significant level by the changes or alterations that have been required in, or incorporated into the project with the exception of the significant and unavoidable impact to cultural resources from the partial demolition of the historic warehouse building at Ferry Point, for which the Board will adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, it is determined that none of the Project alternatives is feasible or desirable.

26 166 PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

3. PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION

PUBLIC HEARING

a. An Ordinance of the East Bay Regional Park District Amending Ordinance 38: Rules and Regulations of the Park District (Love/Ciaburro/Victor)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager and the Board Operations Committee (by unanimous vote) recommend approval of the attached amendments to Ordinance 38, the rules and regulations of the Park District (last amended April 2016).

REVENUE / COST

District costs are not expected to change as a result of this action.

BACKGROUND

Ordinance 38 outlines the rules and regulations of the Park District and was last amended in April 2016. The per Chapter II. Section 200.1 of the Ordinance: “All persons entering upon District parkland shall abide by the rules and regulations of the District, the laws of the State of California, and all applicable county and/or municipal ordinances.” Chapter III. Section 300. Provides the authority for the District to adopt these rules and regulations: “All sections of this Ordinance are adopted pursuant to Section 5541, 5558, 5559, and 5560 of the Public Resources Code of the State of California and apply to all District parklands.”

The Public Safety Division coordinates the biennial review process for proposed modifications of Ordinance 38. The current revision process began in October 2017 and is now complete. Several changes and/or modifications to the Ordinance were proposed by District staff and members of the public.

The proposals were reviewed by the Operations/Public Safety Working Group, the Park District’s Executive Team and District Counsel. The proposed amendments to Ordinance 38 were presented and recommended at the Park Advisory Committee (PAC) meeting on

167 November 26, 2018 and were reviewed and approved by the Board Operations Committee on November 29, 2018. Today’s Board of Director’s Meeting is the third public meeting discussing these proposed changes.

Staff will make a presentation of the proposed changes to Ordinance 38 to the Board of Directors. The most significant proposed additions or changes are described below:

Camping defined (Section 400.6) This new section of Ordinance 38 defines camping to mean all types of camping including traditional tent camping, RV camping, cabin camping, and camping at walk-in sites. Smoke-free Parks (Section 404.3) In the 2016 update of Ordinance 38, smoking in the East Bay Regional Park District was eliminated with the exception of within overnight campsites. This change to Ordinance 38 will eliminate the exception of inside overnight campsites to the smoke-free parks ordinance.

Nudity language updated (Section 405) This update of section 405 brings Ordinance 38 in alignment with current California law. The section will add the exemption of nudity to include breastfeeding mothers.

Mooring a vessel on Park District lands (Section 503.15) Currently, Ordinance 38 has some restrictions regarding mooring a vessel on Park District lands or in Park District waters. This addition to Ordinance 38 outlines the restrictions of mooring a vessel in or on Park District lands as well as establishes the penalty to be a misdemeanor.

Leash requirements (Section 801.2) This modification of the current regulation regarding leash requirements for pet owners, clarifies the spirit of the law regarding the 200 foot area surrounding developed areas.

Leash requirements during active grazing (Section 801.21) For the safety of both grazing animals and personal pets, this addition to Ordinance 38 will require pets to be securely leashed in areas where grazing animals are present or where posted as active grazing.

Electric Bicycles (Section 902.3 (e)) The current language in Ordinance 38 prohibits the use of electric bicycles on Park District lands. After a pilot program conducted by the Operations Division it was recommended to allow electric bicycles (Class I and Class II only) on certain paved regional trails within the Park District. This addition to Ordinance 38 will allow electric bicycles on the Alameda Creek Trail (paved side only), Big Break Trail, Contra Costa Canal Trail, Delta De Anza Trail, George Miller Trail, Iron Horse Trail, Lafayette Moraga Trail, and Marsh Creek Trail.

ALTERNATIVE

No alternatives are recommended.

168 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

ORDINANCE NO.: 2019 – 003 -

March 19, 2019

AN ORDINANCE OF THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT AMENDING ORDINANCE 38: RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE PARK DISTRICT

WHEREAS, Ordinance 38 outlines the rules and regulations of the East Bay Regional Park District and was last amended in April 2016; and

WHEREAS, the General Manager, the Board Operations Committee and the Park Advisory Committee have recommended changes to Ordinance 38 to govern public use of regional parklands and protect park resources as noted below; and

WHEREAS, the specific changes to Ordinance 38 are noted in this Ordinance by crossing out language to be deleted and additions in bold italicized text; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District that Ordinance 38 is amended as follows:

Section I: Section: Text: 400.6 Unless otherwise expressly provided, “camp,” “camping,” “campsite,” and “campground” include all types of camping, including traditional tent (NEW) camping, RV camping, cabin camping, and camping at walk-in sites.

404.3 Smoke-Free Parks. Smoking is prohibited in the East Bay Regional Park District with the exception of in overnight campsites. “Smoking” means inhaling, exhaling, burning or carrying any lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, weed, plant or other combustible organic or chemical substance, the smoke from which is specifically designed or intended to be inhaled or drawn into the nose or mouth. In addition “smoking” for the purpose of this Ordinance includes the use of any vapor device, of any product name or descriptor, which releases gases, particles or vapors into the air as a result of combustion, electrical ignition or vaporization intended to be drawn into the nose or mouth (excluding any United States Food and Drug Administration approved nebulized medication) (added 4/16).

405 NUDITY. No person shall appear, swim, bathe, sunbathe, walk or be in any of the parks, lands, beaches, waters or any place owned, managed, controlled or otherwise under the jurisdiction of the East Bay Regional Park District….. This subdivision shall not apply to children under the age of 5 years or breastfeeding mothers.

169 503.15 Every person who anchors a vessel in waters owned and/or operated by the District or moors a vessel to a dock or fixed structure at or on (NEW) District property, for a period of time exceeding 4 hours or between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m., is guilty of a misdemeanor.

801.2 Leash Required Areas (Developed Areas). No person shall bring into, or permit any dog, cat, or animal, to enter any Developed Area or be within approximately 200 feet (or as posted to address trail conditions or conflicting uses) of any parking lot, trail head or staging area, as posted, unless such animal is securely leashed and under control of that person.

801.21 For the safety of both pets and grazing animals, no person shall bring any dog, or other animal, into an area posted as active grazing or where (NEW) grazing animals are present unless such animal is securely leashed and under the owner’s complete control.

902.3 (e) This section shall not apply to Class I or Class II electric bicycles on the following trails: Alameda Creek Trail (paved side only), Big Break Trail, (NEW) Contra Costa Canal Trail, Delta De Anza Trail, George Miller Trail, Iron Horse Trail Lafayette Moraga Trail, and Marsh Creek Trail.

Section 2. All other sections of Ordinance 38 shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 3. This Ordinance shall be published once within 30 days after adoption, in a newspaper of general circulation printed, published and circulated in the District.

Section 4. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its adoption by the Board.

Section 5. Section I of this Ordinance shall be codified as part of Ordinance 38. Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this Ordinance shall NOT be codified.

Moved by Director , seconded by Director and adopted this 19th day of March, 2019, by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

170 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

3. PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager recommends that the Board of Directors authorize entering into a contract with AXON of Scottsdale, Arizona for police officer safety equipment including : Body Word Cameras, Conductive Energy Devices, (Tasers), Fleet Vehicle Audio and Video Recording and Cloud Based Evidence and Storage and Management for an amount up to $939,387 over a five year period.

REVENUE/COST

Funding for the first year of this contract, 2019, is included in the 2019 Public Safety Division budget, Account No. 101-8120-000-6443 through the course of the annual budget process. Staff has obtained a negotiated quotation in the amount of $939,386.83 (including tax), which includes 70 personal body cameras and five spares, 67 Conductive Energy Weapons, 40 in-car camera systems, digital cloud storage for electronic evidence, access to Evidence.com for review and transfer of digital evidence, and Computer Aided Dispatch integration. Annual funding to meet these contract obligations for years 2020-2024 will be recommended through the regular budget process.

SOURCE OF FUNDS Police operating budget-101-8120-000-6443 $169,000 General Fund appropriations (Years 2020-2024) $192,596.71 per year $939,386.83

USE OF FUNDS Contract with Axon over a 5-year period $939,386.83

171 BACKGROUND

The East Bay Regional Park District Police Department first fielded personal body cameras in 2009 and was one of the first Police Departments in the San Francisco Bay Area to field this burgeoning technology. The Department has been using personal body cameras continually since their implementation. The Police Department has seen great results and benefits from its early implementation.

Since the beginning, the Police Department has used VieVU as the supplier for personal body cameras. Numerous camera hardware upgrades have occurred since 2009. In 2018, VieVU was acquired by Axon.

