BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE Friday, May 17, 2019 12:30 p.m. EBRPD – Administrative Headquarters 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California 94605

The following agenda items are listed for Committee consideration. In accordance with the Board Operating Guidelines, no official action of the Board will be taken at this meeting; rather, the Committee’s purpose shall be to review the listed items and to consider developing recommendations to the Board of Directors.

A copy of the background materials concerning these agenda items, including any material that may have been submitted less than 72 hours before the meeting, is available for inspection on the District’s website (www. ebparks.org), the Headquarters reception desk, and at the meeting.

Public Comment on Agenda Items If you wish to testify on an item on the agenda, please complete a speaker’s form and submit it to the recording secretary. Your name will be called when the item is announced for discussion.

Accommodations and Access District facilities and meetings comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If special accommodations are needed for you to participate, please contact the Clerk of the Board at 510-544-2020 as soon as possible, but preferably at least three working days prior to the meeting.

AGENDA

TIME ITEM STATUS STAFF

12:30 I. STATE LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION R Doyle/Pfuehler 1. AB 296 (Cooley D-Rancho Cordova) - Climate Innovation Grant Program 2. AB 1190 (Irwin D-Thousand Oaks) – Prohibition of Local Drone Bans 3. AB 1300 (Kamlager-Dove D-Los Angeles) – Explore the Coast Program of the State Coastal Conservancy 4. AB 1486 (Ting D-San Francisco) – Surplus Land for Housing 5. AB 1516 (Friedman D-Glendale) - Defensible Space and Wildfire Protection 6. ACR 89 (Cooley D-Rancho Cordova) Special Districts Week 7. Other Matters

B. OTHER STATE MATTERS I Doyle/Pfuehler 1. Update about AB 1025 (Grayson D-Concord) – California Transportation Commission San Ramon Branch Corridor (Iron Horse Trail) Reimbursement 2. Governor’s May Budget Revision 3. Other Matters

II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION R Doyle/Pfuehler 1. S. 1110 (Harris) and H.R. 2250 (Huffman D-CA) – Northwest California Wilderness Act 2. Other Matters

B. OTHER FEDERAL MATTERS I Doyle/Pfuehler 1. Other Matters

III. PARK AND PUBLIC INTEREST COMMUNITY I Pfuehler/Baldinger ENGAGEMENT PROJECT

IV. ARTICLES

V. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT Individuals wishing to address the Committee on a topic not on the agenda may do so by completing a speaker’s form and submitting it to the recording secretary.

VI. BOARD COMMENTS

(R) Recommendation for Future Board Consideration Future Meetings: (I) Information January 18 July 19 (D) Discussion February – NO MTG August 16 March 15 September – NO MTG Legislative Committee Members April 19 October 18 Dennis Waespi (Chair); Ellen Corbett, Colin Coffey May 17 November – NO MTG Director Dee Rosario, Alternate June – NO MTG *December 13 Erich Pfuehler, Government Affairs Manager

TO: Board Legislative Committee (Chair Dennis Waespi, Colin Coffey, Ellen Corbett, alt. Dee Rosario)

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

SUBJECT: Board Legislative Committee Meeting WHEN: Friday, May 17, 2019 12:30 PM Lunch will be served

WHERE: Board Room, Peralta Oaks ______

Items to be discussed:

I. STATE LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. AB 296 (Cooley D – Rancho Cordova) – Climate Innovation Grant Program Assembly Member Cooley’s legislation would establish the Climate Innovation Grant Program, to be administered by the Strategic Growth Council. The program would award grants for the development and research of new innovations and technologies that either reduce emissions of greenhouse gases or address impacts caused by climate change. The bill establishes the Climate Innovation Voluntary Tax Contribution Account, where taxpayers can contribute a portion of their return to the Climate Innovation Fund which supports the grants. General Fund monies will not be deposited into the Fund. Some of the suggested innovations which could be funded by the grant program and could potentially benefit the District are: 1. Contribute to permanent and safe sequestration of greenhouse gases and carbon storage. 2. Contribute to permanent and safe removal of air pollutants. 3. Contribute to clean, reliable and affordable transportation solutions. 4. Address water quality and reliability issues that reduce environmental impacts. This could include promoting improved water quality, improved water supply reliability or reduced flood risk. It could also include enhancing fish and wildlife habitat. 5. Address soil quality issues, including addressing plant and soil health and quality.

Staff recommendation: Support

2. AB 1190 (Irwin D – Thousand Oaks) – Prohibition of Local Drone Bans Assembly Member Irwin’s bill would prohibit a state or local agency from adopting any law or regulation banning the operation of an unmanned aircraft system. The League of Cities and drone industry stakeholders are supporting this legislation as an attempt to establish a statewide regulatory policy on the use of drones. While recreational drone users are certainly an interested stakeholder, the real driver behind this legislation may be companies which intend to both sell and use drones as delivery vehicles. Unfortunately, in the League’s efforts to set uniform statewide standards, this ban on drone management would apply to park agencies managing open space areas where drone flights could be harmful to wildlife and inconsistent with a wilderness experience. The District has a current drone policy

1

based the ownership/management of parklands. District legal counsel feel the legislation as it stands should be opposed.

