June 16, 2015

Board of Directors Board Meeting Packet

June 16, 2015

Acting

Clerk of the Board

YOLANDE BARIAL KNIGHT (510) 544-2020 PH NOTE CHANGE OF LOCATION (510) 569-1417 FAX

East Bay Regional The Regular Session of the JUNE 16, 2015 Park District Board Meeting is scheduled to commence Board of Directors at 6:00 pm.

WHITNEY DOTSON President - Ward 1 Big Break Visitor Center at the Delta DOUG SIDEN Big Break Regional Shoreline Vice President - Ward 4 69 Big Break Road, Oakley BEVERLY LANE Treasurer - Ward 6

DENNIS WAESPI

Secretary - Ward 3 Respectfully submitted, DIANE BURGIS Ward 7 JOHN SUTTER Ward 2 AYN WIESKAMP Ward 5 ROBERT E. DOYLE ROBERT E. DOYLE General Manager General Manager

P.O. Box 5381 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, CA 94605-0381 (888) 327-2757 MAIN (510) 633-0460 TDD (510) 635-5502 FAX www.ebparks.org

AGENDA

REGULAR MEETING OF JUNE 16, 2015 The Board of Directors of BOARD OF DIRECTORS the East Bay Regional Park EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT District will hold a regular meeting at Big Break Visitor Center, 69 Big Break Road, 5:00 p.m. ROLL CALL (Conference Room) Oakley, CA, commencing at 5:00 p.m. for Closed Session PUBLIC COMMENTS and 6:00 p.m. for Open Session, on Tuesday, June 16, 2015.

CLOSED SESSION Agenda for the meeting is listed adjacent. Times for A. Conference with Labor Negotiator: Gov’t Code § 54957.6 agenda items are approximate only and are subject to change Agency Negotiator: Robert E. Doyle, Dave Collins, during the meeting. If you wish Jim O’Connor, Sukari Beshears to speak on matters not on the agenda, you may do so under Employee 1. Organizations:CONSENT CALENDARAFSCME Local 2428 Public Comments at either the Unrepresented Employees: Managers and Confidentials beginning or end of the agenda. a. Approval of District Check Listing for the Period of May 4,If you2015 wish to to May testify ??? on , an item B. Conference with Legal2015 Counsel: on the agenda, please complete a speaker’s form and submit it (Auker/Doyle) (Resolution) (No Cost) to the Clerk of the Board. A 1. Existing b.Litigation Approval – Subdivision of the Minut (a) Gov’tes for Code the Board Sec. 54956.9Meeting (d)(1)of : copy of the background June 2, 2015 materials concerning these a. USA v. 1.41 Acres(Barial et Knightal. ) (No Cost) agenda items, including any (USDCc. Case No. C14-01781- WHA) material that may have been submitted less than 72 hours ( ) (Resolution) (No Cost) before the meeting, is available b. EBRPD v. Golden Gate Land Holdings LLC, et al. for inspection on the District’s (Alameda Superior Court Case No. RG11586821) website (www.ebparks.org), the Administrative Building C. Conference with Real Property Negotiator Regarding Price and/or reception desk, and at the Terms of Payment: meeting.

Agency Negotiator: Bob Nisbet, Liz Musbach Agendas for Board Committee

Meetings are available to the public upon request. If you wish APN/ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNERS PARK/TRAIL to be placed on the mailing list

Contra Costa County to receive future agendas for a specific Board Committee, 020-171-001 and 020-172- Ronald Nunn Family Delta Access please call the Clerk of the Board’s Office at (510) 544- 004 Limited 2020. 8831 Byron Highway, Partnership Brentwood District facilities and meetings comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If special accommodations are needed 6:00 p.m. OPEN SESSION (Main Hall) for you to participate, please contact the Clerk of the Board PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE as soon as possible, but preferably at least three working days prior to the A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA meeting.

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS 3

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

a. Approval of District Check Listing for the Period of May 4, 2015 Through May 24, 2015 (Auker/Doyle) (Resolution) (No Cost) b. Authorization to Negotiate with Various Property Owners (Musbach/Nisbet) (Resolution) (No Cost) c. Approval of the Minutes for the Board Meeting of June 2, 2015 (Barial Knight) (Resolution) (No Cost) d. Authorization to File an Application for Grant Funds from the State of California, Department of Water Resources for Aquatic Adventure Camp (Roth/Anderson) (Resolution) (No Cost) e. Authorization to Accept Renewal of Existing Insurance Programs (Fong/Victor) (Resolution) (Budgeted Funds) f. Authorization to Accept Bid for Audio Visual Equipment for the Headquarters Board Room Tenant Improvement Project (Myli/Collins) (Resolution) (Budgeted Funds) g. Authorization to Partner with the California Conservation Corps and Civicorps on: Drought Recovery, Watershed Improvement, and Fire Prevention Grants, District Wide (Rasmussen/Collins) (Resolution) (No Cost) h. Authorization to Purchase Cisco SmartNet Support Contract (Tallerico/Collins) (Resolution) (Budgeted Funds) i. Authorization to Pay the City of Oakland’s Planning and Building Department Permit Fee for the Peralta Oaks Administration Building Access Improvement Project (Myli/Collins) (Resolution) (Budgeted Funds) j. Authorization to Name Trails: Crockett Hills Regional Park (Tong/Nisbet) (Resolution) (No Cost) k. Authorization of Six-Month Extension of Joint Powers Agreement for Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency (HASPA): Hayward Regional Shoreline (Tong/Nisbet) (Resolution) (No Cost) l. Authorization to Purchase Two Modular Buildings (Barton/Nisbet) (Resolution) (Budgeted Funds) m. Approval of Payment to Department of Water Resources for Dam Safety Program Assessment: Tilden Regional Park and Temescal Regional Recreation Area (Ragatz/O’Connor) (Resolution) (Budgeted Funds) n. Authorization for Budgetary Closure of Completed Projects and Related Amendments to the 2015 Budget (Vargas/Burnor/Auker) (Resolution) (Budgeted Funds/WW)

6:30 p.m. 2. ACQUISITION, STEWARDSHIP & DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

a. Authorization to Enter into an Option Agreement and Transfer and Appropriate Funds for the Acquisition in Partnership with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy of 645.95± Acres of Real Property from Ronald Nunn Family Limited Partnership, a California Limited Partnership: Delta Access Regional Recreation Area (Musbach/Nisbet) (Resolution) (Budgeted Funds/WW)

3. FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES DIVISION

a. Discussion of Community Facilities District (CFD) Formation for Funding Open Space Dedications at Las Trampas and Approval of Local Goals and Policies For Community Facilities Districts (Spaulding/Auker/Collins) (Resolution) (No Cost)

PUBLIC HEARING

b. Approval of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2015/2016, Adopt Resolution Confirming Diagram and Assessment, Order Maintenance, Improvements and Levy Annual Assessment for East Contra Costa County Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1; Adopt Resolution Regarding Protests (Rasmussen/Auker/Collins) (Resolution) (No Cost)

7:00 p.m. 4. BOARD AND STAFF REPORTS

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

7:15 p.m. 5. GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS

7:30 p.m. 6. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION

7:35 p.m. 7. BOARD COMMITTEE a. Board Executive Committee (5/28/2015) (Dotson) b. Finance Committee (3/25/2015) (Lane)

7:50 p.m. 8. BOARD COMMENTS

8:30 p.m. D. ADJOURNMENT

5 CONSENT CALENDAR

6 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

a. Approval of District Check Listing for the Period of May 4, 2015 Through May 24, 2015 (Auker/Doyle)

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the Board of Directors approve the Check Listing for the period of May 4, 2015 through May 24, 2015.

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

7 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2015 - 06 -

June 16, 2015

APPROVAL OF DISTRICT CHECK LISTING FOR THE PERIOD OF May 4, 2015 THROUGH MAY 24, 2015

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

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby approves the check listing for the period of May 4, 2015 through May 24, 2015;

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and adopted this 16th day of June, 2015 by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

8 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

b. Authorization to Negotiate with Various Property Owners (Musbach/Nisbet)

RECOMMENDATION

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

APN/ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER PARK/TRAIL Contra Costa County 354-300-007; 368-100-002 John A. DeMartini Ranch Crockett Hills Regional McEwen Road, Crockett Park

358-070-001 John A. DeMartini Ranch Crockett Hills Regional Cummings Skyway, Crockett Park

199-030-027-7 Devon Smith and Rebecca Las Trampas Regional 18181 Bollinger Canyon Gherini, Co-Trustees of the Wilderness Road, San Ramon Steven A. Gherini 2012 Trust

REVENUE/COST

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

BACKGROUND

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

9 has identified the people with whom this negotiator may negotiate in open session."

ALTERNATIVES

No alternatives are recommended.

10 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2015 – 06 -

June 16, 2015

AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE WITH VARIOUS PROPERTY OWNERS

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

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

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby approves the authorization to negotiate as presented to the Board of Directors on June 16, 2015; and

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

APN/ADDRESS PROPERTY OWNER PARK/TRAIL Contra Costa County 354-300-007; 368-100-002 John A. DeMartini Ranch Crockett Hills Regional McEwen Road, Crockett Park

358-070-001 John A. DeMartini Ranch Crockett Hills Regional Cummings Skyway, Crockett Park

199-030-027-7 Devon Smith and Rebecca Las Trampas Regional 18181 Bollinger Canyon Gherini, Co-Trustees of the Wilderness Road, San Ramon Steven A. Gherini 2012 Trust

11 Moved by Director , and seconded by Director , and adopted this 16th day of June, 2015, by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

12 Acquisition, Stewardship & Development Division AUTHORIZATION TO NEGOTIATE t:\bstone\mxd projects\A2N\ 2015\A2N-June-16-2015.mxd Date: June 16, 2015

0 8 I- 2 1 #

Hw y 4 Concord

Brentwood

6 Richmond - I-580 I Walnut Creek

Hwy 24 Berkeley MT. DIABLO STATE PARK

I - 8

I-80

I-5 Oakland 80 3

I - 6 8 STA 0 CO TRA CON EDA ALAM

I- 580

San Francisco I - 8 Bay 8 0

92 Hwy Legend

Freeways

EBRPD Lands

4 Fremont 8 y County Boundary w H

0 5 ² Miles

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

Park/Trail: Crockett Hills Regional Park Park/Trail: Las Trampas Regional Wilderness 1 Owner: John A. DeMartini Ranch 3 Owner: Devon Smith and Rebecca Gherini, Co-Trustees APN: 354-300-007 and 368-100-002 of the Steven A. Gherini 2012 Trust Location: McEwen Road, Crockett APN: 199-030-027-7 Location: 18181 Bollinger Canyon Rd., San Ramon

Park/Trail: Crockett Hills Regional Park 2 Owner: John A. DeMartini Ranch APN: 358-070-001 Location: Cummings Skyway, Crockett

Page Left Blank Intentionally

14 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

c. Approval of the Minutes for the Board Meeting of June 2, 2015 (Barial Knight)

The Board Meeting, which was held on June 2, 2015 at the EBRPD Administrative Building, 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland CA 94605 was called to order at 12:45 p.m. by Board President Whitney Dotson.

