BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, December 4, 2015 12:30 p.m., Board Room The following agenda items are listed for Committee consideration. In accordance with the Board Operating Guidelines, no official action of the Board will be taken at this meeting; rather, the Committee’s purpose shall be to review the listed items and to consider developing recommendations to the Board of Directors. A copy of the background materials concerning these agenda items, including any material that may have been submitted less than 72 hours before the meeting, is available for inspection on the District’s website (www. ebparks.org), the Headquarters reception desk, and at the meeting.

AGENDA

STATUS TIME ITEM STAFF 12:30 pm 1. STATE LEGISLATION / ISSUES R A. NEW LEGISLATION – N/A Doyle/Pfuehler

I B. ISSUES Doyle/Pfuehler 1. Overview of pending ballot measures 2. Cap-and-Trade Second Investment Plan 3. Other Issues

R II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / ISSUES Doyle/Pfuehler A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. S. 2257(Cantwell D-WA) and H.R. 3556 (Grijalva D-AZ) –

The National Park Service Centennial Act

I B. ISSUES Doyle/Pfuehler 1. Land and Water Conservation Fund update 2. Federal Transportation bill update 3. Other Issues

R III. SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY Doyle/Pfuehler

IV. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LAFCo AGRICULTURAL AND I Doyle/Pfuehler OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION POLICY

D V. DISTRICT SURVEY RESULTS Doyle/Pfuehler

VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS

VII. ARTICLES

(R) Recommendation for Future Board Consideration (I) Information (D) Discussion

Legislative Committee Members Future Meetings: Diane Burgis (Chair); Whitney Dotson; Dennis Waespi Ayn Wieskamp, Alternate

Erich Pfuehler, Staff Coordinator

Distribution/Agenda Distribution/Full Packet

District: Public: District: Public: Mimi Waluch Norman LaForce Board Members Pat O’Brien Kristina Kelchner Peter Rauch Robert Doyle Doug Houston David Zuckermann Afton Crooks AGMs Dr. George Manross Ira Bletz Stana Hearne Erich Pfuehler Satinder Malhi Connie Swisher Judi Bank Jeff Rasmussen Bruce Kern Sharon Clay Michael Kelley Anne Kassebaum Elissa Robinson (via e-mail) Xiaoning Huang – Local 2428 Bruce Beyaert (via e-mail) Mark Ragatz Rick Rickard (via-email) Sean Dougan Mona Koh Yolande Barial Knight Mark Pearson – Local 2428 Eri Suzuki – Local 2428 Tyrone Davis – POA Lobby/Receptionist

TO: Board Legislative Committee (Chair Diane Burgis, Whitney Dotson, Dennis Waespi and Alternate Ayn Wieskamp)

FROM: Robert E. Doyle, General Manager Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager

SUBJECT: Board Legislative Committee Meeting WHEN: Friday, December 4, 2015 - 12:30 p.m. Lunch will be served

WHERE: Board Room, Peralta Oaks ______

Items to be discussed: I. STATE LEGISLATION / ISSUES A. NEW LEGISLATION – N/A

B. ISSUES 1. Ballot Measure Overview Government Affairs Manager Erich Pfuehler and Sacramento Advocate Doug Houston will present a power point highlighting a number of possible ballot measures.

2. Cap-and-Trade Second Investment Plan Government Affairs Manager Erich Pfuehler will discuss recent actions on the Cap-and-Trade Second Investment Plan as part of the Ballot Measure Overview power point.

3. Other Issues

II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / ISSUES A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. S. 2257(Cantwell D-WA) and H.R. 3556 (Grijalva D-AZ) – The National Park Service Centennial Act The National Park Service Centennial Act provides funding and management authority for the National Park Service (NPS) to help the country celebrate the Service’s 100th anniversary next year. The bill establishes a National Park Centennial Challenge Fund at the NPS, matched by private donations, to support signature NPS projects through 2018. The Fund relies on donations to leverage Federal funds. The Federal contribution cannot exceed $100 million annually. The bill provides a mandatory appropriation of $300 million to the NPS Construction Account for each of fiscal years 2016 through 2018, to correct deficiencies in NPS infrastructure and facilities. There are a number of other provisions which are listed in the attached fact sheet, but one element of interest to the District vis-à- vis the possible joint visitor center with NPS at Concord Hills is the section of the bill which discusses “improved utilization of partners and volunteers in interpretation and education.” This provision allows NPS to better collaborate with other agencies when providing interpretive services and training. While there are not tangible dollars affixed to this provision, it could help facilitate what is envisioned for the joint visitor center at Concord Hills.

Staff Recommendation: Support

B. ISSUES 1. Land and Water Conservation Fund update House and Senate staff continue to meet regarding funding levels and policy provisions in the Interior portion of the omnibus Federal funding bill. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) is expected to be funded in the range of $200 to $300 million. There are more than 30 environmental policy riders in the House Interior bill. Staff have been directed to complete a draft Omnibus bill by November 25 (day before Thanksgiving). The remaining issues would be resolved at Member-Leadership-White House level by December 1 and an omnibus bill would be filed by December 2 or 3. The current Continuing Resolution which is funding the government expires on December 11.