Staff recommendation: Oppose

3. AB 1300 (Kamlager-Dove D – Los Angeles) – Explore the Coast Program of the State Coastal Conservancy Assembly Member Kamlager-Dove seeks to formalize the Explore the Coast Program within the Coastal Conservancy to expand opportunities for all Californians to access and enjoy the state’s coastal resources. While the Conservancy currently offers Explore the Coast grants, this bill would legislatively authorize the program. The bill would require the Conservancy to prioritize projects that provide students and youth with an opportunity to visit the coast for the first time. Eligible projects include, but are not limited to, those projects that involve providing transportation, physical activity programming, resource interpretation, education, multilingual translation, or communication for purposes of providing access to and enjoyment of coastal resources. The District received a $50,000 grant from the Explore the Coast Program for Parks Express trips to Shoreline Parks in 2014-2015. The District has applied for another $50,000 to fund Shoreline Recreation Outreach Programs.

Staff recommendation: Support

4. AB 1486 (Ting D – San Francisco) – Surplus Land for Housing Assembly Member Ting’s bill would require public agencies to offer a right of first refusal to affordable housing developers, schools and park agencies before leasing, selling or otherwise “conveying” any of the agency’s land. The bill would also require local agencies to produce a central inventory of specified surplus governmental property on or before December 31 of each year. It would further require the local agency to make a description of each parcel and its present uses a matter of public record. This inventory would need to be reported to the Department of Housing and Community Development no later than April 1 of each year, beginning April 1, 2021. Finally, the bill would provide that land is presumed to be surplus land when a local agency initiates an action to dispose of it. Given the District’s Mission and Vision seek to protect its lands in perpetuity, it is unclear if this bill would directly impact District parklands (other than the inventory requirement). It could, however, impact District acquisition of surplus lands.

Staff recommendation: Watch

5. AB 1516 (Friedman D – Glendale) – Defensible Space and Wildfire Protection The goal of Assembly Member Friedman’s bill is to improve defensible space requirements and compliance to protect lives, businesses and homes. Current law requires owners of occupied dwellings to maintain a defensible space of 100 feet from each side and from the front and rear of the structure. This bill would require a person described above to utilize more intense fuel reductions between 5 and 30 feet around the structure, and to create a noncombustible zone within 5 feet of the structure. This would put more teeth into vegetation management requirements with which individual homeowners would need to comply. By extension, less focus on adjacent landowners like the District in some cases. This legislation also aligns well with the work on which Public Affairs has engaged to educate homeowners about defensible space.

2

Staff recommendation: Watch

6. ACR 89 (Cooley D – Rancho Cordova) – Special Districts Week This measure proclaims September 22, 2019 to September 28, 2019, to be Special Districts Week.

Staff recommendation: Support

7. Other Matters

B. OTHER STATE MATTERS 1. Update about AB 1025 (Grayson D – Concord) – California Transportation Commission San Ramon Branch Corridor (Iron Horse Trail) Reimbursement The legislation has been amended to add the Contra Costa Transportation Agency (CCTA) to the Iron Horse Corridor Management Program Advisory Committee. It also calls on the Committee to study emerging mobility modes and technologies including autonomous vehicles. Staff is concerned CCTA is trying to use some right-of-way for autonomous vehicles when really it should be used for a second trail so there is one for walking and one for biking. The CCTA language was added to placate Assembly Member Jim Frazier. While the bill still resolves the 1982 funding issue, it now presents challenges for the District.

2. Governor Newsom’s May Budget Revision The Governor released his May Revise on the 2019/20 budget proposal. The May Revise identifies the changes made to what was released in January. Below are a number of highlights of interest:

Department of Parks and Recreation $15.9 million to the Department of Parks and Recreation, of which $7.1 million will be used to survey the impacts and identify unknown areas of cannabis cultivation to assist with prioritizing resources for effective enforcement, $5.6 million for remediation and restoration of illegal cultivation activities on state park land, and $3.2 million to make roads and trails accessible for peace officer patrol and program assessment and development.

Cap and Trade The May Revise failed to include any funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) for Natural and Working Lands (NWL), which includes items such as Urban Greening, Urban Forestry and Conservancy funding. The largest categorical benefactor of the May Revise is the Transformative Communities Program which saw an increase of $92 million. For lack of a better term, this is a comprehensive urban renewal program/tool to reduce carbon in densely urbanized settings through investments in projects and programs. The Legislature has a letter in circulation asking for $400 to be available for NWL, which is the position the Bay Area Legislative Advocacy Group has taken.

Proposition 64 Proposition 64 specified the allocation of resources in the Cannabis Tax Fund. Pursuant to Proposition 64, expenditures are prioritized for regulatory and administrative workload necessary to implement, administer and enforce the Cannabis Act. The second tier of

3

expenditures is research and activities related to the legalization of cannabis, and the past effects of its criminalization. Once those priorities have been met, the remaining funds are allocated to youth education, prevention, early intervention and treatment; environmental restoration; and public-safety related activities. The May Revision estimates $198.8 million will be available for these purposes, and allocates them for the first time in 2019-20 as identified below.