In 2003, the East Bay Regional Park District Police Department first deployed Conductive Energy Devices (CED), commonly referred to by their brand name Taser, to officers in the field. The Police Department has always been supplied with equipment and services for our CED program from Taser International (now AXON). CEDs have increased the safety of Park District staff and park users by providing Park District officers will less than lethal options.

In-car cameras were first installed in East Bay Regional Park District Police Department patrol vehicles in 2005. The Police Department initially used Watch Guard as their identified vendor. The Watch Guard systems relied on compact discs for data storage and the video recorded was very low quality. Very few vehicles where outfitted with these systems. In 2009, the Police Department identified the need to upgrade the capabilities of their in-car camera systems. Digital Ally was selected as the vendor for this upgrade. The Digital Ally systems were a step forward in functionality and usability. The Digital Ally platform used secure digital memory cards (SD cards) for the storage of data. These SD cards still required manual manipulation to facilitate downloading, which was not optimal. These systems have now reached their end of serviceable life.

Axon is an industry leader in cloud-based evidence management software used by 48 major cities in north America, including Oakland, Los Angeles, San Jose and San Francisco. They began developing police protective equipment in 1993, changed the company name from Tasar to Axon in 2017. Axon supplies police departments with an all-encompassing package of items and services including, personal body cameras, in car audio and video recording, conductive energy devices (CED / Taser), digital evidence storage, and comprehensive digital evidence management software. District Counsel has approved Axon as a sole source vendor for the District.

Additional details of the 5-year contract are described below:

Personal Body Cameras - The East Bay Regional Park District Police Department currently uses VieVU personal body cameras, VieVU was purchased and is now a subsidiary of AXON. This contract would supply the Police Department with (70) Axon Body 2 cameras and several on- site spares. The contract will also allow for two rounds of upgrades to the camera hardware during the life of the contract. This would keep officers supplied with the most up to date, highest resolution, personal body cameras for the length of the contract.

172 Conductive Energy Devices / Taser - The Police Department currently uses Axon for its supply of CEDs (Tasers). This contract would provide for 67 technologically updated CEDs for all officers, along with all the cartridges needed for training and duty by the Police Department for the length of the contract.

In Car Audio and Video Recording - The Police Department is currently fielding a very few number of antiquated in car recording systems from Digital Ally. These systems have run out of their usable life span and are no longer fully supported by the manufacturer. This contract would provide for forty (40) in car camera systems, so that every patrol vehicle in the Police Department’s fleet would have up to date and functioning cameras. The systems would be both forward facing and rear seat facing. The supplied camera hardware will be updated two times during the contract to ensure that officers have the most up to date system. The in-car camera systems will also automatically sync to the personal body cameras worn by officers allowing for seamless activations of both systems to increase the recorded field of vision for each activation.

Digital Evidence Storage and Management - Currently, the Police Department maintains its own on-site evidence server that all digital evidence (audio and video recordings) are downloaded to. As the entire system is on-site, there is no redundant backup of data at a secondary location. This creates a single point of failure and is not an evidentiary best practice. Our current evidence server also has a limited storage capacity of 20 terabytes, of which 14 terabytes are already used. It is very costly to maintain and continually upgrade our own evidence storage infrastructure.

The Axon contract provides full access to Evidence.com for all our officers and staff. Evidence.com is a cloud-based evidence storage solution which will integrate all of the AXON’s technology into one platform for unlimited storage of digital evidence. This contract would also provide for the opportunity to transfer the Police Department’s current digital evidence into Evidence.com. This platform has the ability to provide officers the ability to download and review evidence and streamline their daily work. Evidence.com addresses our Department’s current issues of our data/evidence being secure, remotely accessible and redundantly saved.

Additionally, Evidence.com offers a software suite that eases officer’s and staff’s interactions with the data being collected daily. Recordings can be uploaded remotely through the Police Department’s already functioning secure network, including the in-car secure mobile network. The software suite also includes advanced redaction capability, which is rapidly becoming extremely important in the realm of Public Record Act requests. Evidence.com will also be integrated with our Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system (RIMS) as well as provide the ability to securely share data/evidence with both Alameda and Contra Costa Counties District Attorney’s Offices.

Overall, AXON will provide the East Bay Regional Park District Police Department with a compressive and progressive solution to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of individual officers and the Police Department. This contract and expenditure will, attract and retain a workforce of excellence, assist in fostering a safe visitor experience, and help to preserve, protect and maintain scenic, natural and cultural resources of the East Bay Regional Park District.

173 ALTERNATIVES

No alternatives are recommended.

174 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2019 – 003 –

March 19, 2019

AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT FOR SERVICES WITH AXON TO SUPPLY THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH: NEW BODY WORN CAMERAS, CONDUCTIVE ELECTRONIC DEVICES (TASERS), FLEET VEHICLE AUDIO AND VIDEO RECORDING, AND CLOUD BASED EVIDENCE STORAGE AND MANAGEMENT

WHEREAS, the East Bay Regional Park District (Park District) desires to maintain a professional Public Safety Division that is equipped with the most appropriate equipment to provide safe and accountable service; and

WHEREAS, the Public Safety Division has secured funding for year one of the contract in the 2019 Budget; and

WHEREAS, Axon of Scottsdale, Arizona has the experience and capabilities to provide the Park District with personal body cameras, in-car recording system, conducted energy devices and digital evidence storage to the highest quality that will meet our needs for major incidents, crime scenes, disasters and use during routine and enforcement activities; and

WHEREAS, District Counsel has reviewed the justification and has approved this as a sole source contract;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby authorizes entering into a contract with Axon of Scottsdale, Arizona for the purchase of personal body cameras, conductive energy weapons, in-car camera systems, digital cloud storage for electronic evidence, access to Evidence.com for review and transfer of digital evidence, and computer aided dispatch integration for a five year term and a total cost of $939,387 with funds available from the Public Safety Division’s budget, account 101-8120-000- 6443; and

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and adopted this 19th day of March 2019 by the following vote:

FOR: AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

175 BOARD AND STAFF REPORTS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

4. BOARD AND STAFF REPORTS

a. Actions Taken by Other Jurisdictions Affecting the Park District (Doyle)

City of San Leandro – Eden Road Project and Neptune Drive Shoreline Flood Projection Project

On February 19, 2019, the San Leandro City Council authorized the City Manager to execute two consulting services agreements for the formation of special financing districts for two projects: Eden Road extension and Neptune Drive shoreline flood protection. The Eden Road project will create an extension of Business Center Drive to connect Eden Road with Davis Street, which will result in 1,800 linear feet of road segments. The project is estimated to cost $8 million, including purchase of land. The project relies on the formation of a Community Facilities District to fund design and construction of the extension. The Neptune Drive Shoreline flood protection project will create a special financing district to design and build improvements along the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay that will reduce the risk of flooding for 1,100 properties. The improvements will be constructed on a private property easement and will be maintained by the City. The estimated project cost is $2 million including design, permitting, construction, and easements. Both projects are located adjacent to Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline and could impact the entrance of the park. Park District staff has had discussions with City of San Leandro and Waste Management staff as property owners who would also be affected by these projects. Discussions have included new possible trail connections from Davis Street to Business Center Drive, including Waste Management’s property connecting to Neptune Drive.

City of Richmond – PowerPlant Park Project

On March 13, 2019, the City of Richmond Design Review Board held a public hearing to consider a permit for the PowerPlant Park Project located at the northwest corner of Richmond Parkway and Goodrick Avenue. The 15.9-acre project proposes to develop a cannabis production facility that would include 45 greenhouses, a nursery, and a processing center, in addition to improving an existing segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail. The proposed project is adjacent to Point Pinole Regional Shoreline south of the Dotson Family Marsh. Park District staff has remained engaged in the public review process and will continue to work with the City of Richmond and the project developers to expand the Bay Trail in the area.

176

Page Left Blank Intentionally

177 Event Calendar March 2019 Board Meeting Date: March 19, 2019

Date Day Time Event Location Sponsoring Organization March 20 Wednesday 7:00 p.m. - 8:30 p.m. Family Full Moon Prowl Big Break Visitor Center EBRPD at the Delta March 24 Sunday 9:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. Wildflowers in Wilderness Sunol Visitor Center EBRPD

March 24 Sunday 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Bayside Beach Cleanup Alameda Bay Trail at EBRPD

178 Encinal Beach March 30 Saturday 9:30 a.m. – 11:00 a.m.. For the Bay-Volunteer Project Coyote Hills Visitors EBRPD Center March 31 Sunday 9:30 a.m. – 11:30 a.m. Birding By Ear Leona Canyon: Canyon EBRPD Oak Staging Area GM COMMENTS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

5. GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS

STAFF PRESENTATION Fire Chief Aileen Theile and Assistant Fire Chief Brad Gallup and will present on Fire Department Review for 2019.