ROLL CALL

Directors Present: Whitney Dotson, President Doug Siden, Vice President Dennis Waespi, Secretary Beverly Lane, Treasurer Diane Burgis John Sutter Ayn Wieskamp

Directors Absent: None.

At this time, the Board of Directors met in Closed Session to discuss those items outlined on the agenda.

The Open Session of the Board Meeting was called to order at 2:15 p.m. by Vice President Siden.

Staff Present: Robert Doyle, Dave Collins, Jim O’Connor, Debra Auker, Bob Nisbet, Carol Victor, Mark Ragatz, Police Chief Tim Anderson, Sara Rieck, Michael Reeves, John Bouyea, Sabrina Pinell, Karla Cuero, Kelly Barrington, Liz Musbach, Linda Wu, Matt Graul, Carolyn Johnson, Dan Cunning, Mona Koh, Larry Tong, Matt Graul, Carolyn Jones, Anne Kassebaum, Erich Pfuehler, Yolande Barial Knight, Suzanne Lusk

A. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

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

Directors Present: Diane Burgis, Whitney Dotson, Doug Siden, John Sutter, Ayn Wieskamp, Dennis Waespi. Directors Absent: None.

B. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Peter Volin, commented that the cleanup cost at the Lake Merced Gun Range which closed in April 2015, was $22 million for 11 acres. Volin compared Lake Merced to the Lake Chabot Gun Club (“Club”). The 65 acre Club estimates that their lead cleanup costs will be between $200 and $500 million. Volin urged the Board to get its own estimates for lead cleanup costs under 3 different criteria. If (1) the Club closes December 31, 2015, (2) it closes in 10 years and (3) it closes in 20 years. Volin emphasized the importance of obtaining cost estimates for alternative methods for a safe clean up. Volin urged the Board to not pass lead mitigation costs or lead cleanup costs to the taxpayers of Alameda and Contra Costs counties.

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

16 Unapproved Minutes Board Meeting of June 2, 2015 By motion of Director Lane and seconded by Director Sutter, the Board voted to approve Item1b. Directors Present: Whitney Dotson, Beverly Lane, John Sutter, Ayn Wieskamp, Dennis Waespi. Directors Abstain: Diane Burgis, Doug Siden.

Approval of the Minutes for the Board Meeting of May 19, 2015.

By motion of Director Lane and seconded by Director Sutter, the Board voted unanimously to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar:

Directors Present: Diane Burgis, Whitney Dotson, Beverly Lane, Doug Siden, John Sutter, Ayn Wieskamp, Dennis Waespi. Directors Absent: None.

a. Approval of District Check Listing for the Period of April 20, 2015 to May 3, 2015 Resolution No. 2015 – 06 - 147 (attached)

c. Resolution to Support Pending State Legislation AB 746 (Ting): San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Modifications Resolution No. 2015 – 06 - 148 (attached)

d. Resolution to Support Pending State Legislation AB 988 (Stone): Outdoor Environmental and Recreation Grant Program Resolution No. 2015 – 06 - 149 (attached)

e. Resolution to Support Pending State Legislation AB 1362 (Gordon): Stormwater Definition for Assessments, Fees and Charges Resolution No. 2015 – 06 - 150 (attached)

f. Resolution to Support the Bay Area Trails as Priority Conservation Areas Resolution No. 2015 – 06 - 151 (attached)

Lane had questions about whether all the regional trails inside the District should be included as PCA’s. Erich Pfuehler, Government Relations and Legislative Affairs Manager and GM Doyle responded and clarified that the entire master plan was submitted as a PCA which includes the trails map. Siden asked staff to define a PCA for the audience to which Pfuehler explained. Sutter commented that some trails are in Priority Development Areas and some are in PCA’s. GM Doyle added that emphasis is on including the master plan of trails as conservation areas.

g. Resolution to Support Pending State Legislation SB 422 (Monning): Santa Clara Valley Open Space District Resolution No. 2015 – 06 - 152 (attached)

h. Authorization to Accept Bids and Award Contracts for the Peralta Oaks Board Room and Finance Department Tenant Improvement Project Resolution No. 2015 – 06 - 153 (attached)

i. Authorization to Withdraw from Joint Exercise of Powers Agreements with the Cities of Pinole and Hercules and Contra Costa County: San Francisco Bay Trail Resolution No. 2015 – 06 - 154 (attached) 17

Wieskamp complimented Myli on pulling together a very complicated project. She complimented him on the new chair that the Board was able to try out and on the use of the recycled wood for the tabletop.

i. Adoption of a Resolution of Support for the Exoneration of the Port Chicago 50 Resolution No. 2015 – 06 - 155 (attached)

President Dotson began to preside over the meeting.

2. ACQUISITION, STEWARDSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

By motion of Director Lane and seconded by Director Wieskamp , the Board voted unanimously to approve item C-2-a:

Directors Present: Diane Burgis, Whitney Dotson, Beverly Lane, Doug Siden, John Sutter, Ayn Wieskamp, Dennis Waespi. Directors Absent: None.

j. Certification of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Albany Beach Restoration and Public Access Project: McLaughlin Eastshore State Park Resolution No. 2015 – 06 - 156 (attached)

Chris Barton, Environmental Programs Manager and the Project Manager on this job. Barton presented the SEIR for the Eastshore State Park Albany Beach Habitat Restoration and Public Access Project. He highlighted the project goals, project history and project descriptions in 3 phases. Project Startup Costs are $635,000. Phase I is $4.3 million, 100% funded and under construction, Phase II is $3.7 million, 35% funded and Phase III is $3.8 million, 99% funded. Barton briefly touched on the EIR process and the legal challenge that was filed; main issues having to do with leashed dogs and eel grass. Staff had interns collect data (190 – 200 hours) and drafted a new EIR. This project is compatible with every user group. The 2014 Draft SEIR concluded that most dogs are off leash and use the beach, unleashed dogs may impact sensitive resources more than leashed dogs, projected 6% increase in dog use and the project creates additional public space for dogs reducing the density of dogs with project implementation.

PUBLIC HEARING

Kelly Smith, representing SPRAWLDEF and the Sierra Club, stated they have concerns with the environmental analysis and unleashed dogs and their impacts on environmental resources. CEQA is a disclosure requirement as well as an environmental analysis.

Emma Yee, lives in Albany and is a park and rec commissioner. She is an advocate for off leash dogs. She requested additional signage to educate responsible dog owners.

Ellen Hershey, a resident of Albany and longtime park user refers to the SEIR which says that only 37% of people arrive without dogs. Off leash dogs thwart the major purposes of the District which is to increase public access and to protect wildlife. The Audubon Society reports that there are virtually no birds at the beach because dogs chase them off. Hershey asked the Board to not certify this document.

Ed Bennett, CESP believes that the District is losing a chance to improve its image. Bennett requested that the District reject the SEIR or enforce Ordinance 38 where dogs are not allowed on the beach off leash. 18 Unapproved Minutes Board Meeting of June 2, 2015

GM Doyle added that the District operates this State Park as well as Crown Beach and does not receive any funding from State Parks for enforcement.

Burgis asked how much bigger will the beach become. Tamara Galanter, attorney with Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, replied the beach will have 4 additional usable acres. Lane asked what other beaches does the District have where dogs are allowed off leash. Barton said none. Barton said that Ordinance states that dogs are required to be on leash in developed areas.

3. BOARD AND STAFF REPORTS

a. Actions Taken by Other Jurisdictions Affecting the Park District

General Manager Doyle discussed those items listed on the staff report.

4. GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS

Liz Musbach, Acquisition Manager introduced Linda Wu, Land Acquisition Specialist. Wu introduced the Acquisition staff: Liz Musbach, Acquisition Manager; John Bouyea, Senior Land Acquisition Specialist; three Land Acquisitions Specialists: Suzanne Lusk, Michael Reeves and Linda Wu; as well as Administrative Analyst II Sara Rieck. The main purpose of the land acquisition department is to grow the District parklands and trail system as envisioned by the master plan. Wu articulated a comprehensive overview of the specialist responsibilities highlighted Rieck’s contribution as the financial guru and grant writer. The District currently has119,219.69 acres and counting. The Board complimented the Acquisition Department on their hard work.

GM Doyle presented two awards. One from the American Planning Association for the Master Plan and the other an Award of Excellence for Marketing and Communication for the District’s 80th Anniversary.

GM Doyle announced the upcoming retirement of Warren Shultz, Lakes Unit Manager and the promotion of Jeff Manley. Doyle continued with discussing the importance of the approval of the Contra Loma Management Plan. Sutter asked if we are in sync with CCWD. GM Doyle said that we are. Lane asked for a list of other recreational uses at the park. GM Doyle said that it will be provided possibly at executive committee.

5. ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION

District Counsel Carol Victor said there were no announcements.

6. BOARD COMMENTS

Director Wieskamp reported on meetings attended. Director Wieskamp • Attended the Volunteer Recognition Dinner at Cull Canyon; • Attended Regional Park Association Meeting at Trudeau – credit to Amelia Wilson for not just the food but for keeping the program going; • Attended the Finance Meeting; • Attended the Executive Committee Meeting; • Attending the Cow Girl Luncheon Rodeo.

Director Lane reported on meetings attended. Director Lane • Attended the Volunteer Recognition Dinner at Cull Canyon; • Attended the Natural and Cultural Resources Committee Meeting; 19 • Attended the Regional Park Association Meeting at Trudeau, appreciated that staff attended and provided good support, a good meeting; • Attended the Conference of California Historical Societies; • Attended the Finance Committee Meeting; • Attended the Ferry Point Dedication; • Attended Save Mt. Diablo’s Breakfast Meeting; thanked Beth Stone for maps.

Director Siden reported on meetings attended. Director Siden • Attended the Alameda City Council Meeting; • Attended the Dumbarton Quarry Dedication; • Attended the ACSDA Meeting; • Attended the Alameda County Mayors Conference in San Leandro; • Attended the EB EDA Spring Membership Meeting in Oakland; • Attended the San Leandro Creek Alliance Meeting; • Attended the Board’s Capitol Planning Workshop; • Attended the CSDA Legislative Days Conference; • Attended the Operations Committee Meeting; • Attended the Regional Parks Association Meeting at Trudeau, appreciation to Amelia Wilson; • Attended a Boy Scouts Code of Honor; • Attended the Executive Committee Meeting; • Attended the Oakland Chamber of Commerce meeting; • Will attend the Annual Sandcastle Contest; • Will attend Concerts at the Cove.