Education, prevention, and treatment of youth substance use disorders and school retention—60 percent ($119.3 million): • $12 million to the Department of Public Health for cannabis surveillance and education activities. • Remaining 75 percent ($80.5 million) to the Department of Education to subsidize child care for school-aged children of income-eligible families to keep these children occupied and engaged in a safe environment, thus discouraging potential use of cannabis. • Remaining 20 percent ($21.5 million) to the Department of Health Care Services for competitive grants to develop and implement new youth programs in the areas of education, prevention and treatment of substance use disorders along with preventing harm from substance use. • Remaining 5 percent ($5.3 million) to California Natural Resources Agency to support youth community access grants. These grants will fund programs to support youth access to natural or cultural resources, with a focus on low-income and disadvantaged communities. This includes community education and recreational amenities to support youth substance use prevention and early intervention efforts.

Staff and Advocate Houston will provide additional updates verbally.

3. Other Matters

II. FEDERAL LEGISLATION / OTHER MATTERS A. NEW LEGISLATION 1. S. 1110 (Harris D – CA) and H.R. 2250 (Huffman D – CA) – Northwest California Wilderness Act Senator Kamala Harris and Representative Jared Huffman have reintroduced this legislation to protect wild places on Federal lands, restore forests and fish habitat, benefit local economies, enhance recreational opportunities and protect communities by increasing fire resilience. It does not expand federal land, limit hunting or fishing, close any legally open roads or trails to vehicles, or affect access to or the use of private property. Among other things, the legislation: • Restores damaged forests and watersheds on public lands and reduces wildfire risks. • Authorizes old growth redwoods restoration and collaborative partnerships. • Restores public lands affected by illegal trespass marijuana grows by establishing a partnership of federal, state and local entities to facilitate the recovery of land and waters damaged by illegal marijuana growing sites. • Requires federal agencies to cooperate and coordinate fire management in northwestern California’s wilderness areas, including pre-fire planning which is especially important in large wilderness areas managed by multiple agencies.

4

• Improves recreation opportunities and trails on public lands for residents and visitors. • Expands nine existing wilderness areas and establishes eight new ones. • Designates 379 miles of new Wild and Scenic rivers, and mandates federal agencies to create management plans for 101 miles of existing wild and scenic rivers. • Establishes the Sanhedrin Conservation Management Area, where the U.S. Forest Service would focus on conserving, protecting, and enhancing late-successional forest structure, oak woodlands and grasslands.

While this legislation impacts Federal lands outside of the East Bay, it is a good proactive precedent in advancing many of the values included in the District’s Mission and Vision. In particular, the attention to “enhancing late-successional forest structure, oak woodlands and grasslands” highlights much of the topography that is both part of the District’s landscape and at risk of wildfire. The focus on redwood restoration and collaborative partnerships is also a shared goal of the District. Save the Redwoods League worked with Rep. Huffman’s staff on the redwood section, SEC 102, under the restoration component of the bill. While not branded, the language was designed specifically to support Redwoods Rising. Redwoods Rising is a new collaboration between Save the Redwoods League, the National Park Service and California State Parks.

Staff Recommendation: Support

2. Other Matters

B. OTHER FEDERAL MATTERS I. Other Matters

III. PARK AND PUBLIC INTEREST COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT PROJECT Staff will provide a verbal update about the Park and Public Interest Community Engagement Project.

IV. ARTICLES

V. OPEN FORUM PUBLIC COMMENT

VI. BOARD COMMENTS

5

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV May 17, 2019

LOCAL // PHIL MATIER Maritime industry warns of harm from proposed Oakland A’s stadium

Phil Matier April 17, 2019 Updated: April 17, 2019 4 a.m.

Cranes and shipping containers line the Charles P. Howard Terminal, which is being pitched by the Oakland A’s as the location for a new baseball stadium. Photo: Noah Berger / Special to The Chronicle

A rendering released last year by the Oakland A’s shows the baseball team’s proposed 34,000-seat stadium at Howard Terminal. The project would include housing in a new neighborhood situated between a shipping channel turning basin and a rail line. Photo: BIG - Bjarke Ingels Group / Associated Press

The Port of Oakland’s maritime industry is raising red flags over the Oakland A’s new waterfront ballpark plan, saying the 34,000-seat stadium and housing project would pose both a safety risk to ships and a threat to the port’s future as a major, regional economic engine.

“Between the traffic congestion it will bring, the navigational risks it will pose to shipping vessels and the land-use conflicts it will create, there’s no way for this project to proceed without doing irreparable harm to Oakland’s working waterfront,” said Mike Jacob, vice president at the Pacific Merchant Shipping Association and a leader in the coalition of port workers, bar pilots, truckers and cargo terminal operators who are bringing their concerns to the Oakland Board of Port Commissioners.

The A’s counter that the ballpark and housing project wouldn’t endanger any port jobs or adversely impact the port’s shipping business.

“In fact, it will create 5,000 new jobs, alongside the hundreds of jobs that currently exist there now,” A’s spokeswoman Catherine Aker said.