GM COMMENTS From January 16, 2019 to February 17, 2019 the Public Safety Division handled 647 service calls and 1,631 total incidents. Highlights are included below.

Police There were 26 arrests made throughout the Park District for a variety of felony and misdemeanor offenses, including DUI, weapons possession, drug possession, violation of court restraining orders, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, and indecent exposure. Officers handled 22 field interviews (contacts without citations or arrests), issued 308 (182 parking) citations, and contacted 12 people on probation or parole to conduct compliance checks.

• Alameda Creek Trail: On January 30, an officer took a report of verbal threats over a parking dispute.

• Anthony Chabot: On February 7, a sergeant took a report of an auto burglary with several victims. After a brief investigation, the suspects were located and arrested.

• Antioch Shoreline: On February 15, an officer arrested a subject for being in possession of a stolen vehicle.

• Delta DeAnza Trail in Oakley: On January 28, an officer took a report of a dog bite where the victim’s jacket was ripped. No injuries were reported.

• Garin: On February 13, an officer arrested a subject for DUI.

• Hayward Shoreline: On January 22, an officer arrested a subject for a dangerous weapons offense and an outstanding warrant.

179 • Iron Horse Trail in Walnut Creek: On January 27, an officer took a report of verbal threats.

• Lafayette Reservoir: On February 16, an officer took a report of an auto burglary where a vehicle’s window was smashed. No items were stolen.

• Martin Luther King Jr. Shoreline: On February 11, an officer cited and released a subject for possession of a controlled substance and a probation violation.

On February 14, an officer arrested a subject for possession of a stolen vehicle.

• Martinez Shoreline: On January 27, an officer arrested a subject for disorderly conduct because they were harassing several park users and under the influence of alcohol.

• Mission Peak: On January 16, an officer took a report of vandalism where a vehicle’s window was smashed. No items were stolen.

• Pinole Shores: On January 19, an officer took a report of vandalism where a vehicle’s window was smashed. No items were stolen.

• Roberts: On January 28, an officer took a report of an auto burglary. A suspect has been identified and the investigation is ongoing.

Fire Operations • On January 16, firefighters responded to a hazardous downed tree on Golf Course Drive in Tilden. Firefighters removed the hazard and reopened the roadway.

• On February 14, firefighters provided night lighting and medical standby at Del Valle due to potential flooding.

Training • From February 4 – 8, District fire personnel completed annual in-house training which included sessions on Live Structure Firefighting, Wildland Firefighting, Hazardous Materials, Vehicle Extrication, and updates to District policies.

Fuels Management • Sibley: On January 18 and February 2, firefighters conducted pile burns near the Round Top Trail and burned a total of eight piles of brush and downed tree limbs.

Fuels Management Community Engagement • Staff met with the Kensington Wildfire Prevention Group to discuss updates to the District’s fuels management program and to highlight planned work for 2019. Discussions included updates to the fuels management website and the addition of new Fuels Reduction Coordinator positions. The Kensington Wildfire Prevention Group aids the

180 Fire Department by disseminating information among the neighbors bordering Wildcat Canyon.

Lifeguard Service • On January 17, staff attended the Northern California Aquatic Management Association Workshop in Roseville.

• On January 26 and February 2, staff attended the District’s Youth Job Fair at Big Break Visitor Center and the Union City Senior Center, respectively.

• On February 5, staff provided a First Aid presentation to Operations staff at Big Break Visitor Center.

• On February 12, staff attended the California State University East Bay Job Fair along with the Human Resources Department.

• On February 13, staff provided a classroom presentation to recruit for lifeguards at Arroyo High School and San Leandro High School.

• On February 19, staff presented the District’s water safety program “Vamos a Aprender” (We Want to Learn) at the Safe Kids Alameda County meeting led by Alameda County EMS.

181 BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, March 19, 2019

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

7. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS

a. Board Executive Committee (1/10/2019) (Waespi)

Present

Board: Dennis Waespi, Ayn Wieskamp, Ellen Corbett

Staff: Robert Doyle, Erica Fuerst, Brian Holt, Kristina Kelchner, Matt Graul, Chris Barton, Kip Walsh, Shivani Nath

Public: Director Beverly Lane, Abigail Fateman

Board Executive Committee Chair Dennis Waespi called the meeting to order at 10:09 am.

1. Participation in San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Integrated Permitting Effort

Chief of Stewardship Matt Graul provided background on the Bay Restoration Regulatory Integration Team (BRRIT), which was created to streamline the permitting process for large restoration projects and other projects within and surrounding the San Francisco Bay. He discussed Measure AA projects and challenges, which led to an initiative to create pathways to improve permitting, resulting in BRRIT. Mr. Graul discussed the benefits of obtaining permits more quickly, especially cost-savings; the formation of the BRRIT which is made up of three Federal and three State agencies; the Policy and Management Team established to oversee the BRRIT; and how they will work together. The BRRIT would commit to one item from the Policy and Management Team’s prioritized list each year, saving an estimated $130,000.00 or more annually, with an expedited permitting process which would reduce expenditures related to inflation and increasing construction costs. Mr. Graul added that the Policy and Management Team could evaluate the BRRIT’s performance every six months, and discussed various parks that have benefitted from Measure AA and are currently, or will be, in the application process.

Recommendation: By motion of Director Ellen Corbett and seconded by Director Ayn Wieskamp, the Board Executive Committee voted 3-0 to recommend the establishment of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) with the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority (Authority) to provide $75,000.00 annually for five years to

182 support the implementation of the BRRIT to the full Board of Directors for favorable consideration.

2. Vasco Hills/Byron Vernal Pools Preserve Management Plan

Acting Assistant General Manager of ASD Kristina Kelchner, introduced the item, with Chief of Planning and GIS Brian Holt presenting. Mr. Holt provided a summary of the Vasco Hills/Byron Vernal Pools Preserve Management Plan, including conservation goals, and next steps for the Park District’s land use planning in the area, including: data, agricultural infrastructure, recreation plans, species preservation, and land limitations. He specified that the Preserve Management Plan is complete, but pending agency approval per the Government Shutdown. He discussed the Park District’s partnership with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (HCP)/NCCP, and their goals. Mr. Holt and East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy Executive Director Abigail Fateman explained that Vernal Pools are off-limits at this moment due to potential for trespassing, but according to Mr. Holt and Environmental Program Manager Chris Barton could open within the five-year review period. In response to Director Ellen Corbett inquiry about Restrictions of Use, Mr. Holt responded that they are dependent on a range of factors including habitat. Dogs are required to be on leash; otherwise the restrictions function the same as on other Park District trails, while Mr. Barton noted that the Habitat Conservation Plan areas have standardized restrictions. As part of further discussion Director Corbett asked whether there is a legal mechanism that supports restrictions, such as a deed restriction. Ms. Fateman responded that restrictions are recorded when property is acquired, and that both recreational uses and habitat needs are acknowledged. Mr. Holt stated that the Preserve Management Plans for Black Diamond Mines, and the Deer Valley Area will be done separately. A discussion regarding a Zero-Waste project followed.

Recommendation: None. This was a discussion item.

3. HR Report on Current Vacancies

Chief Human Resources Officer Kip Walsh, presented this agenda item. Ms. Walsh discussed the Park District’s vacancies, the process for filling vacancies, and progress that has been made within the Human Resources (HR) department. Last year, HR received 194 requests to fill vacant positions, and all but 38 positions were filled, as illustrated in a Committee Packet attachment; correspondingly, HR conducted 121 conducted recruitments. Ms. Walsh expanded on the progress made in shortening the timeframe of the recruitment process and hiring within the HR department. Ms. Walsh explained the process of filling a vacant position, including the testing and interview process, for various positions. Director Ellen Corbett requested additional information on the pool list process. Ms. Walsh provided an overview of the Park Ranger recruitment and explained the process to fill Park Ranger positions. Director Corbett commented on workforce diversity within the Park District and suggested broadening the interest in positions. Director Corbett also suggested encouraging seasonal employees to apply for permanent positions. Director Ayn Wieskamp suggested reaching out to candidates who did not make it through the recruitment process. Director Dennis Waespi asked about recruitment participation at various professional conferences. Ms. Walsh responded that the Park District does participate, but that not all conferences align with particular vacancy or recruitment

183 timelines. A discussion regarding fire department vacancies, and apprenticeships followed. On a related note, Director Wieskamp suggested making a presentation on Fire Planning at a future Mayors’ Conference.

Recommendation: None. This was an informational item.