Director Sutter reported on meetings attended. Director Sutter • Attended the Executive Committee Meeting; • Attended the Operations Committee Meeting; • Attended the Regional Parks Association Meeting at Trudeau – extended thanks to Amelia Wilson for keeping this educational program going and for bringing good food; • Went to the Albany Beach Shoreline; • Attending the SPDF in Detroit;

Director Waespi reported on meetings attended. Director Waespi • Spoke at the Mormon Church representing the District; • Attended the Volunteer Recognition Dinner at Cull Canyon; • Attended the Operations Committee Meeting; • Attended the Finance Committee Meeting; • Attended the Regional Park Association Meeting at Trudeau – a good event; • Attended the East Bay Leadership Council Installation Dinner; • Attended the HARD’s Hampton Dog Park Opening; • Congratulated Jeff Manley on his promotion; • Acknowledged Carol Franz’s retirement.

Director Burgis reported on meetings attended. Director Burgis • Attended the Ecology Meeting: • Attended the Special Legislative Days in Sacramento; • Attended the Bay Area Open Space Conference; • Attended the Board Planning Workshop: • Visited the John Marsh House with GM Doyle and AGM Nisbet; • Met with City Manager of Brentwood with GM Doyle; 20 Unapproved Minutes Board Meeting of June 2, 2015 • Attended the Antioch State of the City Luncheon; • Attended the Building and Construction Trades Luncheon; • Will attend ABAG’s Regional Planning Committee Meeting; • Will attend the Richmond Liaison Committee Meeting; • Will attend SPDF Conference in Detroit.

Director Dotson reported on meetings attended. Director Dotson • Met with Erich Pfuehler and a potential PAC member Megan Tiernan; • Interviewed with Laura McCreery on oral history; • Attended the Natural and Cultural Resources Committee Meeting; • Met with a constituent regarding a dog park – John Forrest; • Attended the Executive Committee Meeting; • Attended the Ferry Point Dedication.

At 4:00 pm, the Board members along with GM Doyle and Erich Pfuehler moved to the Board Conference Room for debriefing of the Congressional Visits in Washington.

D. ADJOURNMENT

The meeting was adjourned at 5pm by Board President Dotson.

Respectfully submitted:

Yolande Barial Knight Acting Clerk of the Board

Page Left Blank Intentionally

22 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

d. Authorization to File an Application for Grant Funds from the State of California, Department of Water Resources for Aquatic Adventure Camp (Roth/Anderson)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager recommends that the Board of Directors authorize an application for grant funds from the State of California, Department of Water Resources for an Aquatic Adventure Camp program at Don Castro Regional Park and Del Valle Regional Park.

REVENUE/COST

The East Bay Regional Park District Lifeguard Service will request $3,500 from the State of California, Department of Water Resources for the Aquatic Adventure Camp program. The remaining funds needed to run the program will come from the Lifeguard Service Unit budget.

BACKGROUND

The District strives to deliver the highest quality of lifeguarding and program instruction for the safety of park visitors engaged in aquatic activities. The Aquatic Adventure Camp program, which will be run primarily at Don Castro Regional Park, will allow the Lifeguard Service to partner with the State of California, Department of Water Resources to further this mission. The goal of the Aquatic Adventure Camp is to help teach water safety to all children that live near State Water Project Reservoirs. This program would be offered at no cost to approximately 24 kids that would otherwise be unable to take water safety classes.

The camp, which will be one week long, will specifically target children between the ages of 9 and 12 from the Hayward area. The first four days of the program, will be spent at Don Castro Regional Park and will cover water safety skills, swimming skills, and lifejacket awareness. The final day of the program will take place at Del Valle Regional Park and will cover kayak and boat safety as well as water safety at open water facilities.

In the past, the District has partnered with other agencies to help run an Aquatic Adventure Camp at Del Valle Regional Park. This request would allow us to run our own program completely at District locations.

If approved, grant funding received from the State of California, Department of Water Resources, would cover the lifeguard wages associated with running the program. Any additional expenses, which are expected to be minimal, would be covered by the Lifeguard Service Budget.

ALTERNATIVES

No alternatives are recommended.

24 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2015 - 06 -

June 16, 2015

AUTHORIZATION TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FOR AQUATIC ADVENTURE CAMP

WHEREAS, the District desires to deliver the highest quality of lifeguarding and program instruction for the safety of park visitors engaged in aquatic activities; and

WHEREAS, the District master plan calls for recreational activities that will add to enjoyment and quality of life by establishing programs to assist individuals and groups that require special help (PS7); and

WHEREAS, the State of California, Department of Water Resources and the State Water Project Recreation Coordinating Committee has expressed concern about the number of drownings along the State Water Parks; and

WHEREAS, the Department of Water Resources has partnered with California State youth organizations to provide funds, develop and offer an Aquatic Adventure Camp to youth designed to reduce drownings; and

WHEREAS, the applicant will enter into a contract with the State of California, Department of Water Resources to conduct an Aquatic Adventure Camp;

WHEREAS, the Applicant certifies they have or will sufficiently develop, staff and operate the Aquatic Adventure Camp; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant will review, understand and agree to the General Provisions contained in the contract from the Department of Water Resources; and Certifies that the Aquatic Adventure Camp conforms to the recreation element of any applicable city or county general plan; and

WHEREAS, said procedures established by the Department of Water Resources require the Applicant’s Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of the Application before submission of said Application to the State; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby authorize the filing of an Application for local assistance funds from the State of California, Department of Water Resources for an Aquatic Adventure Camp; and

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

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

26 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REIGONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

e. Authorization to Accept Renewal of Existing Insurance Programs (Fong/Victor)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager and Board Finance Committee (by unanimous vote on May 27, 2015) recommends the Board of Directors accept renewal of existing insurance programs for general liability, property, excess workers’ compensation, watercraft, crime, aviation, and cyber liability.

REVENUE/COST

It is anticipated that the 2015 and 2016 base services budgets will be sufficient to cover the costs of the insurance premiums.

PROPOSED ENCUMBRANCE, Account 555-2130-000-6801 at the “not to exceed” estimated premium quotations: General Liability $ 348,000 Property 372,000 Aviation 100,000 Watercraft 2,700 Crime 3,800 Cyber 1,600 TOTAL ENCUMBRANCE $ 828,100

PROPOSED ENCUMBRANCE, Account 552-2130-000-6801 at the “not to exceed” estimated premium quotation: Workers’ Compensation $ 465,000

BACKGROUND

CSAC Excess Insurance Authority (CSAC-EIA), a risk sharing pool of counties and public entities, provides insurance coverage to the District in the areas of liability, property, excess workers’ compensation, watercraft, and cyber liability. It is one of the largest pools in

27 California allowing the District to take advantage of volume discounts. Coverage for aviation and crime liability is provided through HUB International and is tailored to the District’s excellent record for no claim activity.

This year’s premium for excess workers’ compensation has increased substantially; approximately $100,000. Increases have affected all members of the pool and the market in general. Escalating medical costs, mandatory reserving practices, and state reforms that increase benefits to the injured worker are the main cost drivers for this increase. All other insurance premiums are expected to remain flat or will be slightly decreased. Staff will continue to explore other options in the competitive insurance market.

ALTERNATIVES

No alternatives are recommended for replacing insurance coverage that protects the District from potential exposure to losses.

28 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO. 2015 – 06 -

June 16, 2015

AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT RENEWAL OF EXISTING INSURANCE PROGRAMS

WHEREAS, the District’s Risk Management Program has identified the District’s areas of potential exposure to loss, and has evaluated options for the financing of such potential losses; and

WHEREAS, the District has received and reviewed coverage available from the CSAC- Excess Insurance Authority and HUB International; and

WHEREAS, the General Manager and Board Finance Committee (by unanimous vote on May 27, 2015) recommends that insurance is the most cost efficient means for managing potential exposure to loss; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby accepts the “not to exceed” renewal premium quotations as follows: $348,000 for general liability, $372,000 for property, $465,000 for excess workers’ compensation, $100,000 for aviation, $3,800 for crime, $2,700 for watercraft, $1,600 for cyber liability; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the 2015/2016 base service budgets in Account 555- 2130-000-6801 (Liability Fund-Risk Department-Insurance Premiums) and Account 552-2130- 000-6801 (Workers’ Compensation Fund-Risk Department-Insurance Premiums) are sufficient to fund the cost of the insurance premiums; and

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

Moved by , seconded by , and adopted this 16th day of June by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

29 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT BUDGET CHANGE FORM

NEW APPROPRIATIONS BUDGET TRANSFERS New Appropriation Between Fund Sources From New Revenues X Between Projects DECREASE BUDGET ACCOUNT AMOUNT INCREASE BUDGET ACCOUNT AMOUNT Account Name: Expense: General Fund- Account Name: Expense: CIP-Office Office Services-District Wide- Services-Peralta Oaks-Construction in Professional Services Progress-Improve Administration Bldg- District Funds-Work by Contract

Account: 333-4160-754-7020 / Account: 101-4160-000-6191 $ 25,440.00 109000DS10-372 $ 26,680.00 Account Name: Expense: General Fund- Office Services-District Wide-Repair and Maintenance Services

Account: 101-4160-000-6414 $ 1,240.00 TRANSFERS BETWEEN FUNDS Account Name: TRANSFER OUT: Account Name: TRANSFER IN: Capital General Fund-Non Departmental-District Fund-Non Departmental-District Wide- Wide-Transfer Out Transfer In

Account: 101-9110-000-9980 $ 26,680.00 Account: 333-9110-000-3980 / $ 26,680.00 As being presented at the Board of Directors meeting on June 16, 2015, the General Manager recommends that the Board of Directors authorize the transfer of $26,680 from the General Fund capital outlay and services budget of Office Services to the existing project 109000 which is now being used to fund multiple improvements at the Peralta Oaks administration building.

As approved at the Board of Directors Meeting on date: 6/16/2015 Board of Directors Resolution Number: 2015-06- Posted By: Posted date: Signature:

30 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

f. Authorization to Accept Bid and Authorize Contract for Audio Visual Equipment for the Board Room Tenant Improvement Project: Peralta Oaks Administration And to Amend the 2015 Budget (Myli/Collins)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager recommends that the Board of Directors direct staff to accept the bid and award the contract with Audio Visual Design Group of San Rafael for the integration of audio visual equipment for the Headquarters Board Room Tenant Improvement Project at the Peralta Oaks Administration Building.