In the middle of the debate are the port commissioners, who are negotiating with the A’s, who want to acquire Howard Terminal on the Oakland Inner Harbor. In addition to a real estate deal, the commission finds itself having to balance the needs and future of the third-largest port on the West Coast with the desire of Mayor Libby Schaaf and the Oakland A’s to create a new neighborhood — with the ballpark as the centerpiece — along the waterfront.

“We have not come to a conclusion yet. We are still listening,” said Port Commission President Cestra “Ces” Butner.

“They are listening, but we don’t know what they are doing behind closed doors with the information,” Jacob said.

One of the maritime industry’s top concerns is the proposed ballpark’s location.

Unlike the San Francisco Giants’ Oracle Park, which sits on a relatively quiet stretch of waterfront, the A’s stadium would be perched right on the edge of the port’s Inner Harbor turning basin.

The basin, which lies between Oakland and Alameda, is a key waterway where each week bar pilots turn around an average of 25 ships — some as long as three football fields — after the vessels unload and load cargo at two nearby terminals.

“Given the size of the ships, the 1,500-foot-wide turning basin leaves pilots with very little room to spare,” said San Francisco Bar Pilots Association President Capt. Joseph Long. The pilots’ concerns include how the ballpark’s lights, which Long likened to high beams from oncoming traffic, might interfere with their vision. They’re also concerned about baseball fans and new neighborhood residents gathering along the shoreline or in the harbor in kayaks and pleasure boats like they do at McCovey Cove outside Oracle Park.

“Counting on regulatory and law enforcement agencies to keep those spectators out of the ships’ way at every game is not realistic,” Long said.

Shipping containers rest at the Charles P. Howard Terminal, a proposed location for a new Oakland Athletics baseball stadium, on Monday, Sept. 17, 2018, in Oakland, Calif. Photo: Noah Berger / Special to The Chronicle

The turning basin may also need to be widened to accommodate even bigger cargo ships coming online.

The A’s said they are aware of the pilots’ concerns, which their technical experts believe can be addressed with new lighting technology and site design. They have also left room to expand the basin.

The Union Pacific Railroad Company, which owns the train line adjacent to the ballpark that serves freight, Amtrak and Capitol Corridor lines, has also waded into the debate. In a Jan. 11 letter to the Oakland Planning and Building Department, Union Pacific officials said that the stadium’s location raises “significant issues” related to railroad safety.

“Freight and passenger lines operate on this line both day and night, seven days per week,” railroad officials wrote in the Jan. 11 letter.

Union Pacific wants the rail line fenced off and overhead crossings, similar to the walkway that crosses over the tracks between the A’s current home at the Coliseum and the Coliseum BART Station, to keep the fans away from the tracks. The elevated crossings would be in addition to the gondola being pitched by the A’s that would run between the ballpark and downtown Oakland.

Meanwhile, the negotiations — and the debate — continue, with the emerging question being what is best for the overall future of the port.

“It will be up to us to make a decision, both on the financial impact and on whether the ballpark fits in with the port,” Butner said. “We are not going to cause the terminals any financial hardships. We are not going to step on our own throat.”

Butner said a decision will be made hopefully by the end of April.

“Unlike politicians, we will not be kicking the can down the road,” he said.

Howard Terminal was the A’s second choice for the new ballpark. The team’s first choice near downtown died after objections were raised by the students and faculty of nearby Laney College and from community activists who feared the ballpark would gentrify the neighborhood.

So, once again, while the idea of a new ballpark is a hit citywide, the neighbors are the ones raising objections.

San Francisco Chronicle columnist Phillip Matier appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Matier can be seen on the KPIX-TV morning and evening news. He can also be heard on KCBS radio Monday through Friday at 7:50 a.m. and 5:50 p.m. Got a tip? Call 415-777-8815, or email [email protected]. Twitter: @philmatier

Phil Matier

Whether writing about politics or personalities, Phil Matier has informed and entertained readers for more than two decades about the always fascinating Bay Area and beyond. The blend of scoops, insights and investigative reporting can be found every Sunday, Monday and Wednesday in the Chronicle.

Phil is also a regular on KPIX TV and KCBS Radio.

Past Articles from this Author:

• Still value in Oakland Coliseum — Ring Central buys naming rights for $1 million a year • Oakland port commission to take up ballpark Monday as opposition persists • In SF’s Tenderloin, there’s a revolving door — of drug dealers, that is

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV May 17, 2019

LOCAL // POLITICS Former Rep. Ellen Tauscher, who negotiated arms control deals under Obama, dies at 67

Steve Rubenstein April 30, 2019 Updated: April 30, 2019 6:23 p.m.

Former East Bay Rep. Ellen Tauscher, who served seven terms in the House, became undersecretary of state to Hillary Rodham Clinton in 2009 and was instrumental in the U.S.-Russia nuclear treaty that year. Photo: Lea Suzuki / The Chronicle 2009

Former East Bay Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a centrist Democrat and an expert on arms control policy who served seven terms in the House and later negotiated weapons pacts during the Obama administration, has died, her family said. She was 67. Tauscher died Monday at Stanford Hospital, where she was being treated for pneumonia complicated by the effects of cancer surgery in 2010. In a statement three weeks ago, she said she was “on the mend but they tell me it will be slow going.”