4. Open Forum for Public Comments

None.

5. Board Comments

None.

6. GM Comments

Mr. Doyle informally suggested that the HR Vacancy Report go to the full board.

There being no further business, President Dennis Waespi declared the meeting adjourned at 12:17 pm.

Respectfully submitted,

Erica L. Fuerst

184 NEWSCLIPS Local // Bay Area & State Bay Briefing: Stopping a fire disaster in the East Bay before it sparks Taylor Kate Brown March 11, 2019 Updated: March 11, 2019 4 a.m.

Rolling hills and transformer power lines stretch across San Pablo Reservoir watershed seen from Wildcat Canyon Road near Inspiration Point in Orinda, Calif. Thursday, March 7, 2019. Photo: Jessica Christian / The Chronicle

Good morning, Bay Area. It’s March 11, and Bay Area teachers are thinking about future activism while California officials are thinking about the future of PG&E. Here’s what you need to know to start your day.

East Bay fire break

Dave Winnacker, the chief of the Moraga-Orinda Fire District, has long worried about the potential for a Camp Fire-like disaster in the East Bay.

The availability of quickly burning fuel and the number of communities nearby make it a unique threat. “There’s not a whole lot of areas this concentrated with houses and limited egress routes.”

A state report last week agreed with Winnacker, listing an 11-mile stretch along the north edges of Orinda and Lafayette as one of 35 critical fuel-reduction projects to prevent and slow fires.

The project would protect 30 East Bay communities and more than 500,000 people, Cal Fire says. The report has residents and local fire officials both nervous and hopeful.

185 East Bay Fire Districts Propose Critical 14-Mile Fire-Break To Protect 500K+ Residents By Katie Nielsen March 10, 2019 at 4:20 pm

ORINDA (KPIX 5) — There’s a new plan to protect some of the hillside communities in the East Bay from future wildfires.

Emergency managers with the Moraga Orinda and Contra Costa Fire Protection Districts want to create a fire-break on the north side of Highway 24.

According to Dennis Rein, Moraga Orinda Fire’s Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, the fire-break would stretch from San Pablo Dam Road and move east across Inspiration Point, then parallel Highway 24 to the north before ending near Pleasant Hill Road in Lafayette.

“We’re trying to protect residential areas from a large ‘mega fire,’ if you will, coming out of the north being blown by those high winds into residential areas,” said Rein.

The Fire Protection Districts submitted the proposal for the 14-mile-long, 200-to-500-foot-wide fire- break to CalFire.

It was ranked number 9 out of 35 critical fire prevention projects statewide. All of the projects involve clearing brush and vegetation in high fire danger areas.

All of the plans require approval for state funding before they can start. If the plan is approved for the Lamorinda area, the fire-break would protect 30 East Bay communities and more than half a million people.

“Everybody thinks that, ‘Oh, well that will never happen here,’ but now that we’ve had some bad history of fires here in California, people are starting to look at the facts that, well, it could happen here,” said Rein.

“It’s dangerous. I know it is. I always wonder when is it our time, and hopefully never,” said Maite Gallagher, who has lived in Orinda for more than 16 years.

Residents in these hillside towns said they see similarities to the community of Paradise–the Northern California city was devastated last year by the fast moving Camp Fire, which killed 85 people. Both communities have an older population living in a heavily forested area with limited evacuation routes.

“In this area, there’s really only two roads in and out: Moraga Road and Moraga Way. It backs up a lot, so if there’s something real serious, it would be tough to get through it,” said David Dickstein, who has lived in Orinda for 10 years.

“No one wants to cut down trees. It’s beautiful to live around here, but I think it’s a necessity if we want to try to prevent those disasters, like what happened to those poor folks up in Paradise. That could happen elsewhere in California,” said resident Joel Compton.

186 The plan for the fire-break does not involve clear cutting trees. Emergency managers want to remove any dead trees, trim the lower branches of remaining trees and clear all the brush and undergrowth from the fire-break area.

The East Bay Municipal Utility District and the East Bay Regional Parks own the majority of the land for the proposed fire-break. The idea calls for using the National Guard or even inmate fire crews to do the necessary work.

The preliminary estimates put the cost of the fire-break between $2-5 million. Emergency managers hope to get the funding approved within the next few months so the project can start before the summer fire season.

187 East Bay Regional Park District buys 160 acres to expand Doolan Canyon preserve The purchase will expand the Doolan Canyon Regional Preserve By Annie Sciacca | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group PUBLISHED: March 4, 2019 at 12:04 pm | UPDATED: March 5, 2019 at 5:51 am

The East Bay Regional Park District has purchased land in the Tri Valley’s Doolan Canyon area near Dublin and Livermore, adding about 160 acres to its Doolan Canyon Regional Preserve. (Photo courtesy of East Bay Regional Park District)

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY — Doolan Canyon Regional Preserve has just gotten larger, thanks to the East Bay Regional Park District’s recent purchase of 160 acres about three miles northwest of Livermore.

“The purchase will serve to protect the upper reaches of Doolan Canyon for future recreational opportunities, habitat protection, and open space preservation,” Ayn Wieskamp, president of the park district’s board of directors, said in a news release. “The property will also protect and preserve forever the headwaters of Cottonwood Creek.”

Located in unincorporated southern Contra Costa County, the property is bounded by the district’s Doolan Canyon Regional Preserve to the south and private ranches and agricultural land on its northern, eastern and western sides.

The park district’s board of directors in November authorized spending $1.24 million from Measure WW — a bond measure approved by East Bay voters in 2008 for public land acquisition — to buy the land from the Grove family. The district, which had been negotiating with the Grove family since June, closed escrow recently and took over the property.

Park district spokesman Dave Mason said the purchase will protect the upper reaches of Doolan Canyon for “habitat protection, open space preservation, and potential recreational opportunities,” although setting it up as a park is expected to take “many years” and require environmental assessments and community input.

Until a land use plan is completed and approved, the property will be placed in “land bank status.”

The Doolan Canyon area has long been a source of debate over whether it should be developed or protected, especially as the population of nearby Dublin has grown in recent decades. Groups including the Sierra Club, the Greenbelt Alliance and Save Mount Diablo have pushed for preservation of the land to protect wildlife and help prevent traffic congestion and pollution.

While Mason said park district policy does not allow for comment on “potential” land acquisitions, the district is “interested in preserving additional land for habitat and recreation, including in the Doolan Canyon corridor.”

The park district in 2010 authorized the purchase of 640 acres in the Doolan Canyon area for $6.4 million with funds from the Alameda County Altamont Landfill Open Space Fund, the city of Livermore, the East Bay Community Foundation and Measure WW.

188 Acquiring the so-called Grove Family property has been a “long-time goal” of the park district, East Bay Regional Park District General Manager Robert Doyle said in a news release.

“The district is pleased acquisition of the property has come to fruition,” Doyle said.

The Doolan Canyon area is a habitat for endangered wildlife, including the Alameda whipsnake and red-legged frog. Preservation of the land will include protecting the wetland habitats that support those animals and other “special status” species, as well as rare alkali soil plants, according to the park district.

189

East Bay Regional Park District Looking For Lifeguards By NEWS24-680 - Mar 5, 2019 The East Bay Regional Park District is currently recruiting 40-60 new lifeguards for the 2019 swim season at its 11 facilities that include lakes, lagoons, and pools in the East Bay. The pay ranges from $16.15-$18.64 per hour. All new lifeguard positions are seasonal, full-time positions May through September. Anyone age 16 and over by April 20th, 2019 is encouraged to apply.

There are six different testing dates scheduled on Saturdays/Sundays the last three weekends in March. Participants will be asked to swim 550 yards in under 10 minutes, carry a rescue board 50 feet, retrieve three dive rings under 4-7 feet of water, tread water for two minutes using only their legs, and retrieve a 10-pound brick from under water. There will also be a short interview after successful completion of the swim test.

Participants who pass the tests will be invited to the District’s Lifeguard Academy where they will receive paid training and certification in open water lifeguarding. The Academy takes place over five weekends in April and May, with the swim season beginning in May for most facilities.

“Promoting water safety and educating park visitors on how to safely recreate in, on, and around the water is paramount in what a lifeguard does,” said East Bay Regional Parks District Aquatics Manager Pete DeQuincy. “Working as a lifeguard is one of the few ways a young adult can give back to their community and learn about public service.”