REVENUE/COST

Funds have been included in the District’s 2015 Budget for the purpose of the Headquarters Board Room and Finance Department Tenant Improvement Project:

PROPOSED ENCUMBRANCE: Account 333-4160-000-7020/109000 (Improve Administration Bldg.)

Audio Visual Design Group Base Bid Price $ 62,859 Audio Visual Design Group ADD ALT Bid Price $ 23,599 Contingency $ 8,645 Total Encumbrance $ 95,103

SOURCE OF FUNDS TRANSFER FROM: Account 101-4160-000-7549 $ 25,440 (Office Services/Capital Outlay/Other Equipment greater than 25K) Account 101-4160-000-6414 1,240 Total Transfer Out $ 26,680

31 TRANSFER TO: Account 333-4160-000-7020/109000 (Improve Administration Bldg.) Current Budget $528,560 Total Transfer In 26,680 New Project Budget $555,240

Less expenditures to date $136,093 Proposed Encumbrance $ 95,103 Project Balance $ 324,044 BACKGROUND

Staff contracted with Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. to assist with the development of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Board Room audio visual equipment upgrade. Contracting with Charles M. Salter Associates enabled staff to navigate the various technology options for a solution that suited the needs of the District.

Staff opted for the RFP process to get the best value, based upon the following factors; 1) Past project experience with similar type projects; 2) Experience and credentialing of assigned staff; 3) References; 4) Contractor’s RFP response matching the equipment or providing all required documentation for equivalent equipment defined in the Technical Specifications; and 5) Contractor’s ability to meet the project schedule.

The replacement and upgrade of the audiovisual equipment for the Board Room will provide significant improvements for the following features; 1) Improved projector brightness; 2) Multiple input options for presentations; 3) Improved audio (speakers) coverage for the Board and audience; 4) New assisted listening devices exceeding current ADA standards; 5) Two screens and two projectors for improved presentation viewing; 6) Small desktop displays for the Board and staff; and 7) New audio streaming options for staff.

Per standard Park District procedures when seeking firms to respond to a Request for Proposal the Notice to Bidders was published on Tuesday, April 21, 2015, in the Oakland Tribune and the Contra Costa Times. Five firms purchased bid documents and three firms submitted a responsive bid on Thursday, May 13, 2015, as follows:

PLANHOLDER BASE BID ADD ALT Audio Visual Design Group San Rafael, CA $62,859.35 $23,598.93 Avidex Industries, LLC Fremont, CA $69,068.00 $22,722.00 Spinitar Hayward, CA $90,921.70 $22,722.00 One Work Place Santa Clara, CA No Bid Submitted PCD No Bid Submitted

32 Santa Rosa, CA

The RFP submitted by Audio Visual Design Group of San Rafael, California, met the specifications and conditions for the project; therefore Audio Visual Design Group is the lowest responsible bidder and met the RFP best value requirements. Staff is recommending to accept both the Base Bid and the Add Alternate bid. The Add Alternate bid items are a second projector and screen for the room and the labor for the installation.

ALTERNATIVES

None are recommended.

Page Left Blank Intentionally

34 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2015 - 06 -

June 16, 2015

AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT BID AND AUTHORIZE CONTRACT FOR AUDIO VISUAL EQUIPMENT FOR THE BOARD ROOM TENANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT: PERALTA OAKS ADMINISTRATION AND TO AMEND THE 2015 BUDGET

WHEREAS, the District has included funding in its 2015 Budget for the purpose of improving the audiovisual equipment in the Board Room and the Administration Building infrastructure; and

WHEREAS, Request for Proposals for the Peralta Oaks Headquarters Board Room Tenant Improvement Project Audio Visual Upgrade were solicited and received from three firms, of which Audio Visual Design Group of San Rafael, California, was the lowest responsible bidder and met all of the best value requirements; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby authorizes the acceptance of the bid and award of contract for services to Audio Visual Design Group for $95,103 to be encumbered from Account 333-4160- 000-7020/109000 (Improve Administration Bldg.); and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby authorizes the transfer of $25,440 of budget funds from 101- 4160-000-7549 and $1,240 from 101-4160-000-6414 Office Services/Capital Outlay/Other Equipment greater than 25K and Repairs and Maintenance Supplies to 333-4160-754- 7020/109000DS10 (Improve Administration Bldg.) for a combined total budget of $555,240; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby authorizes a ten percent (10%) contingency fund of $8,645 for the project to be encumbered from Account 333-4160-000-7020/109000 (Improve Administration Bldg.); and

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

35 Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and adopted this 16th day of June, 2015, by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

36 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

g. Authorization to Partner with the California Conservation Corps and Civicorps on Drought Recovery, Watershed Improvement, and Fire Prevention Grants: District Wide (Rasmussen/Collins)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager recommends that for the next five years the Board of Directors authorize the District to partner with the California Conservation Corps and Civicorps Schools on an ongoing basis for drought recovery, watershed improvement, and fire prevention grants, District wide.

REVENUE/COST

For the next five years, the aforementioned action proposes to authorize partnerships with the California Conservation Corps and Civicorps Schools on a variety of state grant funding initiatives to provide conservation corps crews for drought recovery, watershed improvement, and fire prevention projects, District wide. There is no cost to the District for these crews.

BACKGROUND

Governor Brown has approved a variety of funding initiatives over the past few years for the California Conservation Corps and Civicorps Schools to provide crews free of charge for drought recovery, watershed improvement, and fire prevention projects. In addition to providing valuable service to the District, these grants provide valuable outdoor employment opportunities in parks for young people. Over the next five years, staff requests approval to submit grant applications and to partner with the California Conservation Corps and Civicorps School for these free crews.

ALTERNATIVES

No alternatives are recommended.

37 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2015 – 6 -

June 16, 2015

AUTHORIZATION TO PARTNER WITH THE CALIFORNIA CONSERVATION CORPS AND CIVICORPS ON DROUGHT RECOVERY, WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT, AND FIRE PREVENTION GRANTS: DISTRICT WIDE

WHEREAS, Governor Brown has approved a variety of grant funding initiatives over the past few years for the California Conservation Corps and Civicorps Schools to provide crews free of charge for drought recovery, watershed improvement, and fire prevention projects; and

WHEREAS, in addition to providing valuable service to the District, these grants provide valuable outdoor employment opportunities in parks for young people; and

WHEREAS, over the next five years, if these grant opportunities become available, staff is seeking approval to partner with the California Conservation Corps and Civicorps School for free crews to perform drought recovery, watershed improvement and fire prevention projects District wide;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby authorizes the submission of grant applications and partnership with the California Conservation Corps and Civicorps School for free crews to perform drought recovery, watershed improvement and fire prevention projects District wide through June 30, 2020; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager or the Assistant General Manager of Finance and Management Services is hereby authorized to conduct all negotiations, including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests, and perform such acts, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project; and

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

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and adopted this 16th day of June, 2015 by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

38 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

h. Authorization to Purchase Cisco SmartNet Technical Support Contract: District-wide (Tallerico/Collins)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager recommends that the Board of Directors authorize the purchase of a yearly support service agreement from AMS. Net for technical support and upgrade services on the District-wide network.

REVENUE/COST

The cost of this computer system support varies from year to year depending on the level of services requested by the District. For 2015, the contract renewal fee is $43,416.47. Funding is available from the Information Services Department budget, Account No.101-4150-000-6443 (Maintenance Contracts).

BACKGROUND

The District primarily uses Cisco network and telephone products to maintain its network. These products require upgrades, technical support, and hardware replacement in the event of a failure. The network support is a yearly expense to protect the District’s investment in network hardware, software and telephones. This support package allows staff to upgrade software, replace malignant or outdated hardware and call Cisco directly for support on the critical core components of the District network. No RFP is required because all pricing is on State Contracts, and this maintenance agreement is provided by application vendor.

ALTERNATIVES

The Board could decline to purchase the annual support agreement at this time. Due to the critical nature of this equipment for maintaining access to critical network and telephone applications used by the entire District, this is not recommended.

39 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO. 2015 – 6 -

June 16, 2015

AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE CISCO SMARTNET TECHNICAL SUPPORT CONTRACT: DISTRICT-WIDE

WHEREAS, the East Bay Regional Park District uses Cisco hardware and software systems to run its network and telephones throughout the District; and

WHEREAS, the District updates the hardware and software of these systems to keep them technologically current, and

WHEREAS, the yearly maintenance agreement is provided by application vendor and all pricing is on State contracts, therefore it is of no advantage to the District to bid this purchase,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby authorize the purchase of the yearly Cisco SmartNet Technical Support Agreement from AMS.Net for $43,416.47, and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the funding in the amount of $43,416.47 is available in Account No. 101-4150-000-6443 (Information Services – Maintenance Contracts), and

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

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and approved this 16th day of June, 2015, by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

40 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

i Authorization to Pay the City of Oakland’s Planning and Building Department Permit Fee for the Peralta Oaks Administration Building Access Improvement Project: (Myli/Collins)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager recommends that the Board of Directors direct staff to file all required documents and pay all required fees to the City of Oakland, Planning and Building Department for the Peralta Oaks Administration Building Access Improvement Project.

REVENUE/COST

Funds have been included in the District’s 2015 Budget for the purpose of the Headquarters Access Improvement Project:

PROPOSED ENCUMBRANCE: Account 333-4160-000-7020/174200 (Peralta Oaks Access Improvement)

City of Oakland, Planning & Building Department $ 32,693.22 (Permit Fee, not to exceed)

SOURCE OF FUNDS Account 333-4160-000-7020/174200 (Peralta Oaks Access Improvement) Current Budget $ 380,000.00

Less expenditures to date 12,790.29 Proposed Encumbrance 32,693.22 Fund Balance $ 363,516.49

41 BACKGROUND

Staff has been working on the specifications and construction drawings to expand the parking lots at the Peralta Oaks Administration Building by an additional 46 spaces and improve the ADA access for the Delivery Level parking. The City of Oakland, Building and Planning Department has requested a Permit Fee of $32,693.22 which includes the application fee, general plan surcharge, records management fee, bond processing, permit, technology enhancement fee, design review exemption and plan check and processing fee. The permit fee must be paid to the city to move the project forward. The District will discuss the fee with the City to determine if there are ways to seek a reduction.

The project has been scheduled for construction in fall 2015. Seeking the permit from the City will ensure that the District is informed of any additional requirements that may be imposed as a part of this proposed construction project, and enable the District to make the changes necessary to move the project forward. If there are significant new requirements conditioned by the City, the construction schedule may need to be extended, and the project cost adjusted.

ALTERNATIVES

None are recommended.