“Ellen was brilliant, gracious and generous and always did her level best to lift up those around her,” said her longtime friend Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. “She’ll always be remembered.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, called Tauscher an “extraordinary force for progress whose leadership will continue to inspire generations of American leaders.”

Hillary Clinton, who was secretary of state when Tauscher served in the State Department during the Obama administration, called her “fearless, brilliant and bighearted.”

Tauscher worked on Wall Street before being elected to the House in 1996 from a district that included much of Contra Costa County as well as parts of Alameda, Solano and Sacramento counties. She unseated Rep. Bill Baker, the last Republican to represent a Bay Area-centered House district.

Her moderate politics, which some called “Tauscherism,” helped her win repeated elections in a congressional district that, in her early terms, was more Republican than Democratic. She was re-elected six times and served on the Transportation and Armed Services committees before resigning her seat in 2009 to serve as undersecretary of state for arms control under President Barack Obama. She held that post for three years.

During her tenure as a diplomat, she helped negotiate the new START treaty between the U.S. and Russia that limited missiles, missile launchers and nuclear warheads. The Senate ratified the treaty in 2010.

“In order to get a good deal,” she said, recalling her long days at the negotiating table, “both (sides) have to leave with grace and class and their dignity preserved.”

After leaving the Obama administration, Tauscher was a regent of the University of California, a board member of several corporations and an adviser to Elon Musk’s SpaceX company.

“Ellen was a force to be reckoned with from the time she was a young girl growing up in Harrison, N.J.,” her family said in a statement. “She succeeded at everything she did and made her mark wherever she went. She was the strongest, bravest person we have ever known.”

In Congress, she favored gun safety legislation, opposed the Iraq War and supported same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

Rep. Jackie Speier, D-San Mateo, who served with Tauscher in the House, called her a “remarkable leader, wielding the gavel with confidence.”

Democratic Rep. Mark DeSaulnier of Concord called her a “fierce advocate, and glass-ceiling breaker ... always working to improve the lives of families.”

Tauscher was the chair of Feinstein’s Senate campaigns in 1992 and 1994, a devoted supporter of Clinton’s presidential campaigns and an outspoken foe of President Trump. “We have spent the last two years watching Trump and the Republican leadership in Congress and know exactly how far they will go to hold onto power,” she wrote last year in a piece for the Fight Back California political action committee. “We have seen Republicans around the country purge voters from the rolls, disproportionately deny voter registrations from people of color, and even disenfranchise Native American voters. They will go to any lengths.”

An eloquent pragmatist with a sharp sense of humor, Tauscher said the irony of being an arms negotiator was not lost on her during her battle with cancer.

“It was perversely funny that I was basically meant to rid the world of weapons of mass destruction, but I’m using chemical weapons and radiation to kill my cancer,” she said.

A native of Newark, N.J., and the daughter of a grocery store manager, Tauscher was a high school majorette, a member of the student council and a 1974 graduate of Seton Hall University in South Orange, N.J. In her 20s, Tauscher was an investment banker and a municipal bond trader with Bache and Co. and with Bear Stearns. She was the youngest member, at 25, and one of the first women to hold a seat on the New York Stock Exchange.

As a UC regent, one of Tauscher’s primary concerns was the oversight of the two weapons laboratories operated by the university, Lawrence Livermore and Sandia in New Mexico, said regents Chair George Keiffer.

“She was fabulous to work with, and a joy,” he said. “She was honest, candid, courteous and generous, She was just fun. She could laugh at any given moment.”

Her candor came through whenever she talked about her chosen line of work. Politics, she said in a 2013 interview with University of California television, is the “ability to listen to people and understand what they’re saying.”

“You have to remember that you (may) know more than your constituents, but you don’t know better than they do,” she said.

A woman of means who entertained generously and enjoyed five-star hotels and restaurants, Tauscher was sometimes asked how she co-existed with a Democratic Party that was often to the left of her.

“I don’t want to move my left to the center,” she said in 2013. “I want my left to stay where they are. But I want them to know that we need a center.”

Being a centrist was not without cost, she said.

“I had a progressive record ... (on) labor, pro-choice, the environment,” Tauscher told UC television. “But for some people, I was not good enough. Because I was more interested in getting things done and finding ways to compromise than I was in feeling holy about these positions.”

She is survived by her daughter, Katherine. The family is planning memorial services. Steve Rubenstein is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected]. Twitter: @SteveRubeSF

Steve Rubenstein

Follow Steve on:

https://www.facebook.com/SFChronicle/steverubesf

Chronicle staff writer Steve Rubenstein first joined The Chronicle reporting staff in 1976. He has been a metro reporter, a columnist, a reviewer and a feature writer. He left the staff in 2009 to teach elementary school and returned to the staff in 2015. He is married, has a son and a daughter and lives in San Francisco. He is a cyclist and a harmonica player, occasionally at the same time.