Testing Schedule:

• Saturday, March 16, 2019 (1:00 p.m.) Buchanan Swimming Pool, Pittsburg • Sunday, March 17, 2019 (1:00 p.m.) Roberts Pool, Oakland • Saturday, March 23, 2019 (1:00 p.m.) Livermore High School Swimming Pool, Livermore • Sunday, March 24, 2019 (1:00 p.m.) Roberts Pool, Oakland • Saturday, March 30, 2019 (1:00 p.m.) Roberts Pool, Oakland • Sunday, March 31, 2019 (1:00 p.m.) Roberts Pool, Oakland

Lifeguards can work at any of the Park District’s 11 swim facilities: Lake Del Valle in Livermore (East Beach and West Beach), Shadow Cliffs in Pleasanton, Quarry Lakes in Fremont, Lake Don Castro in Hayward, Cull Canyon in Castro Valley, Roberts Pool in Oakland, Lake Temescal in Oakland, Lake Anza in Berkeley, Castle Rock in Walnut Creek, and Contra Loma in Antioch.

For more information about how to become a lifeguard call (510) 544-2154 or visit www.ebparks.org/activities/swimming/lifeguard.htm.

190 Del Valle Regional Park Remains Closed Following Storms Those with camping reservations will need to postpone their plans. There is no lake access. By Autumn Johnson, Patch National Staff | Mar 5, 2019 1:11 pm ET Those with upcoming camping reservations at Del Valle Regional Park will need to reschedule. (Photo courtesy Shutterstock)

LIVERMORE, CA — Del Valle Regional Park in Livermore remains closed through March 16, according to the East Bay Regional Park District website. Park district officials closed the campgrounds, day use area and marina in the popular park in February due to "potential flooding and safety concerns." In the wake of the continued storms, officials extended the closure.

Those with camping reservations though mid-March will need to reschedule. For campground reservation cancellation/rescheduling, please contact the reservations department at 1-888-327-2757, option 2, for more information.

Del Valle Regional Park is located at 7000 Del Valle Rd. in Livermore.

191 Alameda Point Park Moves Closer to Reality The Navy’s cleanup of an old airfield, known as Site 32, is nearing completion, paving the way for a new park and wetlands. By Janis Hashe | Published: March 4, 2019 Photo courtesy of Richard Bangert

Considering the revelations of faked testing and fraudulent reporting that dogged the environmental cleanup of Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco, Alamedans might be forgiven for being skeptical about the Navy’s remediation efforts at Alameda Point’s 60-acre Site 32, part of 158 acres alongside the Oakland harbor proposed for a regional park.

But according to Richard Bangert, community co-chair of the 10-member Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board, lessons learned from the San Francisco fiasco have resulted in a much more effective and transparent process on this side of the bay.

Bangert started taking an active interest in the details of the Alameda Point cleanup in 2009, digging deeply into the lengthy documents and feasibility studies. He discovered that although developer SunCal, at that time a partner in an agreement with the city of Alameda to become the master developer at Alameda Point, was “claiming the Navy wasn’t doing anything” to clean up the former base and airfield, that was untrue.

A presentation made by the Navy to the Alameda City Council on July 24, 2018, contrasted the two cleanup efforts, admitting that in the San Francisco case, “deliberate falsification of tests, fraudulent record-keeping and improper work” by contractor Tetra Tech EC had indeed been documented — and prosecuted. But at Alameda Point, the Navy asserted, work was being conducted with “multiple layers of oversight,” including by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Department of Toxic Substances, the California Department of Public Health, and the Regional Water Control Board.

Site 32, also known to the Navy as Northwestern Ordinance Storage Area, is part of the greater Alameda Point area, which was established as a naval air station in 1936. From the 1940s to 1970s, when the Navy used the point as an airfield and aircraft “re-work” facility, it also used radioluminescent paint, which contains toxic radium-226, on aircraft equipment and the containers discarded on the site. In 1993, the point was placed on the Navy’s Base Realignment and Closure list, and it officially closed in 1997. More than 20 years of remediation ensued.

Eventually, under U.S. EPA and Department of Defense guidelines, the Navy established a Restoration Advisory Board, made up of volunteer Alameda residents. Bangert assists Navy co- chair, Cecily Sabedra, environmental coordinator for Alameda Point cleanup, in the meetings and deciding on agenda items. By 2016, the East Bay Regional Park District had also become involved, helping determine biological impacts.

In April 2018, the Navy presented its final cleanup plan for Site 32, asking for public comment through mid-May. The “remedial alternative” was determined by the Navy with the DTSC with input from the Restoration Advisory Board to be the most suitable and cost-effective was Alternative 3, of a possible four.

192 According to the Navy proposal, Alternative 3 employs a protective cover of clean soil, typically 3 feet thick, and “institutional controls,” or ICs, over the entire site to minimize exposure to and transport of site contaminants. A wetlands mitigation and long-term monitoring plan would be developed for remedial activities that disturb or destroy existing seasonal wetlands at the site. “This alternative would minimize any contact with contaminated soil and debris and would further shield site users from potential underlying radiological anomalies,” the plan states. Several buildings on-site will be demolished, but the 5,000-square-foot concrete bunker in place will be covered with soil and plants, enhancing the watershed. Bangert said the Navy will also expand the existing 10 acres of wetlands to 15 acres and double the size of the current watershed, planting native grasses and shrubs throughout the site. The Navy also proposed to establish a long-term quarterly inspection program for the soil cover and an inspection and maintenance program.

This plan was enough to reassure Bangert. “I am very confident that the Navy’s plan for Site 32 will leave us with a parcel that is 100 percent safe for use as a public park,” he said. Unlike the situation at Hunters Point, he said, “there was no incentive for a contractor to submit false data during the investigation stage that would have underreported the contamination.” He explained that the various investigation contractors at Alameda Point “had no contractual or implied understanding that they would be given the contract for the final remediation workplan.”

Another Alameda resident and Restoration Advisory Board member, Jane Sullwold, also believes that the combination of extra investigation at Site 32 and fundamental differences between the plans for it and those for Hunters Point, are making the site safe. “The plan for Site 32 has always been for a nature preserve, not housing,” she noted. “The studies have been thorough. And the Navy has already invested half a billion dollars in cleaning up Alameda Point.” Cleaning up a contaminated site for housing requires much more intensive site preparation than for a park.

Still, the amount of funds budgeted for the final Site 32 cleanup is twice as much as what would have been spent for “spot cleanup,” Bangert said. He explained that soil radiation scanning gives reliable readings only to the depth of 1 foot, so, if radiation existing lower in the soil was disturbed, harm might ensue. “The [3-foot] soil cover is to ensure the odd bits of contamination found in the area can’t be ingested by anyone. Radiation from radium-226 would wreak havoc inside a person’s body, but old rags and paint brushes aren’t beaming out harmful rays at distances of many feet in the way that remnants of a destroyed nuclear power plant would,” he said.

The final proposed timeline, which would see work completed at the end of 2019, may or may not be realistic, Bangert and Sullwold agreed. But they are confident that the end is in sight. Soon, both said, the public can look forward to a park and wetlands area that extends the Bay Trail, hosting hikers and bicyclists — “while at the same time protecting the colony of least terns nesting there,” Sullwold said.

Wildlife has already returned, with many birds and small mammals routinely sighted. For the area to become a regional park, the city will have to agree to lease it to East Bay Regional Park District. Bangert noted that negotiations on the lease have been ongoing, and a final deal is expected soon.

193 A Measure of a Community’s Compassion The Alameda City Council wants to turn a piece of land near Crab Cove into a center that helps homeless people. But neighbors have forced a special election to block it. By Steven Tavares | Published: March 1, 2019 Photo by Clayton J. Mitchell Photography

As Doug Biggs walked through abandoned buildings on McKay Avenue, across the street from Crab Cove, he shared his vision for how they could be used for good. Biggs is the executive director of the Alameda Point Collaborative, which hopes to refurbish the buildings and turn them into housing for homeless seniors, as part of a $40 million federally funded project that would include providing services to homeless people and those at risk of becoming homeless. It’s a vision shared by the city and by a supermajority of Alameda’s City Council, including new mayor, Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft.

The McKay Avenue property was previously a site operated by the General Services Ω as a major illness.

But Biggs and the city’s plans for the McKay property, which they call the Alameda Wellness Center, are in doubt. A neighborhood group calling itself, Friends of Crab Cove, is seeking to block the new facility. The group successfully gathered enough signatures against the Alameda Wellness Center last December, triggering a ballot measure. The group wants to turn the property into parkland or keep it as “open space” — although the property is not open space now and neither the city nor the East Bay Regional Park District is interested in using the land as a park.

As such, just five months after a vast majority of Alameda voters gathered at the ballot box, Island residents are facing a new special election that will be costly not only in terms of administering, but depending on its results, costly for the some of the most vulnerable populations in the region — and the city’s general fund.

In the April 9 special election, Measure B will ask Alamedans whether to overturn the city’s plans for the property. The special election is estimated to cost Alameda taxpayers up to $730,000.