42 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2015 - 06 -

June 16, 2015

AUTHORIZATION TO PAY THE CITY OF OAKLAND’S PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT PERMIT FEE FOR THE PERALTA OAKS ADMINISTRATION BUILDING ACCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

WHEREAS, the District has included funding in its 2015 Budget for the purpose of improving the Administration Building’s parking and ADA access infrastructure project; and

WHEREAS, the City of Oakland’s Building and Planning Department requires a permit fee for the project; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby authorizes the staff to pay the required City of Oakland permit fee not to exceed $32,693.22 to be encumbered from Account 333-4160-000-7020/174200 (Peralta Oaks Access Improvement); and

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and adopted this 16th day of June, 2015, by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

Page Left Blank Intentionally

AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

j. Authorization to Name Trails: Crockett Hills Regional Park (Tong/Nisbet)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager, Board Executive Committee (by unanimous vote) and the Park Advisory Committee recommend that the Board of Directors authorize names for six trails covering approximately 6.8 miles within Crockett Hills Regional Park in accordance with the East Bay Park District Naming Policy and Guidelines (Resolution No. 2004-04-73; Adopted on 4/20/04).

REVENUE/COST

Installation of the trail name sign posts and signs will cost up to $1,500, which can be accommodated with available funds budgeted in the Crockett Hills Regional Park General Fund supplies budget (account number 101-5171-484-5311). Updates to the park brochure will cost up to $2,300 for 30,000 brochures, which can be accommodated under Public Affairs General Fund services budget code 101-3110-000-6575.

BACKGROUND

The Trails Development Programs section of Acquisition, Stewardship & Development (ASD) has recently constructed approximately five miles of trail in keeping with the recommendations from the 1993 Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline Land Use Development Plan (LUDP).

The purpose of this request is to provide names for six trails covering approximately 6.8 miles within Crockett Hills Regional Park including naming the five miles of newly constructed trails and renaming some of the existing trails to improve visitor safety and the visitors’ park experiences by providing clearer wayfinding information for a portion of the park’s trail system. Refer to Exhibit 1 for the location of the park, Exhibit 2 for the location of these proposed trail name changes and Exhibit 3 for photos of the trails.

The name Two Peaks Trail identifies an existing, one-half mile trail. This trail name replaces a section of trail that is currently named the Sugar City Trail. This name was selected because this

45 trail provides access to spectacular views of Mt Diablo and Mt. Tamalpais. The purpose of renaming this trail section is to eliminate name redundancy and more directly relate the trail name to the trail experience.

The name Sugar City Trail applies to 1.5 miles of newly constructed trail. It offers a “sweet, flowing” trail experience when traveled from north to south. It also offered an opportunity to continue use of this name in this park as a reference to the historic owners C&H Sugar and the sugar production that took place on this property.

The Warwep Trail name applies to a three-quarter mile newly constructed trail section and a one- half mile section of service-road-width trail currently named North Tree Frog Trail. The purpose of renaming this trail section is to clarify a logical trail use loop that is described in a pending Bicycle Trail Loop brochure. The name Warwep is a Native American name that refers to earth or ground and was selected because this trail lies “close to the earth” in low lying area of the trail network. This is Northern Costanoan (Chochenyo) word that was recommended by Beverly Ortiz, Cultural Services Coordinator, and vetted for spelling by linguistic Catherine Callaghan, a specialist in Northern Costanoan [use Spanish vowel and consonant pronunciation].

The name Tree Frog Loop Trail expands on an existing trail name. The purpose of expanding use of this trail name is to clarify a logical trail use loop that is described in a pending Bicycle Trail Loop brochure. The name was selected because this reptile is found at this park.

The name Chorus Frog Trail is an existing three-quarter mile trail that terminates at the park/landbank boundary and is currently not clearly defined. The name was selected to provide a wildlife reference linked to the connecting Tree Frog Loop Trail.

The name Goldfinch Trail provides a local name to a newly constructed three-quarter mile portion of the regional Bay Area Ridge Trail. Providing a local name for this section of a regional trail is consistent with District naming practices in this park and other parks in the District. The name was selected because this bird is found at this park.

Consistency with East Bay Park District Naming Policy and Guidelines [Resolution No. 2004-04- 73 (Adopted On 4/20/04)]. Adopting these trail names is consistent with the East Bay Park District Naming and Policy and Guidelines (Refer to Exhibit 4 for a copy of the policy).

The proposal for these trail names and the background information was provided by Trails Development Programs and reviewed by Dan Cunning, Delta Unit Manager, and Bill Nichols, Crockett Hills Park Supervisor. Julie Bondurant, Senior Planner, Planning & GIS has reviewed the proposed trail names for consistency with the Naming Policy. These trail names are consistent with the policy criteria as: 1) all of the trail names relate to natural, cultural or historic features; and 2) all of the trail names have been checked against the District list of names and none has been previously used at another park. The Sugar City Trail is currently used in Crockett Hills Regional Park and the usage here represents reuse in a different location.

This proposal has been reviewed by District staff and was presented to the Board Executive Committee Executive on April 9, 2015. At this meeting, the Board Executive Committee voted

unanimously to forward a recommendation of the proposed Crockett Hills trail names as listed in the staff report to the Parks Advisory Committee (PAC) and the Board of Directors for consideration under the Naming Policy. The PAC reviewed the naming proposal at the April 27, 2015 PAC meeting and suggested that the original recommendation for Chorus Frog Connector Trail be changed to Chorus Frog Trail since the trail does not currently connect to an existing trail on open parkland. This recommendation reflects this change. Since the PAC was not entirely comfortable with the name Rumsen, which was presented at the Board Executive Committee and the PAC, this name is also recommended to be changed to the Warwep Trail. This name is more closely aligned with the homeland tribes that occupied what is now Crockett Hills Regional Park. A plaque explaining the Native American name was also recommended by the PAC to be included with the Warwep wayfinding signs. Park operations staff has agreed to this signage recommendation.

ALTERNATIVES

No alternatives are recommended.

Attachment 1: Location Map Attachment 2: Multi-Use Trails Map Attachment 3: Trail Photos Attachment 4: EBRPD Naming Policy and Guidelines

47 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2015 – 06 –

June 16, 2015

AUTHORIZATION TO NAME TRAILS: CROCKETT HILLS REGIONAL PARK

WHEREAS, the Trails Development Programs department of the Acquisition, Stewardship & Development division has recently constructed approximately five miles of trail in keeping with the recommendations from the 1993 Carquinez Strait Regional Shoreline Land Use Development Plan (LUDP); and

WHEREAS, the Parks Operations staff needs to have names for these trails to provide improved visitor safety and park experiences by providing clearer wayfinding information for a portion of the park’s trail system; and

WHEREAS, the names Two Peaks Trail, Sugar City Trail, Warwep Trail, Tree Frog Loop Trail, Chorus Frog Trail and Goldfinch Trail refer to historical, cultural, and natural features associated with the park that have been reviewed by the Trails Development Programs, Dan Cunning, Delta Unit Manager, Bill Nichols, Crockett Hills Park Supervisor, and Julie Bondurant, Senior Planner, Planning & GIS for consistency with the Naming Policy; and

WHEREAS, the Board Executive Committee, at its April 9, 2015 meeting, reviewed and considered the trail names presented and unanimously recommended approval; and the Park Advisory Committee, at its meeting of April 27, 2015, considered the proposal and also unanimously recommended approval of the names with the two changes noted and incorporated into this resolution; and

WHEREAS, funds needed for installation of the trail name sign posts and signs and updates to the park brochure will be completed with existing budget funds, Crockett Hills Regional Park supplies [budget code 101-5171-484-5311 for trail signs and Public Affairs services budget code 101-3110-000-6575 for trail brochures];

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby approves the names Two Peaks Trail, Sugar City Trail; Warwep Trail, Tree Frog Loop Trail, Chorus Frog Trail and Goldfinch Trail that refer to historical, cultural and natural features associated with the park; and

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and approved this 16th day of June, 2015, by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

49 Va l l e j o

Benicia Crockett

80 ¨¦§ Port Costa

Carquinez Strait M c Regional E C W U A Shoreline M N M R I N D G S CROCKETT S K HILLS W REGIONAL Y PARK ·|}þ4

Rancho Poinole Regional Park

Shell Ridge Open0 Space0.5 1 Miles Exhibit 1 Location Map

East Bay Regional Park District Crockett Hills Regional Park Planning & GIS Services ± MAR. 505, 2015 Crockett, Contra Costa County, California Data Sources May Include: CROCKETT HILLS Exhibit 2 EBRPD GIS/GPS Mapping; USGS Digital Line Graphs; . Proposed Trail Name Change Locations ETAK Street Data; EBMUD Parcel Data; REGIONAL PARK ABAG 1995 Landuse Data; EBRPD SCALE = 1 : 4300 Trails Development Engineering, Survey or CAD Data; May 28, 2015 Digital Orthophotographs; 0 125 250 375 500 Feet t:/bstone/mxd projects/trails/ Contra Costa County Parcel Data; cr_ConstructedTrails2014.mxd Completed Multi-Use Trails - 2014

C u m m in Crockett g Gate s Hills S k y !( w ay Big V a lley Trai l Trail ¨¦§4 Locked Gate

Gate

s k B a i e g P V T a wo l le y T r a i l CROCKETT HILLS REGIONAL PARK

Sugar City Trail

!( !( il Tra Warep

l i a Warep Tr

p !( o L o g Fro Tree

i op a p p o r L

Tree Fr og !( il o

T o ra o y o Ch g T

e L L o o l rus F r

g g

o o V r g i F B e e r T !(

B a c G k o R ld a f n in c ch h Tra Legend L i o l !( o Trail Junction p New Trails

Bay Area Ridge Trail

Roads Paved Road Gate Unpaved Road or Trail !( 51 Exhibit 3 – Trail Photos

240º panorama from the Hill above Treefrog Trail

Sugar City Trail

Warwep Trail

Goldfinch Trail

Treefrog Loop Trail

Treefrog LoopTrail

Goldfinch Trail

Bicycle Trails Council of the East Bay – This group of volunteers, along with the American Conservation Corps, helped to build the new narrow trails at Crockett Hills Regional Park

56 Exhibit 4

57 58 59 60 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

k. Authorization of Six-Month Extension of Joint Powers Agreement for Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency (HASPA): Hayward Regional Shoreline (Tong/Nisbet)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager and the Board Executive Committee recommend that the Board of Directors authorize a six-month extension of the Joint Powers Agreement for Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency.

REVENUE/COST

There are no costs associated with this action.

BACKGROUND

The Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency (HASPA) is a Joint Powers Agency that consists of representatives from the City of Hayward, the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, and the East Bay Regional Park District. HASPA was formed under a joint exercise of powers agreement (Joint Powers Agreement) in December 1970. Over the years, the Joint Powers Agreement has been periodically extended. Most recently, the Joint Powers Agreement was extended in June 2010.