Past Articles from this Author:

• Puppies train at Oakland airport so they can be cleared for takeoff as guide dogs • If it’s worth $50,000, you can’t call it tarnish • Marie Harrison, Hunters Point environmental activist, dies

Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV May 17, 2019

LAND LOCKED By Paul Rogers [email protected] Five years ago, just as developers were planning to carve up Curry Canyon Ranch in Contra Costa County into pricey ranchettes, an environmental group raised $7.2 million to buy the breathtaking property, bordered on three sides by Mount Diablo State Park. It seemed like the perfect scenario. Four of the state park’s trails stop at the edge of the rolling 1,080-acre ranch. State parks officials had encouraged the purchase, and the group, Save Mount Diablo, offered to sell it to the state to expand the park, just as nonprofits had done time and again. But state parks leaders now say they can’t afford to buy the land, even at a reduced price. So it remains closed to the public. “This property has just been sitting there, not yet part of Mount Diablo State Park,” said Ted Clement, executive director of Save Mount Diablo. “This is a very significant issue. It’s disappointing to

A paraglider floats high above Highway 1 and Waddell Beach in Big Basin Redwoods State Park. Spending on state parks cratered with the economy during the Great Recession but has yet to rebound despite a $21 billion budget surplus in Sacramento. KARL MONDON — STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