At the end of September, the 50-year-old Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) expired. LWCF, which was authorized at $900 million, pays for federal land acquisitions, private land conservation easements, state recreation projects and endangered species grants. It's been funded annually by revenues from offshore oil and gas development, accumulating an unappropriated balance of roughly $20 billion. Appropriators will still be able to draw from that fund when it comes time to pass another spending bill December 11. The program's expiration primarily means oil and gas companies have stopped paying into it. Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.) had planned to ask for unanimous consent to pass a 60 day extension, but there were objectors. The next opportunities for reauthorization are as a rider to a long-term surface transportation bill or in an omnibus spending bill in December. There is even talk of including LWCF in a bill to lift the ban on selling crude overseas as a way to pick up support for exports from moderate Democrats. The program's first expiration since its enactment in 1965 was a major blow to its proponents in Congress and in the conservation and recreation communities. Democrats and their allies pointed the finger at House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-UT) for stalling progress in the lower chamber after a compromise to permanently extend LWCF was reached by bipartisan leaders on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Rep. Bishop has highlighted there is still $20 billion on the LWCF balance sheet, which appropriators can spend as they see fit. At LWCF's recently appropriated levels of roughly $300 million annually, it would take more than 50 years to spend the account down. Rep. Bishop has said he supports reauthorization this year, but he wants more LWCF money sent to states and for programs that could grow the fund into the future and support education.

A bipartisan effort is being made to permanently reauthorize the LWCF program. S. 338, Land and Water Conservation Fund Reauthorization, is sponsored by Senator Richard Burr (R-N.C.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Michael Bennet (D-CO). Neither Senator is a Cosponsor.

2. Transportation update House and Senate staff are holding a preconference meetings on the transportation reauthorization bill. Staff are trying to hammer out some of the policy disagreements between the House and Senate bills ahead of a formal conference. So far, the focus has been on funding and pay fors in the bill. TIGER and the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAPs) both remain alive. TIGER is being addressed in the omnibus appropriations bill ($600 million in the Senate bill) with TAPs remaining as part of the reauthorization bill.

3. Other issues

III. San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority is a regional agency with a Governing Board made up of local elected officials, including Director John Sutter. Its purpose is to raise and allocate local resources for the restoration, enhancement protection, and enjoyment of wetlands and wildlife habitat in San Francisco Bay and along its shoreline.

The Authority was created by the legislature in 2008 to find solutions to the need for new, local funding. The Authority has the capacity to raise funds from local sources throughout the Bay Area. They also have oversight capacity to ensure transparency and prevent waste. The Authority does not duplicate the missions of other public agencies and private organizations working on Bay restoration. It is designed to deliver essential local funding to restoration, resiliency and flood protection projects developed and managed by other agencies. It does not have regulatory oversight.

The District has identified 22 shoreline restoration projects throughout the East Bay valued at over $120 million. When completed, these projects would restore and enhance approximately 3,500 acres of tidal wetlands and other shoreline habitats. The goals of these projects are to restore and enhance a mix of wetland habitats, provide wildlife oriented public access and recreation, and provide flood management and shoreline resiliency throughout the East Bay.

The Authority is seeking to enter into an agreement with the District to provide reimbursement of registrar cost funds that will allow for the Authority to ultimately pay $250,000 toward ballot access costs charged by the counties for placing a measure on the ballot. The District will be reimbursed by the Authority out of tax revenues over an agreed upon period of time if the measure passes.

On September 21, 2015, the Authority voted to place a nine Bay Area county ballot measure on the June 7, 2016, general election. The counties which will be subject to the special tax are: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, and the City and County of San Francisco. The Authority believes the costs charged by the nine counties to place a revenue measure on the ballot will total $2 million. The measure is subject to a two-thirds voter approval and would generate approximately $500 million in revenue, of which approximately at least $45 million would be directed to the East Bay. The proposed revenue distribution language specific from the Authority’s adopted resolution is as follows:

“The Authority shall ensure that 50% of the total net revenue generated through-out the term of the Measure is allocated to the four Bay Area regions, defined as the North Bay (Sonoma, Marin, Napa and Solano Counties), the East Bay (Alameda and Contra Costa Counties), the West Bay (City and County of San Francisco and San Mateo County) and the South Bay (Santa Clara County) in proportion to each region's share of the Bay Area's population, as determined in the 2010 census, and consistent with the priorities set forth in this section. As a result, each region will receive the following minimum percentage of total net revenue generated through-out the term of the measure: North Bay: 9%, East Bay: 18%, West Bay: 11%, South Bay: 12%. The remaining revenue shall be allocated consistent with all other provisions of this Measure.”