The city council could have waited for the next consolidated election, in November 2020, and avoided the high costs of a special election. But the council majority argued that allowing the homeless services project to languish in uncertainty for nearly two years would be too costly for the nonprofit Alameda Point Collaborative, plus there would be lease penalties from the federal government.

Councilmember Tony Daysog, the lone no vote against an April special election, said he was not convinced the Alameda Point Collaborative was at financial risk if the ballot measure waited until November 2020. The April 9 special election also includes Measure A, a competing measure backed by the council supermajority that will ask voters to reaffirm the city’s plan for the Alameda Wellness Center.

194 Opponents of the project appear to be most worried about the influx of homeless people to the neighborhood. On the property, Building 1, as it is labeled, would be torn down and rebuilt to house medical respite services for seniors, but more controversially a walk-in center for Alamedans who may be on the verge of homelessness. Opponents of the project envision homeless Alamedans and homeless people from throughout the region flocking to the site and loitering in the neighborhood, possibly setting up tent cities.

Biggs, who also lives in the area, said he’s been more than willing to listen to neighbors’ concerns about the project. “I have no desire to create an unsafe situation,” he said.

Representatives of the Alameda Point Collaborative and Friends of Crab Cove met with a facilitator, but not before the neighborhood group ended the talks when the ballot measure had garnered enough signatures to trigger an election.

Biggs believes fears about hordes of homeless people rushing to the area is irrational. Similar concerns were raised two decades ago and proven to be without merit when the Alameda Point Collaborative was founded at Alameda Point, he said. ‘“Open space’ sells in Alameda even though there’s 500 acres of open space and 6 acres for serving the homeless,” said Biggs, referring to the neighborhood group’s call to have the McKay property be “open space.”

As late as 2017, Building 1 was used as a testing lab for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which tested contaminated meats and dangerous pathogens. A walk through the building conjures the imagery of a horror movie set in a macabre mental health institution. Some lab doors are ominously labelled for testing of E.coli and botulism. “They’re worried about the dangers of homeless coming here,” Biggs said of Friends of Crab Cove, “but I’ve never heard anybody complain about all the things that were coming through this lab.”

Members of Friends of Crab Cove, who did not respond to numerous requests to be interviewed for this report, have contended that the real controversy around the project is not about seniors or the homeless, but an alleged broken promise dating to 2008 when East Bay voters approved the East Bay Regional Park District’s Measure WW, a $500 million bond extension for a large number of park projects. The bond set aside $6.5 million for Alameda that included improvements to the Crab Cove visitors center, restoring the beach, but more importantly to Friends of Crab Cove, expanding the park boundary. But the park district has repeatedly said it has no interested in using the McKay Avenue property as a park.

In 2015, the parcel was divided, a move that members of Friends of Crab Cove contend undermined the will of voters. Angela Fawcett, a Friends of Crab Cove member, who lives across the street from the proposed Alameda Wellness Center, told the council in January, “The America I grew up in, we have rights, we have a voice, opportunities for input, and to be heard.”

The neighborhood group includes former Alameda Councilmember Barbara Thomas, who also acts as its attorney. Last fall, Thomas filed a lawsuit under the California Environmental Quality Act against the Alameda Wellness Center.

If the ballot measure is successful, in what is likely to be an extremely low-turnout special election, a whole new set of problems will arise for City Hall. There is no current plan for construction and maintenance of new open space in this area, city leaders say. If the measure is approved, said Councilmember Malia Vella, it will put other city funds at risk and jeopardize funding for other parks in Alameda. Furthermore, a win at the ballot box for Friends of Crab Cove could cost the city millions. That’s because the transfer of the property to the city may constitute a “taking” of the land, therefore making the city liable for all of Alameda Point Collaborative’s costs associated with the project. Some city officials estimate the amount would be as high as $11 million.

195 For opponents of the ballot measure, it’s difficult to view Friends of Crab Cove’s stance as anything but NIMBYism run amok. Several members of the neighborhood group live in condominiums across the street from the property. “WW spells NIMBY,” said Biggs, who added some neighbors have yelled at him or security guards from their balconies. Others have flashed them with middle fingers.

Most telling is who is funding the ballot measure campaign. According to campaign finance records, Friends of Crab Cove raised $25,994 from April to Dec. 31 of last year. Harvey Rosenthal, owner of Neptune Plaza, a small shopping center near the project, contributed at least $14,500, an amount that likely funded the group’s signature-gathering campaign. The identities of who was financially backing the ballot measure, however, was unknown until Jan. 10, after a complaint was filed with the California Fair Political Practices Commission accusing Friends of Crab Cove of failing to disclose finance reports during two successive filing periods.

196 WILDFLOWER SEASON RETURNS IN MARCH, CALIFORNIA BLOOM GUIDE AND HOTLINE BY SF STATION STAFF ON MAR 1, 2019 With the atmospheric river flowing right over California, the yearly precip totals are getting close to 100%; this is especially true many southern areas of the state. Nature enthusiasts, hikers and especially flower lovers have taken note, talking up what the wildflower season will hold; superbloom this, desert bloooms that. While nobody is sure what the season will truly hold, one thing is certain, March will usher in the season of wildflowers.

So, once the sun starts shining a little more (yes, the storms will come to an end) and the air warms, the seeds in the ground will awaken from their semi-dormant state. And that’s when the wildflowers, like magic, will begin to paint the landscape with vibrant colors; oranges, yellows, purples… The first blooms usually start in the southern deserts, then like a wave, they move north, and ultimately, even the higher elevations succumb to the colors on nature’s palette.

The wildflower season typically runs March – May, so now is the time to scout out your places of interest. How far are you willing to go to see nature’s display? It’s always a good idea to look up the location online, take the proper rations, especially water, if you go further out into the wilderness, and call if there’s a phone number at a state or national park – there’s even a Wild Flower Hotline you can check each week. But your main ally will be flexibility, because when a bloom begins, it can all happen and be done with over a couple of weekends.

Here are the places in California where you’ll be able to find wildflowers:

San Francisco and the Bay Area

* McLaren Park, San Francisco * Buena Vista Park, San Francisco * Crissy Field, San Francisco * Corona Heights Park, San Francisco * Tilden Park, Berkeley * Briones Regional Park, East Bay Hills * Mori Point, Pacifica * Edgewood County Park and Natural Preserve, Redwood City * Mount Diablo, Clayton * Henry Coe State Park, Gilroy * Chimney Rock, Point Reyes * Alamere Falls, Point Reyes * Albany Bulb, Albany

197 * Sunol Regional Wilderness, Sunol * Steep Ravine, Mount Tamalpais * Russian Ridge Open Space Preserve, Santa Cruz * Windy Hill Open Space Preserve, Portola Valley * Anthony Chabot Regional Park, Castro Valley * Pinnacles National Park

California – some wild flower lovers might be willing to travel a little further for many of the most spectacular views.

* North Table Mountain Ecological Reserve * Lake Tahoe * Eastern Sierra Nevada * Mount Lassen * Antelope Valley * Joshua Tree * Anza-Borrego * Carrizo Plain National Monument

Note: Because of extensive areas the 2018 fires covered, near Redding, in the foothills east of Chico, and in any area where there’s been fire, much of the burn area top soil may have been washed away. Native flowers might find it harder to fight against non-native species and grasses, which are more hardy and might compete better for resources in the terrain that remains.

198 Have we been too focused on monarch butterflies? By MARISSA ORTEGA-WELCH • FEB 28, 2019 The numbers of monarchs are overwintering sites across California this winter was shockingly low. Joanna Gilkeson / USFWS, used under CC-BY-2.0

If we just focus on monarchs and not all insects around us, we’re missing the big picture.

You would think that a lepidopterist (a.k.a. butterfly and moth scientist) would be thrilled that people are paying so much attention to the fact that western monarch butterflies have reached an all-time low this year. You would think he would be glad for the seemingly wall-to-wall news coverage: articles in the New York Times and New Yorker; a television spot on local CBS news. And you would be wrong.

“Like, what is next? We're going to see one of those hideous Sarah Mclaughlin commercials: “Imagine a world without the monarch.”

Liam O’Brien, a lepidopterist and artist in San Francisco, is a fierce champion for butterflies, but not the monarchs. He feels like they’ve gotten enough attention.

He’s taking me on a walk on top of Twin Peaks, one of the tallest hills in San Francisco. This rocky dry, outcropping — from which you can see all of San Francisco, the bay, and the ocean — is the last remaining habitat in San Francisco for the Mission Blue butterfly (Icaroides Missiensi), named after the city’s Mission District. If you come up here in April, around Earth Day, “You can't miss it. It's an electric blue little creature darting between all of these Lupines.”