not see the full public benefits realized.” What’s happening at Mount Diablo is happening all over California. A review of 50 years of state park land purchases by this news organization — 4,088 transactions since 1970 — has found that the state parks department’s once- energetic pace of acquiring new land for wildlife, public recreation and protection from development is at a historic low. Previous generations preserved some of America’s most scenic places as California state parks, from Lake Tahoe to the Big Sur Coast to redwood forests and Hearst Castle. But that legacy has ended. In 2017 and 2018, the state parks department did not add a single acre of land, for the first time in at least half a century. California has not opened a new state park since 2009, when the U.S. Army donated 4 miles of beaches in Monterey County to become Fort Ord Dunes State Park. That 10-year drought is the longest stretch California has gone without a new state park since the state parks department was established in 1927. As a result, California’s 280 state parks, beaches and historic sites are getting more crowded. Parking and camping sites are harder to find. Some land is being lost to development. Other properties are being preserved, but by private groups that often can’t afford to offer public access. “Even as our population has been growing substantially, we haven’t been expanding our state parks system to accommodate that increased visitation,” said Sam Hodder, president of Save the Redwoods League, a San Francisco organization that has helped establish 66 redwood parks since 1918. “We’re not keeping up.” State parks officials say big deficits a few years ago, and the lack of a parks bond for 12 years, are largely to blame. Taking on new land means increased costs for rangers and maintenance workers, they add. “I think it’s just responsible state management that folks are going to expect that when we acquire property we are transparent about all the operating costs,” said Lisa Mangat, California’s state parks director. “I don’t foresee that changing.” Parks advocates, however, note that California’s economy and state budget have recovered, and that the current pattern is a historic retreat. “The rangers feel horrible about it,” said Mike Lynch, president of the California State Park Rangers Association. “No decisions are being made. No support is there. They feel they can’t do the job that the public deserves. We’re at the lowest point in morale I’ve seen in my 40 years as a ranger and a park superintendent.” Since 2010, state records show, there’s been a 67% drop from the previous decade in the amount of land California acquired for state parks, and an 80% drop from the 1970s and ’80s. Of the 37,811 acres that state parks did acquire from 2010 to 2018, most were not for beaches, forests or urban parks. Instead, two-thirds went to a single park for motorcycle riding in the Mojave Desert, called Eastern Kern County Onyx Ranch State Vehicular Recreation Area. Meanwhile, the public’s love for parks keeps growing: 79.2 million people visited California state parks and beaches in 2016-17, the most recent year for which statistics are available, a jump of 21% from 2009-10. State parks officials are refusing new land — even if donated — from environmental groups that have spent millions purchasing it, unless the groups also provide large amounts of cash to pay for new rangers and maintenance workers. That has never happened before. Even during the Great Depression of the 1930s, the state purchased land to establish Mount Diablo, Calaveras Big Trees, Pfeiffer Big Sur, Sonoma Coast State, San Clemente Beach and other landmark parks. “It’s like roads, schools and hospitals,” Hodder said. “Our parks are every bit as critical to our health and well-being. If we aren’t investing, it’s like not expanding and maintaining your home as your family grows. Your quality of life goes down.” For more than a century, land was preserved in a familiar pattern. A historic site or scenic landscape was threatened. Conservation groups sounded the alarm and persuaded state lawmakers to buy the property for the public. Or they bought the land and donated or sold it at no profit to the state. That’s how California’s current state park system began. In 1899, San Jose photographer Andrew P. Hill was ordered out of a redwood forest by a landowner who said the 300-foot-tall treeswere going to become “firewood and railroad ties.” Angry that future generations might not see misty, primeval forests that had been around since the Roman Empire, Hill formed a group called the Sempervirens Club, after the Latin name for coast redwood, and led an effort to persuade state lawmakers to buy 2,500 acres in the Santa Cruz Mountains and establish Big Basin Redwoods State Park. Today, 1 million people a year visit Big Basin to see the ancient trees Hill saved from bucksaws and axes. But the state’s longstanding tradition of preserving its most scenic places changed 10 years ago. After the Great Recession in 2008, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger faced a $15 billion state budget deficit. To save $70 million, he proposed closing 220 state parks. But he dropped the idea after receiving 135,000 passionate letters, calls and emails in opposition. Still, Schwarzenegger told his finance department not to take any new state park land if it would need rangers and maintenance workers. And when Jerry Brown was elected governor in 2010 and faced an even larger, $27 billion, state budget deficit, he continued the trend and also threatened to close parks. Now the deficit is gone. California boasts a $21 billion state budget surplus. Yet the bare-bones policy remains in place. “Here we are in a time of great wealth and largess,” said Sara Barth, executive director of the Sempervirens Fund, the successor to Hill’s organization. “We shouldn’t treat our state parks as businesses that have to break even.” Barth has seen the trend firsthand. Her organization raised $8 million to buy 33 acres on the Santa Clara-Santa Cruz county line, and to build a parking lot, restrooms, signs and trails for a new entrance at Castle Rock State Park. But state parks officials say they won’t take the property unless the group also provides a cash endowment to pay for maintenance and rangers. Park advocates say the approach was warranted years ago, but now that Gov. Gavin Newsom has taken office and the budget has improved, they hope more vision and ambition will be forthcoming. “We need somebody who has a lot of fire in their belly,” said Audrey Rust, former president of the Peninsula Open Space Trust, a Palo Alto nonprofit that has saved 77,000 acres since 1977. “Someone who can move mountains. Someone who is an action-oriented visionary, not just people who do spreadsheets. People love California’s beaches. People love redwood forests. People love meadows. California isn’t about skyscrapers and Google buildings.” So far, Newsom has continued many of Brown’s and Schwarzenegger’s policies. The state parks land acquisition budget collapsed under Brown — from $61.7 million in 2009 through 2010 to $3.1 million this year — a drop of 95%. The budget Newsom proposed in January contains even less: just $1 million statewide. Mangat, named by Brown as state parks director in 2014, previously worked as a budget manager in the state finance department. She noted that Brown provided $80 million a year in new funding for state parks as part of the 12-cent per gallon gas tax increase he signed in 2017, which will help hire rangers and reduce the parks’ $1.2 billion maintenance backlog. He also approved $100 million last year for a new California Indian Heritage Center, she noted, planned for West Sacramento. Part of the drought in land acquisition, she said, was because no state parks bond had been passed for 12 years until voters passed Proposition 68 last year, a $4 billion parks and water bond that contains about $218 million for state parks. “We are in a moment in time when we are in a rebuild mode,” Mangat said. “We are in a much better place than we were in two, three, four or five years ago. We have reorganized and put in all kinds of reforms. And now we are looking at acquisitions.” But across the state, the lost decade has left nonprofit land preservation groups holding thousands of acres they purchased to help expand state parks and has closed to the public thousands of other acres the state had already purchased. Marsh Creek Historic State Park — an expanse in Eastern Contra Costa County that is three times the size of Golden Gate Park in San Francisco and includes 70 miles of trails, a historic pioneer house and potential sites for dozens of new campsites — remains closed 12 years after the state bought it. Save the Redwoods League has 13 properties totaling 2,680 acres statewide that it says are suitable for state parks, including a giant sequoia forest it would like to add to neighboring Calaveras Big Trees State Park in the central Sierras. State finance officials say they have no apologies for the past decade. “It was prudent policy,” said H.D. Palmer, a spokesman for the state Department of Finance. “What happened in 2007 and 2008 was by any reasonable yardstick the worst recession since the Great Depression. The state incurred multibillion- dollar budget deficits that have taken years to recover from.” Brown and his former finance director, Ana Matosantos, did not respond to requests for comment. What’s the solution? Parks advocates say state lawmakers desperately need to find a permanent, steady source of funding for rangers and maintenance crews, rather than relying on the ups and down of the state’s general fund every year. Other states guarantee vehicle license fees, lottery proceeds and other funds for parks. Most Bay Area counties have a dedicated sales tax for local parks. But statewide, the parks operations budget, which Newsom proposed at $618 million next year — just 4% more than in 2006, when adjusted for inflation — has no guaranteed funding source. The last big attempt for one came in 2010 with Proposition 21, a ballot measure to increase vehicle license fees $18 to raise $500 million a year for parks. But voters rejected it. John Laird, who was natural resources secretary in the Brown administration, agreed that a permanent funding source is the answer. He advocated for new parks, he said, but was often shut down by the finance department, whose director is chair of the Public Works Board, an obscure agency that approves all land purchases. “With the budget being in better shape, it is time to revisit the acquisitions policy,” Laird said. “Land always gets more expensive, opportunities go away and our population always grows. A generation from now there will be 50 million Californians. We should have a park system that can adequately serve them.” Leigh Poitinger contributed reporting to this article. Contact Paul Rogers at 408-920- 5045.