The District has spent approximately $40 million over the past 15 years toward the goal of wetland restoration and flood protection along the Alameda County and Contra Costa County shoreline. If passed, the Authority’s measure could help leverage additional funds to complete the 22 East Bay projects identified by the District – including Alameda Point, Big Break, Coyote Hills, Crown Beach, Hayward Shoreline, Mclauglin Eastshore State Park, Oakland Gateway Shoreline and Point Pinole.

A draft Memorandum of Agreement is being developed between the District and the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority. If the Board authorizes the General Manager to complete negotiations and enter into the Agreement, the Authority may then invoice the District for its share of the ballot access costs once the nine County Registrars have notified the Authority of its election costs. This will occur following the June 2016 general election. The Authority will also reimburse the District from the Authority’s operating funds if the revenue measure is successful.

Staff Recommendation: Authorize the General Manager to complete negotiations and enter into the Agreement with the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority for $250,000.

V. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LAFCo AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION POLICY CalLAFCo has among its legislative priorities to encourage a consistent definition of agricultural and open space lands, and to support policies and tools which protect prime agricultural and open spaces lands. The Contra Costa Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) is deliberating over a potential agricultural and open space lands preservation policy for the county. Options under consideration range from a simple affirmation of the agency’s intent to discourage urban development on prime agricultural land to the imposition of direct mitigation requirements on developers either in the form of land or in-lieu fees. The key drivers behind this discussion are Commissioners Sharon Burke and Don Tatzin. General Manager Robert E. Doyle participated in the initial launch of this effort on July 8th. A series of discussions have followed. Following input from the Commissioners and members of the public, including representatives from environmental groups, the agricultural community, the building industry and economic development interests, the Commission recommended the Committee conduct outreach to several groups to inquire how these groups would like to work with LAFCo on a proposed policy. The Committee has met with the Planning Committee of the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), Contra Costa Public Managers Association (PMA), and County Planning Directors Association. Presentations have been made to the Contra Costa Special Districts Association and the CCTA Board. The Brentwood Agricultural Land Trust (BALT) has recommended Co Co LAFCo adopt an agricultural protection policy to mitigate for the cumulative impact of the loss of farm and ranchland. Their recommendation is a one to one mitigation program, i.e. requires mitigation sufficient to permanently protect at least one acre of comparable agricultural land for every acre of land converted to development. The Building Industry Association has opposed this notion. Deliberations continue and the District may want to make comments.

V. DISTRICT SURVEY RESULTS Dr. Gary Manross will provide an overview of Strategy Research Institute’s most recent survey.

VI. PUBLIC COMMENTS

VII. ARTICLES a. Attachment I.B.1

TEXT FOR POWERPOINT

The Water Supply Reliability and Drought Protection Act of 2016 • $4.895 billion statewide bond measure • Filed as an initiative on October 19, 2015; takes 365,880 signatures to qualify • Lead proponent is Gerald Meral, Natural Heritage Institute • $1.865 billion for Watershed Improvement including $100 million to Coastal Conservancy Bay Program and millions to all major state conservancy’s • $400 million for flood management including $200 million for San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority • $1.525 for the State Water Resources Control Board (storm water capture, water recycling and desalination, water measurement, safe drinking water) • $680 million for Department of Water Resources (water conservation, flood management, groundwater storage)

Safe Neighborhood Parks, Rivers and Coastal Protection Act of 2016 – SB 317 • $2.45 billion statewide bond measure • Authored as legislation by Senate Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon • The outline of the $2.45 billion bond has four areas of emphasis: 1. Parks ($1.45 billion) 2. Rivers, Lakes and Streams ($370 million) 3. Coast and Ocean Protection ($350 million) 4. Climate Resilience ($280 million) • $800 million of the Parks funding for disadvantaged communities, $200 million for per capita, $200 million for regional parks and $300 million for the Coastal Conservancy

San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority • $12 parcel tax per year for the nine Bay Area Counties for 20 years • Will raise $25 million per year for local projects that directly improve the Bay • Targeting June 7, 2016 ballot

Contra Costa County Transportation Measure • 1/2 cent sales tax addition to Measure J • $2.3 billion over 25 years • Active Transportation and Regional Advanced Mitigation in the mix for the expenditure plan

Measure CC Renewal – East Bay Regional Park District • Possible renewal of $12 parcel tax per year for the shoreline communities from Richmond to the East Oakland – San Leandro Border • $3.1 million per year in ongoing funding which expires in 2020

Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act • 15% sales tax on purchasing marijuana and additional taxes on cultivating the flowers ($9.25 per dry weight ounce) and leaves ($2.75 per dry weight ounce) • Lead proponent Michael Sutton, former President of the California Fish and Game Commission and Vice President of National Audubon • Financially backed by Sean Parker, cofounder of Napster and former Facebook President • Creates a California Marijuana Tax Fund which is not considered part of the General Fund • 20% of funds collected go toward the Environmental Restoration and Protection Account to restore watersheds and wildlife habitat damaged by marijuana cultivation • Estimated $35 to $45 million annually for conservation • Funds administered by the Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Parks and Recreation