The purpose of the agreement is:

“to jointly exercise the common powers of the parties to study, plan, and adopt policies concerning the land uses in the Shoreline area, in order to develop a comprehensive plan for the governing bodies of the parties so that the plans and actions of each party are compatible with those of the other parties.”

The current five-year HASPA Joint Powers Agreement is due to expire on July 1, 2015. The staff members of the three agencies with HASPA representatives believe that HASPA has value and usefulness. The staff members, however, believe that the purpose of HASPA should be

61 reviewed for potential clarification and refinement. Specific staff roles and responsibilities should also be reviewed.

On April 23, 2015, the HASPA Board of Trustees met and recommended that the Joint Powers Agreement be extended for six months until January 1, 2016. That would allow adequate time for staff members to review the HASPA purpose, roles and responsibilities.

On May 28, 2015, the Board Executive Committee recommended the six-month extension of the HASPA Joint Powers Agreement.

ALTERNATIVES

No alternatives are recommended.

62 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2015 – 06 -

June 16, 2015

AUTHORIZATION OF SIX-MONTH EXTENSION OF JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR HAYWARD AREA SHORELINE PLANNING AGENCY (HASPA): HAYWARD REGIONAL SHORELINE

WHEREAS, in December 1970 the Board of Directors authorized the execution of a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) forming the Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency (HASPA) with the City of Hayward, the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, and the County of Alameda, for the purpose, among others, of preparing a comprehensive statement of planning policy for the area referred to as the Hayward Shoreline; and

WHEREAS, over the years, the JPA has been periodically extended in five-year increments, with the most recent extension occurring in June 2010; and

WHEREAS, the JPA currently consists of representatives from the City of Hayward, the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, and the East Bay Regional Park District; and

WHEREAS, the staff members of the agencies with HASPA representatives believe that HASPA has value and usefulness; and

WHEREAS, the current five-year JPA is due to expire on July 1, 2015; and

WHEREAS, on April 23, 2015, the HASPA Board of Trustees met and recommended that the Joint Powers Agreement be extended for six months until January 1, 2016, to allow adequate time for staff members to review the HASPA purpose, roles and responsibilities; and

WHEREAS, on May 28, 2015, the Board Executive Committee met and recommended that the Joint Powers Agreement be extended for six months until January 1, 2016;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby authorizes a six-month extension of the Joint Powers Agreement for the Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency (HASPA) until January 1, 2016; and

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

63 Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and approved this 16th day of June 2015 by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

64 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

l. Authorization to Purchase Two Modular Buildings (Barton/Nisbet)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager recommends that the Board of Directors authorize the purchase of two 20-foot by 40-foot modular buildings from the City of Albany for $33,000, transport and set up from Modular Solutions, Inc. for $31,750 and electrical hook up from L.D. Strobel Company Incorporated for $9,886 at a total cost of $74,636.

REVENUE/COST

This action will encumber up to $74,636 for purchase, transport and hook up of two modular buildings to provide immediate storage needs for the Public Safety Division and temporary office space during construction of the Lake Chabot Campus Modernization Project. Following this temporary use of the buildings, the modular offices may be transported to other areas of the District as needed for office space at a cost of approximately $25,000.

Current Approved Capital Project Budget Chabot Campus Modernization Project No. 152500 $ 21,541,492 Encumbrances and Expenditures to Date 1,810,000 Funds Available $ 19,731,492

PROPOSED USE OF FUNDS City of Albany (2 Modulars) $ 33,000 Modular Solutions, Inc. (delivery, setup, not to exceed) 31,750 L.D. Strobel Co. Inc. (Electrical Connect) 9,886 Total Proposed Use of Funds $ 74,636

BALANCE REMAINING $19,656,856

65 BACKGROUND

The Public Safety Division is in need of additional storage space in the short term and will need temporary office and training space while the Lake Chabot Campus Modernization Project is under construction for 2 years. During the 2 year construction period the Nike Classroom which provides essential training space for Public Safety and the current Aquatics office building will be displaced. Modular office space can provide temporary storage, office and classroom space to meet these needs. After construction of the new Public Safety Headquarters is complete, the modular units can be moved offsite to other areas of the District in need of modular space.

The City of Albany has two 20-foot by 40-foot modular offices located at the Albany waterfront available for sale. The offices are less than 2 years old and are in like new condition. The City has agreed to sell these buildings to the District for $33,000 including sales tax. The availability, good condition and price of these modular units represent a good opportunity for the District to meet its current and future modular space needs.

Modular Solutions, Inc. is the original vendor of the modular units and has quoted a price ranging from $20,350 to $31,750, depending on the final location for placement at Public Safety headquarters, to transport and set up the modular units. Electrical hook-up for the units is needed for lighting and ventilation. L.D. Strobel Co. Inc. can provide this service at a cost of $9,886.

ALTERNATIVES

No alternatives are recommended.

66 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2015 – 06 -

June 16, 2015

AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE TWO MODULAR BUILDINGS

WHEREAS, the District’s Public Safety Division is in need of additional storage space in the short term and will need temporary office and training space while the Lake Chabot Campus Modernization Project is under construction for 2 years; and

WHEREAS, the City of Albany has agreed to sell two 20-foot by 40-foot modular buildings to the District for $33,000 including sales tax; and

WHEREAS, the availability, good condition and price of these modular units represent an opportunity for the District to meet its current and future modular space needs; and

WHEREAS, funds have been appropriated into Project No. 152500 (Lake Chabot Campus Modernization) and are available to accommodate temporary displacement of office and classroom space during project construction; and

WHEREAS, the modular units would be a District asset that can be moved offsite to other areas of the District in need of modular space, making this a reimbursable expense to capital project account 152500;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby authorizes the purchase of two modular buildings from the City of Albany for $33,000; and accepts proposals from Modular Solutions Inc. for $31,750 to transport and set up and L.D. Strobel Co. Inc. for $9,886 for electrical hook-up for the two modular units; and

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and adopted this 16th day of June, 2015, by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

Page Left Blank Intentionally

68 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

m. Approval of Payment to Department of Water Resources for Dam Safety Program Assessment: Tilden Regional Park and Temescal Regional Recreation Area (Ragatz/O’Connor)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager recommends that the Board of Directors approve payment to the Department of Water Resources for the dam safety program assessment for dams located at Tilden Regional Park and Temescal Regional Recreation Area, for the current year and for the following two years.

REVENUE/COST

The annual fee is based on Section 6307 of the California Water Code. The fee is currently set at $536, plus $148 per foot of height. The funds to pay for this assessment are included in the annual adopted budget, as follows:

Dam Location Account Amount Temescal 101-5131-240-6191, Recreation Area/Other Services $ 15,632 Tilden 101-5121-105-6191, Parkland/Other Services 12,672 $ 28,304 BACKGROUND

The Division of Safety of Dams of the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) is solely funded by fees assessed to owners of dams under State jurisdiction. The fees are adjusted periodically to account for cost of living increases to operate the program (Section 6307, Subsection a). The dams at Lake Anza in Tilden and the lake in Temescal fall under the purview of the DWR due to their size, more than six feet tall and impounding more than 50 acre-feet of water.

The fee is required to be paid by July 1ST each year or a ten percent penalty will be assessed. Approval of this item will enable staff to pay the current year’s fee, including fees that will be assessed in 2016 and 2017, without returning to the Board.

ALTERNATIVES

None are recommended. 69 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2015 – 06 -

June 16, 2015

APPROVAL OF PAYMENT TO DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES FOR DAM SAFETY PROGRAM ASSESSMENT: TILDEN REGIONAL PARK AND TEMESCAL REGIONAL RECRATION AREA

WHEREAS, pursuant to California Water Code there is a requirement that dam owners in California pay fees to the Department of Water Resources for a dam safety program; and

WHEREAS, the cost of the inspection exceeds $25,000 and as such requires approval by the Board of Directors; and

WHEREAS, this fee will be assessed every year and approval of this resolution will allow for the payment of dam safety assessment fees in 2015, 2016 and 2017 without returning to the Board of Directors; and

WHEREAS, the funds to pay for this assessment are included in the annual adopted budget;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby approves the payment to the Department of Water Resources for dam safety program assessment for 2015, 2016 and 2017, for $15,632 for Temescal Regional Recreation Area, Other Services Org Key 101-5131-240-619 and $12,672 for Tilden Regional Park, Other Services, Org Key 101-5131-105-6191 with periodic cost of living adjustments, and

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

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and adopted this 16th day of June 2015, by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

70 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

1. CONSENT CALENDAR

n. Authorization for Budgetary Closure of Completed Projects and Related Amendments to the 2015 Budget (Vargas/Burnor/Auker)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager and the Board Finance Committee (by unanimous vote) recommend that the Board of Directors authorize the budgetary closure of 51 completed projects, and approve related amendments to the 2015 budget as needed to address projects that may either be over or under budget. On May 27, 2015, the Board Finance Committee reviewed this item and unanimously recommended favorable consideration by the Board of Directors.

REVENUE/COST

The 51 completed projects are summarized as follows: • 35 projects have remaining, unused fund balances that will be used to offset other project over-expenditures or returned to source. • 13 projects have a zero balance and require no further action. • Three projects require additional funding for closure.

Projects completed under budget will yield a total of $148,587 in General Fund monies that will be used to offset one project that is over-budget by $9,255; and the $139,332 balance will be returned to General Fund. Additionally, one other project will require a $2,844 appropriation from Measure WW Acquisition Carquinez Strait allocation to offset an over-expenditure. The following is a summary of net unexpended appropriations adjustments that will be returned to each respective funding source:

General Fund $ 139,332 Measure AA allocation area $ 53,505 Measure CC Tax Fund 58,215 Measure WW allocation area 92,013 Grants 54,188 Total $ 397,253

71 There are three land related projects that earned escrow interest totaling $749.45 which will remain in the Capital Fund under land acquisition to be appropriated by the Board in the future.

BACKGROUND

This report has been prepared to identify the multi-year projects proposed for budgetary closure to the Board of Directors. This procedure removes projects from the active list of projects and prevents any further charges to the closed projects. The projects to close are within two funds: Fund 333 for Capital Improvement Projects and Fund 336 for Other Than Asset (OTA) Projects. Exhibits A, B, and C describe the detail of each project proposed for closure, including the project name, location, budget, total expenditures, and balances.

The budgetary closure of a project requires the balancing of funds to ensure that the projects over budget are completely funded. This balancing is accomplished by applying funding from other projects that finished under budget. Consistent with past practice, every effort is made to offset project overages from available funding within the same funding source, and the same project area. In certain instances, staff is requesting transfer of unused funds into another project. Remaining unused funds will be returned to the source and become available for appropriation by the Board in the future.

ALTERNATIVES

No alternatives are recommended.