Adrian Howard perches on a rock in Castle Rock State Park in Los Gatos. Parks officials refused to take over an additional 33 acres for the park unless the group offering the land set up an endowment to pay for rangers and maintenance. KARL MONDON — STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER

Powered by TECNAVIACopyright (c)2019 East Bay Times, Edition. Please review new arbitration language here. 05/12/2019

Board Legislative Committee Attachment IV May 17, 2019

LOCAL // BAY AREA & STATE Oakland port OKs tentative agreement for new A’s stadium; team has four years to do EIR

Sarah Ravani May 13, 2019 Updated: May 13, 2019 9:34 p.m.

A crane and a conveyor belt rise over the Oakland Estuary at Schnitzer Steel's recycling yard on Monday, Sept. 17, 2018, in Oakland, Calif. Behind the is the Charles P. Howard Terminal which is a proposed location for a new Oakland Athletics ballpark.

Photo: Noah Berger / Special to The Chronicle

The Oakland Port Commission voted unanimously Monday to approve a tentative exclusive negotiation agreement for the A’s waterfront ballpark at Howard Terminal that gives the baseball team four years to conclude an environmental impact report. It was the first round in a somewhat lengthy approval process for the team’s plan to build a 35,000-seat stadium, along with nearby housing and commercial developments, on the Oakland Estuary near Jack London Square.

The commissioners approved the agreement, called a “term sheet,” with a 7-0 vote after hearing hundreds of impassioned speakers weigh in, calling the project either a boon to the community or a detriment to the waterfront job scene.

The project, if eventually approved, would allow the A’s to lease the port property for $3.8 million per year for the first 20 years of a 66-year lease. After 20 years, the rent could increase.

In order to complete the environmental impact report, the team will have to get all required land use approvals from state and local agencies. After that, the team could negotiate a land lease deal with the port to develop the 50-acre site.

“It’s a really historic and great day for the A’s and the city of Oakland — a great moment for us to get this unanimous vote by the port commission,” said A’s President Dave Kaval. “It’s really a critical interim step as we move forward with our new privately financed ballpark here at the waterfront.”

Commissioner Joan H. Story proposed an amendment to the term sheet after hearing hundreds of opponents and supporters express opinions to the commission in three tension-filled hours.

Many maritime workers said they thought the project would disrupt their day-to-day work, while supporters said the ballpark was necessary to keep the city’s longtime baseball team in town.

Story’s amendment was intended to ensure development of the new stadium would not interfere with the port’s use or operations. The location where it is being proposed, between Oakland and Alameda, is a key waterway where bar pilots turn around an average of 25 ships per week after unloading and loading cargo at nearby terminals.

“One of the things we are going to do is protect the jobs we hold,” said Melvin McKay, president of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) Local 10. “We have no ground to give up. This yard is a maritime yard. It’s for maritime use only.”

The development would also include below-market and market-rate housing — and the added presence of people coming to those homes, along with customers streaming to the ballpark, could overcrowd the area and hurt shipping, port workers said.

Supporters also packed the meeting, saying that aside from pleasing fans by keeping the team in Oakland, the ballpark project would be a fine addition to the community.

“It would be a terrible shame for Oakland to lose their team,” one speaker said.

Kaval said he plans to address concerns by developing a “robust” transportation plan allowing people to go to and from the ballpark safely, particularly over the railroad tracks.

He also committed to dedicating 10 acres of the plan to maritime uses. “Our plan has been informed by a lot of input from the maritime community,” Kaval said. “We want to make sure we listen to the maritime community to hear their concerns.”

Commissioner Michael Colbruno contended the A’s can move forward with the stadium without jeopardizing maritime functions at the port.

“Both can exist,” he said. “We can have a vibrant port and we can have a baseball stadium in Oakland that serves this community.”

Before the meeting, Mayor Libby Schaaf said the deal is intended to allow Oakland to have a “world class ballpark” and a “world class seaport.”

“This deal is structured so Oakland gets both — expanding successful maritime industry, as well as an exciting mixed-use development at Jack London Square where people are truly excited about keeping our A’s rooted in Oakland at a privately financed ballpark,” Schaaf said.

Port and A’s officials estimate 2 million visitors could come to the area annually. The development would include 16 acres in public space, Kaval said.

Schaaf said the city will work with the A’s to apply for state and federal funds to ensure infrastructure development to accommodate the expansion.

The term sheet is tentative, and no binding agreements are to be made until the environmental impact report is completed.

Kaval said he hopes the environmental impact report will be completed by the end of the year, and then presented to the Oakland City Council and the port commission by early 2020.

Groundbreaking could come in 2021 and the ballpark could be open in time for the baseball season in 2023, he said.

Sarah Ravani is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: [email protected] Twitter: @SarRavani

Sarah Ravani

Follow Sarah on: https://www.facebook.com/SFChronicle/SarRavani

Sarah Ravani covers Oakland and the East Bay at The San Francisco Chronicle. She joined The Chronicle in 2016 after graduating from Columbia University's Graduate School of Journalism. Previously, she covered breaking news and crime for The Chronicle. She has provided coverage on wildfires, mass shootings, the fatal shooting of police officers and massive floods in the North Bay.