Water Priorities Public Interest and Public Trust Constitutional Amendment • Redirects $10.7 billion in unspent High Speed Rail Prop. 1A ($8 billion - 2008) and Water Bond Prop. 1 ($2.7 billion - 2014) • $4.2 billion for new construction of surface water storage, including Sites and Temperance Flat Reservoirs • $900 million to increase existing storage, including Shasta Dam and San Luis Reservoir • $2 billion for new construction of groundwater storage facilities • $2.2 billion for modernization of existing groundwater storage facilities • $1.7 billion for future surface and groundwater projects • Initiative creates a nine member State Water Storage and Groundwater Storage Facilities Authority within the Department of Water Resources • The initiative was submitted by George Runner, Vice Chair of the Board of Equalization and State Senator Bob Huff • As a Constitutional Amendment, it requires 590,000 signatures

BART “Fix it First” Bond • Possible $3 billion, three county measure • Capital funding for train controls, communications systems, tracks and structures, and station improvements • The bond cannot fund “movable assets”, i.e. train car replacement

Cap-and-Trade Auction Proceeds Second Investment Plan • Department of Finance, California Air Resources Board and other agencies will be submitting a three-year Investment Plan to the Legislature which will be included in the Governor’s Budget proposal in January • Recent Cap-and-Trade auctions have generated around $2.7 billion • The three-year Investment Plan is for the 40% of the proceeds which are considered discretionary • Final ARB consideration December 17 and 18

November 12, 2015

The Honorable Mary D. Nichols Chair, California Air Resources Board 1001 “I” Street Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Cap-and-Trade Auction Proceeds Second Investment Plan

Dear Chair Nichols:

Thank you for your leadership and service to the State of California. Your vigilant work in advocating for our environment and public health has helped California play an international role in efforts to address climate change. On behalf of the seven elected members of the East Bay Regional Park District’s Board, we wish to officially comment on the Cap-and-Trade Auction Proceeds Second Investment Plan.

The Park District is a steward of nearly 120,000 acres in the eastern – one of the most urbanized regions of California – and operates 200 plus miles of paved active transportation trails. The District is well positioned to support the State’s efforts to achieve greenhouse gas reduction objectives.

We applaud the recent October 27th Draft Second Investment Plan. We are pleased to see so many placeholders or “buckets” that our work as a public natural resource management agency could support. Importantly, we appreciate that special districts, such as our Public Resources Code 5500 agency, are identified as potential recipients for cap-and-trade proceeds. The grasslands, forests rangelands, wetlands, shorelines and open spaces we manage surely have an important role to play in protecting and growing carbon stocks on natural and working lands.

Forest Carbon Plan We believe the Forest Carbon Plan designated in the October 27th Draft Investment Plan is an extremely important step. The Park District’s Fire Department works squarely in the middle of the wildland-urban interface in the East Bay Hills. From 1923 to 1991, there were 15 major wildfires in the East Bay Hills interface. The 1991 East Bay Hills fire was nearly 25 years ago, but it is still the most costly of any wildfire in California. District employees were first responders when 25 people died and 3,280 residences were destroyed resulting in $1.5 billion in damages. Since that horrific event, the Park District has implemented a Wildfire Hazard Reduction and Resource Management Plan. This is ongoing, costly work. The Forest Carbon Plan should not only look at largescale forest carbon storage in rural areas, but the important work of protecting against wholesale releases of carbon where the wildland-urban interface places not only trees, but homes, infrastructure, vehicles – and most importantly, people – at risk. Historically, catastrophic carbon release due to wildfire has occurred in the East Bay Hills nearly every four and a half years. We are long

overdue for another, but with proper costly management, and despite extreme drought conditions, it is being prevented. Proper funding for fuels management work in these interface areas should be prioritized. Implementation strategy: Develop grant guidelines within the Forest Carbon Plan that consider or add points for wildland-urban interface fuels management work.

Leveraging Investments We appreciate the sentiment that “state-federal and public-private partnerships” will be “critical to effective management of natural and working lands in California.” We agree that state and federal investments in natural and working lands are providing climate benefits, but so too are regional and local investments. In the Bay Area, many of our public land agencies have passed significant funding measures with 2/3rds of the vote for natural resource protection, management and restoration. In some cases, it is actually local agency investments that leverage state and federal funds. Our agencies also provide significant co-benefits including: landscape-level protection and management of public lands, watershed protection, shoreline resiliency, protection of rangelands and grasslands, active transportation networks, recreational health benefits, economic benefits, wildlife corridors and habitats, and shoreline access. Implementation strategy: Provide priority to agencies, regions, or counties that have enacted local natural resource funding measures.