72 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO.: 2015 - 6 -

June 16, 2015

AUTHORIZATION FOR BUDGETARY CLOSURE OF COMPLETED PROJECTS AND RELATED AMENDMENTS TO THE 2015 BUDGET

WHEREAS, projects are unique in terms of budget appropriations due to the fact that appropriations may be made in one fiscal year, and the expenditures may occur over multiple fiscal years; and

WHEREAS, the final budgetary closure of completed projects sometimes require an adjustment to the original appropriation to account for variances between initial estimates and actual project expenditures; and

WHEREAS, a variety of funding sources may have been transferred into the project fund to accomplish a specific project; and

WHEREAS, in the event funds were not fully expended on the project, an action must be taken to return the remaining budget appropriation to the original funding source which will make these funds available for future appropriation; and

WHEREAS, the Board Finance Committee reviewed the recommended closures and additional appropriations at their meeting on May 27, 2015, and unanimously recommended favorable consideration of this item by the Board of Directors;

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby authorizes the closure of completed projects identified on the attached Exhibits A, B, and C; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in cases where there are unexpended funds remaining, these funds shall be transferred to the over expended project as indicated on the attached exhibits A, B, and C; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that one project will require new appropriation from Measure WW acquisition from Carquinez Strait allocation area as indicated on Exhibit B, line 17 to offset amount over expended; and

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

73 Moved by Director , seconded by Director and adopted this 16th, day of June 2015, by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSENT: ABSTAIN:

74 Exhibit A Development Line Total Total Budget Project Location Project Title Grant Bond District Other Reason for Closure No. Budget Expense Balance

1 103400 Diablo Foothills New Group Picnic Site - - 91,946 - 9 1,946 9 0,589 1 ,356 Completed. Will return funding to General Fund.

2 116600 Sibley/Clarmnt Canyon/HucSibley-Huckleberry/Fencing - 59,130 968 - 60,098 60,098 - Completed.

Unable to proceed with the project return funding to original source. $40k to Measure AA Development Coyote Hills allocation area $40k, $17,600 to 3 124800 Coyote Hills/Linear Park Install Fire Water Service - 4 0,000 1 7,600 3 8,098 9 5,698 4 71 9 5,226 General Fund, reduce budget by $37,626.46 for Regional Parks Foundation

4 126402 Martin Luther King Jr Tidewater Phase 2A 170,445 - - - 1 70,445 1 70,445 - Completed. Completed. Transfer available funding from an active project with the same 5 136501 Hayward Shoreline Rebuild Levee - 78,809 - - 7 8,809 8 8,866 (10,057) purpose 147900 (Dredge Ponds and Repair Levees).

6 143900 Coyote Hills/Linear Park Construct Public Access - - 5 ,000 - 5 ,000 2 ,179 2 ,820 Completed. Will return funding to General Fund.

7 146500 Black Diamond Review and Construct Pond Rehab - - 10,000 - 1 0,000 - 1 0,000 Completed. Will return funding to General Fund.

8 146600 Garin Review and Inspect Trail - - 10,000 - 1 0,000 - 1 0,000 Completed. Will return funding to General Fund. Del Valle/Shadow Cliffs 9 149000 Trail Build Isabel Vallecitos Trail - 115,981 - - 1 15,981 1 15,981 - Completed. Completed. Will return $28,441 to General Fund and $30,559 to Measure 10 150100 Wildcat Canyon/Alvarado Toilet and Sewer Improvements - - 4 68,013 - 4 68,013 4 09,013 5 9,000 CC.

11 151100 Mission Peak Construct Building Foundation - - 1 66,629 - 1 66,629 1 66,629 - Completed.

12 172300 Round Valley Build Bridge - 2 02,408 1 07,000 - 3 09,408 2 74,676 3 4,732 Completed. Will return funding to General Fund.

Development Subtotal 203,077

T:FINANCE\FINCMTEE\2015\5-May 1 6/3/2015 75 Exhibit B Land Acquisition Line Total Budget Project Location Project Title Grant Bond District Other Total Exp Reason for Closure No. Budget Balance No longer pursuing acquisition. Will return funding to Measure WW 13 208700 Deer Valley Roddy J - 65,000 - - 6 5,000 6 0,547 4 ,452 Acquisition Deer Valley allocation area. Completed. Will return funding to Measure WW Acquisition Ridge Trail 14 210100 Bay Area Ridge Trail APN Investments - 884,500 - - 8 84,500 8 79,760 4 ,739 allocation area. Del Valle/Shadow Cliffs Completed. Will return funding to Measure AA Acquisition Del Valle to 15 216400 Trail Bobba - 165,000 - - 1 65,000 1 56,776 8 ,223 Shadow Cliff Trail allocation area.

16 218801 Point Isabel MEC Land Holdings Inc - 150 - - - 150 - Completed Completed phase 1 of Staging Area. Appropriate from Measure WW 17 219201 Carquinez Strait TXI-Pacific Custom Materials - 96,738 - - 9 6,738 9 9,583 (2,844) Acquisition Carquinez Strait Allocation Area. Completed. Will return funding to Measure WW Acquisition Pleasanton 18 219400 Pleasanton Ridge Castleridge 1,000,000 1 ,261,000 - - 2 ,261,000 2 ,259,561 1 ,438 Ridge allocation area. Completed. Will return funding to Measure WW Acquisition Ridge Trail 19 219600 Bay Area Ridge Trail Gillrie - 1 ,034,500 - - 1 ,034,500 1 ,030,236 4 ,263 allocation area. close project; move unspent budget to OTA project 509700 with same 20 228700 Niles Canyon Trail Feasibility Study Niles Canyon 20,790 4 ,709 5,348 - 3 0,847 2 0,790 1 0,057 scope (Niles Canyon Trail Study); line 6, Attachment A.

21 232000 Hayward Shoreline Union City Bay Trail 2,801 - - - 2 ,801 2 ,801 - Completed Completed. Will return funding to Measure AA Acquisition Martin Luther 22 237000 Martin Luther King Jr Damon Slough/Edgewater - 10,000 - 2 00,000 2 10,000 2 08,873 1 ,126 King Jr allocation area. Completed. Will return funding to Measure WW Acquisition Leona Open Space allocation area. $47.30 escrow interest received will be transferred 23 237400 Leona Open Space Yee-O'Hanneson Road - 114,377 - - 1 14,377 1 14,313 6 3 to 229900DLEI Concord Naval/Blk Completed. Will return funding to Measure WW Acquisition Concord Naval 24 238600 Diamond Trl Alaimo 176,500 62,100 - - 2 38,600 2 31,084 7 ,515 Weapon Station allocation area. Completed. Will return funding to Measure WW Acquisition Black Diamond allocation area. $3.72 escrow interest received will be transferred to 25 238800 Black Diamond SMD-Thomas North 777,510 118,290 - - 8 95,800 8 88,255 7 ,544 229900DLEI Garin/Pleasanton Ridge Completed. Will return funding to Measure AA Acquisition Garin Dry Creek 26 238900 Trail Chouinard - 18,000 - - 1 8,000 1 7,967 3 2 allocation area. Completed. $698.43 escrow interest received will be transferred to 27 239200 Brushy Peak William Ralph Trust Eddie's 550,000 - 42,093 - 5 92,093 5 92,093 - 229900DLEI Completed. Will return funding to Measure WW Acquisition Pleasanton 28 239300 Pleasanton Ridge Eliasen Edge LP - 20,000 - - 2 0,000 1 1,407 8 ,592 Ridge allocation area. Completed. Will return funding to Measure WW Acquisition Point Pinole 29 240900 Point Pinole Richmond Rod & Gun Club - 20,000 - - 2 0,000 1 7,405 2 ,594 allocation area. Completed. Will return funding to Measure WW Acquisition Deer Valley 30 241100 Deer Valley Smith 4,853,400 563,100 - - 5 ,416,500 5 ,413,881 2 ,618 allocation area.

31 241400 Delta Access Aginson Prime - 1 ,203,685 - - 1 ,203,685 1 ,203,685 - Completed. Completed. Will return funding to Measure AA Acquisition Tilden allocation 32 241800 Tilden Christ - 5 ,000 - - 5 ,000 8 75 4 ,124 area.

Land Subtotal 64,536

76 Exhibit C Other Than Assets Line Total Budget Project Location Project Title Grant Bond District Other Total Exp Reason for Closure No. Budget Balance

33 501500 Delta/DeAnza Trail Restore Trail - - 8,000 - 8,000 5,862 2,137 Completed. Will return funding to General Fund.

34 501800 Tilden Review Inspect Train Center - - 5,000 - 5,000 - 5,000 Completed. Will return funding to General Fund.

35 502200 Garin Monitor Landslide Repair - - 5,000 - 5,000 - 5,000 Completed. Will return funding to General Fund.

36 502900 Tilden Review and Inspect Realign Trk - - 5,000 - 5,000 412 4,587 Completed. Will return funding to General Fund.

37 503000 McLaughlin Eastshore Prk Develop Concept Plan - - 15,000 - 15,000 24,255 (9,255) completed. Will use General Fund excess. Completed. Will return $10,000 to General Fund and $51,039 to Measure 38 503100 Briones Study Road Access Alignment - 100,000 10,000 - 110,000 48,960 61,039 WW Development Briones allocation area.

39 505500 District Wide Public Safety Radio System - - 133,573 - 133,573 133,080 493 Completed. Will return funding to General Fund.

40 506200 Concord Hills (CNWS) Upper Hess Creek Restoration 566,587 - - - 566,587 566,586 - Completed

41 506800 Coyote Hills/Linear Park Coyote Hills Day Camp Wk1 49,200 - 91 - 49,291 49,291 - Completed

42 510500 Iron Horse Regional Trail Install Water Fountain - - - 50,000 50,000 49,335 664 Completed. Will return funding to Regional Parks Foundation.

43 511200 Briones Mitigate Wildfire Hazards 15,000 - - - 15,000 14,962 37 Completed. Grant budget will be reduced.

44 513602 Sibley/Clarmnt Canyon/HucManage Trail System 0 0 27,656 0 27,656 0 27,656 Returning to Measure CC funding to rescope the project.

45 514400 District Wide Replace Microwave Antenna - - 25,000 - 25,000 24,552 447 Completed. Will return funding to General Fund.

46 519500 Concord Hills (CNWS) Analyze Utilities & Facility ------Completed Completed. Grant billed up to total expense, only budget will be reduced 47 520701 Iron Horse Regional Trail Pave Roads and Trails 39,800 - - - 39,800 23,939 15,860 by $15,860 no actual revenue involved.