Liam O'Brien, a lepidopterist and artist in San Francisco, has worked for the restoration of the endangered Mission Blue butterfly on San Francisco's Twin Peaks. Credit Marissa Ortega-Welch / KALW

O’Brien says he had to step away from being the unofficial “monarch keeper” of the city. “I would go into meetings to propose new butterfly projects and the first thing out of the people who held the purse strings is, ‘I want to help the monarch.’” At first, he hoped that monarchs could be like the gateway drug for people to enter the world of butterflies, but that didn’t happen. He says instead, people fall so in love with the monarchs that, “They forget that there's a whole other group of butterflies too.”

O’Brien’s militant stance against the monarch is being tested this winter though. An annual count of the charismatic butterfly that takes place every Thanksgiving in California revealed something disturbing: the western population of monarchs dropped to shockingly low numbers.

199 If you’ve never been to a monarch overwintering site, it’s incredible. On the west coast, most monarchs west of the Rockies migrate to warm spots in California to spend the winter. The most famous of these are Natural Bridges State Park in Santa Cruz or the “monarch grove sanctuary” in Pacific Grove. (On the east coast, monarchs migrate down to Mexico.) They cling to trees in clusters; at first glance, they look just like leaves. But look closer and you realize: there are hundreds, sometimes thousands of butterflies. On a warm day, the butterflies will fly slowly around the tree groves. East Bay Regional Park naturalist Christina Garcia, who coordinates some of the Bay Area’s monarch counts, describes it as being like “standing in a snowglobe of butterflies.”

East Bay Park Naturalist Christina Garcia has conducted the annual Thanksgiving monarch count at Ardenwood Farm for about 25 years. She says, this year, there just weren't any butterflies. Credit Marissa Ortega-Welch / KALW

This year, the monarchs out on the east coast actually had a good year. It’s the number of west coast monarchs that dropped this winter. Insect populations tend to fluctuate. You have to look at many years of data to see the trends. For both western and eastern monarchs, it’s been a downward trend since the ‘80s. What’s making the news now is just how low the western monarch numbers got this winter. Naturalists and volunteers counting the butterflies found below thirty thousand individuals, the number which some scientists use as a threshold below which monarchs may not be able to reproduce and continue their population. That’s why we’re seeing headlines about a possible monarch extinction.

Nobody knows exactly what caused the numbers to plummet this year. But you can probably guess what’s causing that downtrend overall. It’s the usual suspects: habitat loss, pesticide use, climate change. Stuff that’s going to affect other insects — not just the monarchs.

The issue is that the monarch decline is making the news because people actually counting monarchs, unlike many other insects.

Eric Simons, an editor for Bay Nature, a local environmental science magazine, says that we’re talking about the monarch decline because people are actually counting the monarchs, unlike other insects. They are one of the few insects to have a statewide annual count. “Maybe everything just had a terrible year statewide, but we wouldn’t know because nobody’s been looking.”

Entomologist Art Shapiro of UC Davis conducts an annual transect of insects from the delta to the Sierra and he found shockingly low numbers of butterflies this year, but that’s just one study.

This problem of a lack of data is true around the world. Globally, we’re seeing headlines about the “insect apocalypse,” but the truth is, it’s a lot more complicated. Those headlines draw on a study here, a study there, which tend to look at one species at a time — charismatic species like monarchs or insects that have an economic impact, like honeybees. You can’t extrapolate about ALL insects from those specific studies, but the data they present does paint a scary picture.

200 Simons says the media seems to only want to report on the crises. “We live in an age in which everything is going to be in crisis all the time,” he says. “This is what climate change is doing to the world.” He worries this is going to lead people to feel crisis fatigue.

Simons says that while donating is important, he doesn’t want people to feel like that is the only way they can engage in the natural world now. “You can go for a walk outside and just pay attention to what’s around you,” he says. It sounds simple, but Simons says that noticing your surroundings is the first step to noticing changes. “The natural world needs witnesses, now more than ever.”

So Simons wants you to get out and see stuff, and not just the charismatic species like monarchs. He says you can find all kinds of butterflies in the Bay Area - some that are really common, some that are on the decline, and some that are rebounding after almost going extinct. And he says, don’t forget - butterflies are just one tiny part of the insect world!

“There’s so much to see and explore and pay attention to out there and you can find a crisis anytime you want but you can also find something optimistic,” he says. He thinks taking this big picture view is ultimately more fulfilling than just being “jerked from crisis to crisis. When everything is always in crisis it's just hopeless. You can give your money and what else can you do?”

O’Brien agrees. He thinks that environmental groups are capitalizing on the monarch crisis right now and using it as a way to get people to donate. The best of these organizations use that money to restore habitats, fight climate change, and reduce pesticide use, efforts that could help many species. O’Brien says it’s great if you want to donate to those organizations, but no nonprofit can really work to just save monarchs. “It's a charismatic creature that brings in a lot of money. It seems to be plummeting over the side of a cliff. Money's not going to solve that freefall.”

O'Brien and I sit down among the lupine flower leaves for evidence of Mission Blue caterpillars feeding on the plants. "I think it's a little early," he says. Credit Marissa Ortega-Welch / KALW

O’Brien encourages people to get out and notice the natural world too, but he cautions that it’s important to also slow down and try to understand what you’re seeing.

“There's a lot of zealotry involved in wanting to help the monarch,” he says. Sometimes people want to help the monarchs so badly, they end up doing things that aren’t actually that helpful. Like planting milkweed which monarch caterpillars depend on for food. But a lot of local gardeners plant tropical milkweed, a non-native species, that has leaves year-round. The leaves trigger the adult butterflies to lay eggs in the winter - during the wrong season.

O’Brien wants people to slow down a bit and learn more before they jump into helping. He likes to paraphrase the famous biologist Jane Goodall: only if we understand, can we care. Only we if care, can we help. Only if we help can they be saved.

“The problem with that quote is everyone skips the first sentence. Nobody really wants to work hard to understand,” O’Brien says. “We project a lot on the butterflies and I find them to be incredibly opportunistic invertebrates that need understanding, not so much caring.”

201 Legislation Passed by Senate and House Includes Transferring Ownership of Local Canal System Press Release By ECT - Feb 28, 2019 Title transfer to Contra Costa Water District would advance modernization of the 81-year-old facility

This month the United States Senate and House of Representatives both passed a public lands conservation bill – a package of projects and programs related to public lands nationwide. Of local interest, within the bill is language to transfer federal ownership of the Contra Costa Canal system to Contra Costa Water District (CCWD), taking an important step toward modernizing the aging aqueduct.

The Contra Costa Canal system serves as the primary water delivery system for 500,000 people in central and eastern Contra Costa County. It was first constructed in 1937 as part of the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Central Valley Project.

The canal system includes the 48-mile Contra Costa Canal, the Shortcut Pipeline, two reservoirs, and other related facilities. The title transfer will give CCWD ownership of assets paid off in 2010 and operated locally since 1972. Included in the facilities is the Clayton Canal, which is an important component of the Concord Naval Weapons Station park area. By accepting ownership of the canal system, CCWD can more efficiently operate and maintain the system, improve safety, and reduce its administrative burdens and associated costs.

Because the canal system is currently owned by the federal government, title transfer required an act of Congress. Senator Feinstein and Congressman DeSaulnier both introduced bills in 2018 to carry forward the necessary action by federal legislators. The language from those bills was incorporated into the public lands conservation bill and now awaits the President’s approval.

“We appreciate the commitment by our federal legislators to make this transfer a reality,” said CCWD President Lisa Borba. “CCWD is planning for the future of water service for our customers, and modernizing the aging canal is a major but necessary investment. Taking ownership of the system is an important step to ensure that we are investing wisely locally for our current and future customers.”

The transfer has gained support from local stakeholders, including East Bay Regional Park District and the cities of Walnut Creek and Antioch. Commitments have been made by CCWD to continue all of the existing recreation benefits on the properties including Contra Loma Reservoir and provide for recreation enhancements as appropriate.

202 How Birdwatching Helped Ease My Anxiety What I thought was a “grandmas only” hobby has done more for my Sunday Scaries than anything else Emily Busse Feb 27 Photo courtesy of the author

An old frenemy came back into my life this past year: anxiety disorder. I finally admitted to myself that this particular flare-up wasn’t going to just go away when my dentist said my gums were receding “due to stress- induced grinding.” If your dentist can guess your mental health, it’s time to get proactive.

I started looking for an in-network therapist (still working on that one five months later) and, in the meantime, tried a slew of other self-treatments. I upped my workouts, paid $8 a month for a meditation app and pulled out the adult coloring book I spent way too much on and never used. But the activity that’s done more for my worst weekend dread than anything else was something I never saw coming: birdwatching.