Paved Trail Active/Green Transportation Network: We appreciate the concept of sustainable communities programs being included in the 60% of continuous appropriations per SB 862 in 2014. We also very much appreciate the emphasis in the Draft Investment Plan on filling in the gaps in the sustainable communities and transportation infrastructure portfolio. In particular, we appreciate the fact that specified special districts, such as the East Bay Regional Park District, are included as potential recipients. As managers of over 200 miles of paved, non-motorized trails, which link the 33 cities of the East Bay together in an Active/Green Transportation Network, we wish to broaden the discussion about sustainable communities. Most interpretations of “a sustainable community” are that it is walkable and within a concentrated area. As interpreted by the Bay Area’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations they are classified as Priority Development Areas which are dense, infill housing pockets within a subsection of a city, usually near a transit node. In order to truly maximize GHG reduction benefits through Active Transportation, we need to focus on connecting communities. Completing the trail gaps between communities should be a priority to improve and/or create a true alternative transportation network for the non-motorized movement of people. Of our 41 trail counters, which in fact demonstrate trail usage peaks during the morning and evening commute hours, one located at the Pleasant Hill BART station has counted an increase of 50,000 annual users over the last five years. Multiply that out by 200 miles of paved trail and we have data to demonstrate a significant reduction in vehicle miles traveled. Regional agencies such as ours are able to complete non-motorized paved trail networks across jurisdictions. Prioritizing investments to regional agencies should be considered. Implementation strategy: Provide priority to connecting communities via non-motorized active transportation networks, with additional points considered for regional agencies that cross multiple jurisdictions.

Urban Greening: We agree that increasing the urban tree canopy and expansion of green infrastructure – including wetlands restoration and watershed protection – plays an important role in sequestering carbon and increasing energy efficiency. We offer a slight expansion to the definition of traditional urban greening projects. The population of the two counties served by the Park District, Alameda and Contra Costa, is over 2.5 million. The Park District has significant parks in highly urbanized parts of Oakland, Richmond and Fremont. Typically, District parks are more passive and not akin to neighborhood, pocket, or linear parks. They are in urban areas, but because of the size of some of our parks they don’t feel like it. To effectively realize urban greening benefits in regional parks, the scale of these allocations need to be significantly increased. We believe the Urban Greening for Sustainable Communities Program, overseen by the Strategic Growth Council and administered by the Natural Resources Agency, should be expanded. We also support creating a 4-5% allocation for a Carbon- Smart Green Infrastructure Program to integrate more co-benefits into the Urban Greening for Sustainable Communities Program. Implementation strategy: Develop two (or more) sets of criteria for urban greening grants, one of which recognizes larger scale projects in regional parklands that are within urban areas.

Wetland Creation and Coastal Resiliency: With close to $50 billion in homes, offices and infrastructure at jeopardy due to sea level rise in the Bay Area, we can ill afford to not consider resiliency in any Investment Plan related to climate change. Many of the East Bay’s most disadvantaged communities are along the shoreline and vulnerable to sea level rise, including Richmond, Oakland, Hayward, etc. Wetlands creation and restoration provides known GHG reduction benefits, and also improves watersheds and wildlife habitat. Importantly, as is pointed out in the Draft Investment Plan, “they are the first line of defense against sea-level rise and storm surge, particularly in the fragile Delta region.” We believe this should read, “particularly in the fragile San Francisco Bay-Delta region.” The Park District has developed innovative, adaptive strategies for Bay and Delta shorelines – such as the multi-million dollar Breuner Marsh wetlands restoration investment in Richmond and the $5.4 million sand replenishment effort along Shoreline Drive in Alameda – which provide buffer zones for homes and infrastructure while providing multiple co-benefits to the region. Regulatory challenges, however, restrict rapid development and future opportunities for wetland restoration and creation along the Bay-Delta region. As the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Science Update of 2015 points out, at least eight state and federal agencies are likely to have a role in the permitting process of Bay Area wetlands. In addition, wetlands restoration projects may need local authorization from cities or counties, and those that cross paths with railroad tracks, pipelines, highways and utilities need additional permission. Streamlined permitting mechanisms for wetlands restoration and creation are necessary. In addition, flexibility is needed for adaptive management of sites until best practices are truly understood. Also, flood-control channels need to be naturalized for both resiliency and water quality. Lastly, wetland restoration and creation projects which maximize carbon sequestration may not fully meet other habitat objectives that other regulatory agencies are charged with advancing. Implementation strategy: Streamline permit processes and provide flexibility in project management for wetland restoration and creation efforts funded by GGRF appropriations.

Carbon Sequestration and Land Use Planning: We agree with the Investment Plan’s assertion that protecting natural lands from conversion to more carbon- intensive uses, such as residential and commercial development, provides a high value to the state’s overall GHG reduction goals. Based on an evaluation by ICF Jones & Stokes, the average amount of carbon sequestered by the Park District’s lands is over 91,157 metric tons – the equivalent of removing 16,317 passenger cars and sport-utility vehicles from the road annually, saving approximately over 10.4 million gallons of gasoline. By preserving natural land in perpetuity, the District’s parklands represent an important permanent carbon stock of over 2.8 million metric tons (estimates last updated in 2011). Additionally, our properties form natural boundaries encouraging more infill development that reduces vehicle miles traveled, infrastructure expansion and the associated GHG emissions. These lands, however, need proper management to retain sequestration value – particularly with regard to wildfire threats. We believe public natural resource management agencies should be awarded offset credit funds for continued stewardship. Further, we believe property owners should be incentivized for conveying or selling land to grow carbon stocks. Private property owners should benefit from conveying or selling property, not just granting easements, to natural resource agencies rather than for a more carbon-intensive use. We believe this can be addressed in the Gaps and Needs Assessment Natural and Working Lands comments on page 43 of the Investment Plan by stating “targeting investments toward private landowners with easements and/or as incentives for outright transfer of land ownership to natural resource agencies on forest, undeveloped and agricultural lands that are at risk of conversion.” Implementation strategy: Provide annual offset credit funding for effective long term management and incentivize property transfers to natural resource agencies.

As is stated in the Draft Investment Plan, “there is a strong history of land conservation in California [and particularly in the East Bay] to protect wildlife, preserve agricultural viability, improve water supply and quality, and provide parks and open space for residents and visitors from around the world.” The District concurs that California’s lands “should be protected and managed wisely to reverse carbon loss, and to preserve and grow carbon stocks.” To reach our collective goals, there must be significant investment from Cap-and-Trade proceeds in managing, maintaining and restoring our natural lands – including the parks, open space, wetlands and rangelands of the East Bay.

Thank you again for your leadership on this issue. We look forward to continuing to work with you. Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions or would like additional support documentation.

Regards,

Robert E. Doyle General Manager East Bay Regional Park District cc: Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. The Honorable Matthew Rodriquez, Secretary, California Environmental Protection Agency The Honorable John Laird, Secretary, California Natural Resources Agency The Honorable Michael Cohen, Finance Director, California Department of Finance East Bay California Legislative Delegation EBRPD Board of Directors

Board Legislative Committee Attachment VII December 4, 2015

San Francisco Bay: Race to build wetlands is needed to stave off sea-level rise, scientists say

By Paul Rogers [email protected] | Posted: 10/18/2015 06:00:00 PM PDT Updated: 12 days ago

The Facebook campus sits next to the Menlo Park Baylands amid the rich colors of the drying mud flats in Ravenswood Slough in this aerial view taken Wednesday afternoon, Sept. 2, 2015, in Menlo Park, Calif. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)

San Francisco Bay is in a race against time, with billions of dollars of highways, airports, homes and office buildings at risk from rising seas, surging tides and extreme storms driven by climate change.

And to knock down the waves and reduce flooding, 54,000 acres of wetlands -- an area twice the size of the city of San Francisco -- need to be restored around the bay in the next 15 years.

That's the conclusion of a new report from more than 100 Bay Area scientists and 17 government agencies that may help fuel a regional tax measure aimed at addressing the looming crisis.

The other alternative, the report found, is to ring large sections of the bay with seawalls and levees in the coming decades. But that would destroy many of the marshes and probably cost taxpayers more in the long run.

"If we don't change our approach, we'll see the marshes and mud flats start to drown," said Letitia Grenier, a biologist with the San Francisco Estuary Institute, a scientific research organization in Richmond.

"They'll start to erode," said Grenier, one of the report's main authors. "We'll have bigger waves coming in on high tides and storms -- and more flooding. We'll lose our wildlife. And eventually the wetlands will be gone. You'll see levees and concrete seawalls. The water in many places will be higher than the land, like it is in New Orleans."

San Francisco Bay already has risen 8 inches since 1900, according to the tidal gauge at Fort Point, underneath the Golden Gate Bridge.

Driven by melting ice and expanding warming water, the bay and the Pacific Ocean off California will rise up to 1 foot in the next 20 years, 2 feet by 2050 and up to 5 feet by 2100, according to a 2012 study by the National Academy of Sciences.

Last year was the hottest year recorded on Earth since modern temperature recordkeeping began in 1880. This year is on pace to break that record. And the 10 hottest years all have occurred since 1998.

Similar to the way that Hurricane Sandy sent ocean waters pouring into New York City subways three years ago, low- lying areas around San Francisco Bay face major threats as sea level rises, the report found.

Experts say some places will need seawalls, including the San Francisco and Oakland airports, Treasure Island, downtown San Francisco and shoreline communities like Foster City. But in other places, there's still time to work with nature rather than against it, according to the report, titled "The Baylands and Climate Change: What We Can Do." That means restoring large sections of hayfields in the North Bay near Highway 37 and former Cargill Salt industrial salt ponds in the South Bay back to tidal marsh, along with areas along the western and eastern sides of the bay.

Experts say time is running out because once the more severe sea level rise starts, restoring wetlands will be more difficult and expensive.