Birding, I realized, was like an intensely tame form of detective work. It’s Pokémon GO IRL.

Birdwatching (or “birding,” if you’re cool) is about observing birds in the wild. It started for me three months ago when my dad and stepmom gave me a pair of binoculars for my 28th birthday. They knew I liked hiking and camping and figured I’d enjoy learning more about the wildlife around me. The first thing I did was watch a neighbor four houses away eat a banana through their kitchen window.

The second thing I did was find the National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds: Western Region my parents had gifted me two years before (they clearly had a vision for me). I hadn’t used the book yet, in part because I associated birdwatching only with my grandparents, who had binoculars and a guidebook handy by the back porch. Or with my dad, who will spend 45 minutes Googling facts about an Anna’s hummingbird after seeing one from the window. But now that my own birding tools were staring at me from my dresser, I thought I should at least give it a try. Maybe Grandpa was onto something.

The following weekend I schlepped up to Tilden Regional Park and gave it my first go. I didn’t see many birds, and I felt a little creepy using binoculars within view of a playground. But once I got far enough from other people and tweaked the binoculars just right, a whole new world opened up. I saw the brilliant blue feathers of a Scrub Jay — no longer was it just the noisy-ass bird that stole colorful rocks from my porch; now it was a specific, really quite pretty bird with its own unique natural history and characteristics. I stood in the same spot for 20 minutes, following the bird as it hopped from one tree to another. Runners and bikers on the trail had to divert around me as I stood with my binoculars glued to my face. The longer I watched, the more details I noticed about the jay’s feathers, its personality. It was like watching an episode of Planet Earth that was happening 30 feet away, just for me (sans Sir David Attenborough, unfortunately). And honestly, that

203 was about it for the first outing. But it was enough — I was hooked. Birding, I realized, was like an intensely tame form of detective work. It’s Pokémon GO IRL.

The next weekend, I was at it again at Point Pinole Regional Shoreline. The following weekend, Coyote Hills Regional Park. I found myself looking forward to it during the week, researching the next avian hotspot and fighting the urge to Google-identify pigeons that landed on the windowsill at work. “Pigeons are actually doves!” I’d think to myself with a secret thrill.

A couple of hours spent peepin’ birds has done more for my Sunday Scaries (or paralyzing dread, whatever you want to call it) than anything else I’ve tried.

I’m still firmly a novice, but I can now identify at least a dozen birds by sight. I can tell you if it’s a female Bufflehead or an American Coot. If it’s a Snowy Egret or a Great Egret, and if they’re showing off their lacy breeding plumage.

At a surface level, birding combines many things I love: nature bathing, natural science and making lists. That very first day, I started writing down the date and location of every positive species ID I made. At the time, I didn’t realize that that was standard birding practice; I just knew that I got the same satisfying rush of endorphins that comes with crossing a task off a to-do list. (People who also put “shower” on their to-do lists know what I’m talking about.)

I’m more present while birding than at any other time during the week.

But there’s something deeper at play for me than recreation. A couple of hours spent peepin’ birds has done more for my Sunday Scaries (or paralyzing dread, whatever you want to call it) than anything else I’ve tried. Here’s my theory as to why: First, birding requires you to talk less and observe more. Second, it forces you to focus. Much like working out (now my second-favorite anxiety reducer), when you’re birding, you have no room for cyclical negative thinking if you’re laser focused on the task at hand.

Finally, it’s an incredible conduit for mindfulness. I’m more present while birding than at any other time during the week. You sometimes have only a few minutes to identify a bird before it melts back into the landscape. The heron isn’t going to wait around for you to decide if your friend is secretly mad at you or not. You have to spot the bird, focus your binoculars, hold still, take stock of as many details as you can and then keep that in your head as you flip through the book. I love and respect yoga and meditation, but I am admittedly bad at centering myself during those activities. I’m always the person fidgeting with her shirt or optimizing my to-do list in my head. Birding showed me that it’s OK to get creative about finding your inner peace.

I’m well aware I did not discover birding. I just happen to be the only one of my peers to do so, so I recently decided to take the next step and meet fellow birders by joining a free field trip with the Golden Gate Audubon Society at Arrowhead Marsh in Oakland. I was excited but nervous. Would I feel silly with my small binoculars and clearly brand-new guide book next someone with a long-range scope, a SPF 50 hat and tactical cargo pants?

Turns out, I was right about the accoutrements (think practical athleisure meets tactical wildlife gear), but I was wrong about feeling silly. I saw at least 10 new birds, learned many new tips (it’s hip to call binoculars “bins”) and met 16 incredibly passionate locals, who were eager to let me peer through their scopes at a Ridgway’s Rail — a bird that, I’m told, is

204 a rare sight and a good addition to my “life list.” The majority of the other birders were decades older than me, but there was a handful of 30- and 40-somethings in the mix as well.

“I believe that birds tell us what’s going on on our planet. They’re the harbingers, the canaries in the coal mine.”

The outing’s guide, 62-year-old Dawn Lemoine, has been birding for five years after she retired from IT project management at Chevron. During that short time, she’s recorded 431,885 birds and can identify all the 389 birds on her life list by sight. A small woman with short gray hair, Lemoine wore colorful roadrunner earrings that Sunday and flitted between attendees like a wren, deftly identifying birds by sight, doling out nuggets of bird wisdom (“Gulls are tricky”) and pointing out a Pied-Billed Grebe she’d released the week before after rehabilitation. Her enthusiasm was palpable, and the collective excitement upon spotting a new species was contagious.

“I believe that birds tell us what’s going on on our planet. They’re the harbingers, the canaries in the coal mine,” Lemoine said, explaining how joining the birding community has made her more environmentally conscious. But it’s about mindfulness for her as well. “If I was by myself, I could sit and look at a Blue-Winged Teal for half an hour. There’s a lot of beauty concentrated here.”

I left the marsh feeling more enthusiastic about my beginner birder status than before. If I’ve convinced you to give it a try, here’s what I recommend (based on my admittedly limited experience):

• Get a decent pair of binoculars and a guide book. You can use Google, but for me, my phone is a Pandora’s box of non-mindfulness. I try to use it only when I’m stumped. • Research a few good local spots to check out. Coyote Hills Regional Park was my favorite so far. • Be patient. Sometimes you won’t see many birds, or you’ll see the same ones. Try new places, and wait for the seasons to change. It makes the thrill of seeing a new one that much sweeter. • Bring a pen and notebook. Or keep track on the Cornell Lab of Ornithology’s app, eBird, a collaborative biodiversity citizen science project that Dawn introduced me to. It helps if you, too, just really like lists. • Put yourself out there. Try one of the field trips. You’ll meet people and birds you would never meet otherwise.

And, listen—if birds freak you out (I don’t agree with you but I get it — they’re literally dinosaurs), then skip birding and take away this: anxiety sucks. It’s probably going to take a combination of things to help. But don’t give up. Keep seeking out help and trying new ways to ease it, and you might surprise yourself.

205 Police & Fire Shared From Castro Valley, CA Woman Bitten By Dog At East Bay Regional Park The dog owner did not provide any information to the victim. By Bea Karnes, Patch Staff | Feb 27, 2019 5:06 pm ET A hiker was bitten on the leg by a dog. This is the second incident at Anthony Chabot Regional Park this year. (Shutterstock)

EAST BAY — A woman hiking at Anthony Chabot Regional Park was bitten on the leg by a dog on Feb 21. The dog owner did not remain at the scene and the hiker was not able to get any information from the dog owner, such as whether the dog was up to date on its shots.

It happened around 2:15 p.m. on the Goldenrod Trail, east of the Clyde Woolridge Staging Area. East Bay Regional Park Police are hoping that someone who was at the park at the same time can provide information that will lead to the dog and its owner.

The dog owner is described as a light skinned woman, about 5 feet 11 inches tall, slim build, with brown eyes, and brown shoulder length hair. She was wearing a black jacket, dark pants, and white tennis shoes at the time of the dog attack.

The woman had two dogs with her. One was a yellow Lab. The other was a medium sized black dog with a short upright ear with brown fur on the inside and a light brown stomach. The bite victim did not know the breed of the dog or if it is a mutt.

Anthony Chabot is a dog friendly park but dogs must be "under control at all times." Also, park rules state. " If you are a party to a dog bite or dog attack incident, you must stop and offer assistance and exchange information with the other party/parties."

This is the second incident involving a dog at Anthony Chabot this year. The previous incident also happened on Goldenrod Trail.

If you can help with the investigation in this latest incident, call East Bay Regional Park District Police at 510-881-1833 and reference case number 19-02080 when calling.

206 207