"We're at a critical crossroads. What we do in the next 15 or 20 years will largely determine what San Francisco Bay is going to look like 100 years from now," said Sam Schuchat, executive officer of the California Coastal Conservancy, a state agency that helped coordinate the report.

Wetlands provide natural flood protection by breaking up wave energy. They also filter pollutants, offer recreation for hikers and bicyclists, and are home to hundreds of species of fish and wildlife -- from salmon to snowy egrets to harbor seals.

Since the Gold Rush in 1849, San Francisco Bay has shrunk by a third because of diking, development and filling. That largely stopped in the 1980s because of state and federal laws. Now the goal is to expand the bay back out.

In 1999, there were 40,000 acres of tidal marsh left around the bay, an 80 percent loss from 1800.

Scientists in 1999 wrote a report calling for 100,000 acres to restore the natural processes of the bay. Since then, 6,000 more have been restored, and another 26,000 acres have been purchased by state and federal agencies.

To reach the goal of 100,000 acres of healthy wetlands, the 26,000 acres has to be restored -- and another 28,000 acres purchased and restored.

Total cost estimate: $1.5 billion, Schuchat said.

"It's a lot of money, but it's cheaper to do it now than to wait for bad things to happen and then do things in a hurry down the road," he said. "We have a shot of maintaining what is really special about the bay and living in the Bay Area."

A coalition of groups -- including Save the Bay, the Bay Area Council, Audubon California and the Leadership Group -- is working on a $12 annual parcel tax for all nine counties around the bay. The groups are expected to place the measure, which would raise $500 million over the next 20 years for wetlands restoration and flood control, on June ballots.

"There's a strong scientific reason for accelerating this marsh restoration work," said David Lewis, executive director of Save the Bay. "The main missing ingredient is funding. The sooner we get started, the more successful it will be."

There are other big challenges, however. Restoring marshes and raising their elevation requires millions of tons of sand and mud. Each year, roughly 2 million cubic yards is dredged out of shipping channels by the Port of Oakland and other harbors. But two-thirds of that is dumped in the ocean because it's the cheapest disposal method.

To use most of it to create new wetlands, federal rules have to be changed. More sediment also can come from cities re-engineering how they route streams to the bay, as well as water agencies removing sediment from behind dams.

"We've been fighting nature for so many centuries, but now we've won," biologist Grenier said. "Now to support ourselves, we need to work with nature."

Top 10 Measures Likely to Appear on November 2016 California Ballot

By Jon Fleischman | 12/13/2014

The General Election ballot in 2016 is likely to have more statewide ballot measures on it than California voters have seen in a long time. The main reason for this is that the number of signatures needed in order to qualify a statutory measure or even a constitutional amendment have plummeted with the pathetically low turnout in last month’s election (the signature requirement is 5% of the number of people who voted in the last gubernatorial election).

To be specific, it previously took 504,760 valid signatures to place a statutory initiative on the ballot. It will now take less than 370,000. For a constitutional amendment, the number has dropped from 807,615 to less than 590,000. A couple of years ago, a law was signed that requires that all measures placed on the ballot by signature petitions must appear on the November-not the June-ballot.

Below are the top ten measures most likely to appear on the November, 2016 ballot:

PLASTIC GROCERY BAG BAN — In a naked profit grab supported by the California Grocers Association, the legislature passed and Governor Brown signed into law a bill that would ban single-use plastic grocery bags and would mandate that stores charge at least ten cents for every paper bag given to a customer. This paper bag fee puts hundreds of millions of dollars of profits straight into the pockets of grocery store owners. A coalition representing plastic bag manufacturers is currently gathering signatures to refer this bill to the voters.

MEDICAL MARIJUANA — In 1996, California voters passed a ballot measure legalizing medical marijuana. Now the push is on to put another measure before Golden State voters that would decriminalize recreational marijuana use and regulate it, much the same way that alcohol use is currently regulated. Similar measures have recently passed in a handful of other states, and advocates are already targeting California.

PROP. 30 EXTENSION — In 2012, at the behest of Governor , California voters approved a significant increase in sales and income taxes in California. It was sold to voters as needed to fund California schools, although money from these tax increases has been spent much more broadly. It is virtually certain that a “renewal” of this tax hike package will be placed on the ballot by Governor Brown.

OIL SEVERANCE TAX — Billionaire former hedge fund manager Tom Steyer has, on many occasions, talked about his desire to see California impose an oil extraction tax — taxing oil companies on each barrel of oil extracted from the ground. Steyer calls the absence of such a tax in California a “loophole” that he thinks should be closed. Of course someone of Steyer’s means could easily hire the paid signature gatherers to put this on the November ballot. TOBACCO TAX — Currently, California’s smokers pay 87 cents per pack of cigarettes in state taxes, ranking us 33rd in the country. The well-heeled California Medical Association announced this month that they are part of a coalition to seek a $2 per pack increase in the state’s tobacco tax. The number of packs of cigarettes sold in California has dropped from 1.4 billion back in 1990 down to around 870 million today.

COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TAX — California’s landmark property tax reform measure, Proposition 13, passed in 1978, limits reassessment of property values to when properties change ownership. Those seeking to increase state revenues are advocating placing what is called a “split roll tax” before the voters, which in essence would keep the tight restrictions on residential property taxation but really make it a lot easier to increase taxes on commercial properties.

BATHROOM BILL — In 2013 a law was signed, referred to as the transgendered bathroom bill, that would have allowed students to play on gender-segregated school sporting teams, or use bathrooms based on their gender identity rather than their biological gender. An attempt to refer this bill to voters fell short – barely. But the signatures gathered were well above what would be needed to place a measure on the ballot in 2016.

PENSION REFORM — Former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed led a coalition of folks who were looking at putting potential significant public sector pension reforms on the ballot this year, but they ended up holding off for 2016. Both the lower signature threshold and the growing magnitude of the combined unfunded public employee pension liabilities at both the state and local level make it extremely likely that Reed puts this reform up in 2016. MINIMUM WAGE — This last year saw multiple ballot measures pass around the country hiking the minimum wage. Liberal activists in California have been advocating for an increase in the minimum wage here. Actually our minimum wage here is about to jump to $10 from it’s current $9 — but there is thought that a hike up to $13 could find its way before voters if it isn’t just approved out the gate by the left-wing legislature.

GAY MARRIAGE — In 2008, by a 53%-47% margin, voters passed Proposition 8, which stated, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Public opinion has shifted away from this definition in the last eight years and, while Prop. 8 was invalidated by the courts, look for gay rights activists to place something on the ballot next go-around to make sure that the people have a chance to state their collective opinion on same-sex marriage.

Yes, the 2016 ballot will keep voters busy and be a full-employment act for political consultants.

Fremont Republican enters race to unseat Rep.

By Josh Richman [email protected] POSTED: 11/19/2015 03:33:27 PM PST0 COMMENTS | UPDATED: 3 DAYS AGO

A Republican has entered the race to unseat Rep. Mike Honda, changing the dynamic of the second showdown between Honda and fellow Democrat . Ron Cohen, 56, a Fremont accountant, filed papers with the Federal Election Commission this month to form a campaign committee for what will be his first bid for public office. In a brief interview Thursday, Cohen said he's not yet ready to share his entire platform but described himself as a fiscal and social conservative who wants to provide a counterpoint to Honda, D-San Jose, and Khanna. Cohen said he has never sought public office before because he was too busy building his CPA practice; he's an international tax partner at a firm in Fremont. But having become a grandfather recently, he's grown more concerned with federal spending, Cohen said.

Courtesy Ron Cohen -- Pictured is Ron Cohen of Fremont. Cohen on Friday, Nov. 19, 2015, announced he is a candidate to challenge Mike Honda for his seat in Congress. Cohen will run as a Republican challenger to Democrat Honda, who is also being challenged by another Democratic foe, Ro Khanna.

"Look into the eyes of your children and grandchildren -- we will leave them tied to an anchor of debt," he said. "The federal government is starting to look like a legal Ponzi scheme." Honda welcomes Cohen into the race, campaign manager Michael Beckendorf said. "Mike has always focused on ensuring that hardworking families aren't economically left behind, and he looks forward to a spirited dialogue about the issues facing Silicon Valley and our nation," Beckendorf said. Given that only one bill authored by Honda has ever become law, and given the pending House Ethics Committee investigation of whether his office and campaign inappropriately shared resources, "it's not surprising Mike Honda is drawing challengers from all corners," said Khanna campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan. Voters want someone both with progressive values and the ability to work across the aisle to improve education and strengthen the middle class, he said, and Khanna "is the only candidate in the race to offer that kind of leadership." But as another alternative to the incumbent, and one who'll siphon away voters who probably never would've voted for Honda anyway, Cohen's entry changes the race's calculus. The 17th District -- a central swath of Silicon Valley and the first Asian-American majority district outside -- is 43 percent Democrat, 19 percent Republican and 33 percent nonpartisan. Republican Vanila Singh got 17 percent of the vote in last June's primary, failing to make the "top two" cut and leaving Khanna to challenge Honda in November. Khanna lost by 3.6 percentage points.

"I checked into it with the Republican Party and nobody else seems to be running -- it's a tough district for Republicans, I realize," Cohen said.

Still, Singh's presence affected 2014's race. Khanna spent big before the primary, even airing television ads, in trying to ensure Singh didn't peel away too many "anyone but Honda" votes. That left Khanna's campaign practically broke in the general election campaign's final weeks, though a super PAC pitched in.

Once again this year, any Republican votes going to Cohen are more likely to come out of Khanna's pocket than Honda's. But because this is Khanna's second run, he already has far better name recognition and funding than Cohen can likely muster.

Josh Richman covers politics. Follow him at Twitter.com/Josh_Richman. Read the Political Blotter at IBAbuzz.com/politics.