48 520900 District Wide Replace Helicopter Radio 88,180 - 4,410 - 92,590 92,590 - Completed

49 524900 District Wide Fire and Conservation Training 600,000 - - - 600,000 600,000 - Completed

50 534100 District Wide Automated Fee Collection DW - - 70,000 - 70,000 69,308 691 Completed. Will return funding to General Fund. Completed. 1% of pass through received is for District admin cost 51 544302 District Wide EBCC Caltrans Pass Thru 1,528,320 - - - 1,528,320 1,513,037 15,284 transferring to General Fund.

Other Than Assets Subtotal 129,640

Grand Total 397,253

Summary of adjustments: Return to General Fund 139,332

Return Measure AA budget 53,505

Return to Measure CC Tax Fund 58,215

Return Measure WW budget 92,013

Reduce Grant Budget 54,188

Projects requiring transfer from other projects for over budget accounts (10,057) Combine project with an existing OTA project 10,057 Total Adjustments 397,253

Revenue received from escrow interest: Transfer escrow interest received from Land accounts to 229900DLEI 749.45

T:FINANCE\FINCMTEE\2015\5-May 3 6/3/2015 77 ACQUISITION STEWARDSHIP DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

78 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

2. ACQUISITION, STEWARDSHIP & DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

a. Authorization to Enter into an Option Agreement and Transfer and Appropriate Funds for the Acquisition, in Partnership with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy, of 645.95± Acres of Real Property from Ronald Nunn Family Limited Partnership, a California Limited Partnership: Delta Access Regional Recreation Area (Musbach/Nisbet)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager recommends that the Board of Directors authorize staff to enter into an option agreement with Ronald Nunn Family Limited Partnership, a California Limited Partnership (“Seller”), and transfer and appropriate funds for an option payment and related acquisition costs. Said property is located in an unincorporated area of Contra Costa County one-quarter of a mile south of the City of Oakley and two miles east of the Town of Knightsen on the east side of Byron Highway.

REVENUE/COST

This property may be acquired for $6,072,000, its appraised fair market value, plus acquisition costs as described below. Pursuant to the option agreement, an initial option payment of $50,000 will be placed into escrow upon execution of the Agreement, followed by an additional deposit of $50,000 on or before January 31, 2016, which is the end of the option term. The option payments are to be credited toward the purchase price. In the event the District elects to extend the Option to April 30, 2016, an additional deposit of $25,000 is due to Seller. This deposit shall also be credited toward the purchase price. All deposits are non-refundable if the District is unable to perform under the Agreement after all of the precedent conditions have been satisfied.

This property is proposed to be acquired in partnership with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (“Conservancy”) with funding requested from the California Wildlife Conservation Board (“WCB”). The purchase is scheduled to be completed by January 31, 2016; however, this date may be extended through April 30, 2016 if there is a delay in the funding process. In order to meet the granting agencies’ deadlines, this action also authorizes staff to enter into funding agreements necessary to secure Federal Section 6 and State

79 Proposition 84 monies from the Conservancy and WCB.

This Board action authorizes the transfer and appropriation of $129,000 in new funds for the option payments and associated acquisition expenses augmenting the original $25,000 project budget. These appropriations come from two funding sources, as follows:

TRANSFER AND APPROPRIATE FROM: Designated Acquisitions – Measure WW Undesignated (CIP 229900WW00) $144,000 Future Preliminary Acquisition Study - ECCCHC (CIP 230000LHCP) 10,000 TOTAL CURRENT PROJECT COST $154,000

TRANSFER AND APPROPRIATE TO: Ronald Nunn Family LTD/Delta Access Acquisition (CIP 215800) Option Payment $100,000 Additional Option Payment Extension 25,000 Title and Escrow 7,000 Staff Time 22,000 TOTAL CURRENT PROJECT COST $154,000

A request for approval of the exercise of option and funding for remaining acquisition costs will be submitted to the Board at a future board meeting.

BACKGROUND

On October 1, 2013, by its Resolution No. 2013-10-225, the Board of Directors authorized staff to begin negotiations with the Seller for the acquisition of their 645.95± acre property. The property is located in unincorporated Contra Costa County 2.0 miles north of the City of Brentwood on the eastern side of Byron Highway.

The subject property is comprised of two irregularly-shaped assessor’s parcels separated by a public road known as Delta Road. For purposes of this acquisition, these parcels are valued as a single 645.95-acre legal parcel, with a maximum east-west width of 1.15 miles and an estimated north-south length of 1.25 miles. The property is relatively level, with the northwesterly portion of the site at 18 feet above sea level and the southeasterly portion of the site at slightly above sea level. All of the property, with the exception of the northernmost 84 acres, is utilized for irrigated row crop or alfalfa production. The ranch is farmed by RRS Farms, a partnership comprised of Nunn family members under a two-year seasonal lease that will terminate on December 31, 2017. The northernmost 84 acres is covered with annual grasses. Structural improvements located on the subject property include a 3-bedroom, 2-bath wood frame 1,570-square-foot family residence originally constructed in 1918, an agricultural equipment shed now utilized as a garage, and an abandoned pump house structure. Overall, the condition of the single family residence, equipment shed and pump house is poor; therefore the appraiser did not include the improvements in the appraised value of the property.

The subject property is located outside of the County’s Urban Limit Line and outside of any urban service area. The property is zoned A-2, General Agricultural, with a General Plan designation of “AL,” Agricultural Lands. The property is not encumbered with a Land Conservation Agreement or Williamson Act contract. After analyzing the property’s access as well as its physical, legal and economic constraints, the independent third-party appraiser concluded that the property’s highest and best use would be its continued use as irrigated farmland, including the conversion of the 84-acre grasslands portion to irrigated farmland. Both parcels have the potential for subdivision into smaller farming units.

The East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan designates the property as a priority acquisition because it offers a key opportunity to protect rare dune habitat and associated plant and animal species, as well as restore tidal marshes and alkali wetlands in eastern Contra Costa County. Acquisition of the subject property may provide trail and water connections between the District’s Big Break Regional Shoreline and current District properties in the future Delta Access Regional Recreation Area, as well as opportunities to develop recreational facilities such as a kayak launch and picnic area. An Acquisition Evaluation will be conducted to determine consistency with the District’s Master Plan and the suitability of the property as an addition to the park system for resource conservation and public recreational purposes as part of a second and following Board action to exercise the option pending approval of grant funding and staff’s due diligence over the next several months.

ALTERNATIVES

No alternatives are recommended.

81 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO. 2015 – 06 -

June 16, 2015

AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AN OPTION AGREEMENT AND TRANSFER AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FOR THE ACQUISITION IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HABITAT CONSERVANCY OF 645.95± ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY FROM RONALD NUNN FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: DELTA ACCESS REGIONAL RECREATION AREA

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors authorized negotiations with Ronald Nunn Family Limited Partnership, a California Limited Partnership (“Seller”), by Resolution No. 2013-10-225 adopted October 1, 2013; and

WHEREAS, under direction given by the Board of Directors, staff has negotiated an option agreement with the Seller for acquisition of the subject property; and

WHEREAS, the 645.95± acre property may be acquired on or before January 31, 2016, and extendable through April 30, 2016 for $6,072,000, which is its appraised fair market value; and

WHEREAS, the property is proposed to be acquired in partnership with the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservancy (“Conservancy”) with funding requested from the California Wildlife Conservation Board (“WCB”); and

WHEREAS, in order to qualify for these grant funding sources, the District will be required to enter into funding agreements necessary to secure Federal Section 6 and State Proposition 84 monies from the Conservancy and WCB; and

WHEREAS, acquisition of this parcel aids in important resource protection goals by maintaining open space, protecting and restoring endangered species habitat, and extending a wildlife corridor; and

WHEREAS, acquisition of the subject property also provides opportunities for expanding the regional trail network; and

WHEREAS, the District will be required to undertake all of the long-term management responsibility for the property; and

WHEREAS, the option agreement calls for payment of $100,000 to Seller as consideration for an option to purchase fee title to the subject property, said option payment being applicable toward the purchase price and nonrefundable after all of the precedent conditions have been satisfied; and

WHEREAS, the option agreement also requires the District to pay $25,000 to Seller as an additional option payment for extension of the term of the option to April 30, 2016, said extension payment being applicable toward the purchase price and paid to Seller after all of the precedent conditions have been satisfied; and

WHEREAS, under CEQA and the District’s Environmental Review Manual, this project is Categorically Exempt and therefore not subject to preparation and processing of environmental documentation;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby authorizes the General Manager to enter into the Option Agreement with Seller for the purchase of their 645.95± acre property; and

BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that the Board authorizes the General Manager to enter into funding agreements necessary to secure Federal Section 6 and State Proposition 84 monies from the Conservancy and WCB; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board authorizes the initial budget appropriations of $10,000 in LHCP funds and $15,000 Measure WW Acquisition funds from the Delta Access allocation area as well as the transfer and appropriation of an additional $129,000 from project account Designated Acquisitions - Measure WW Undesignated (CIP 229900WW00), utilizing funds from the Delta Access allocation area, to fund acquisition related expenses as shown on the attached Budget Change form; and

Moved by Director , seconded by Director and adopted this 16th day of June, 2015 by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

83 Delta Access Regional Recreation Area East Bay Ronald Nunn Regional Park District ® Family LP Properties Environmental Programs September 22, 2014 APNs: 020-171-001, 020-172-004 Feet t:/bstone/mxd projects/land acql/ da_Nunn_b+w2014.mxd 0 1,800 3,600 7,200 10,800

Regional Trails Bethel Island Existing Jersey Big Island !! Proposed Break Dutch Slough Schematic

Holland Tract

Ronald Nunn Family LP Properties APNs: 020-171-001, 020-172-004

Rock Slough

Ohara Ave

Delta Rd Veale Tract

Sunset Rd Palm Tract

Byron Hwy

Sellers Ave Mokelumne Aqueduct

Souther Pacific Railroad Delta Brentwood Rd Access

Balfour Rd Orwood Tract

State Highway 4 Discovery Bay

Disclaimer: Boundary and property lines shown on this map do not represent a boundary or property line survey. The East Bay Regional Park District makes no representation as to the accuracy of said property lines (or any other lines), and no liability is assumed by reason of reliance thereon. Use of this map for other than its intended purpose requires the written consent of EBRPD. 84 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT BUDGET CHANGE FORM

NEW APPROPRIATIONS BUDGET TRANSFERS From New Revenues Between Projects DECREASE BUDGET ACCOUNT AMOUNT INCREASE BUDGET ACCOUNT AMOUNT Account Name: Expense: Capital- Land- Account Name: Expense: Capital- Land District Wide-Acquisition-Designated Acquisition-Ronald Nunn Family Ltd- Land Acquisition-Measure WW Measure WW Delta Access Acquisition Undesignated Allocation Area-Administrative Costs

Account: 333-6330-000-7010 / Account: 333-6330-141-7010 / 229900WW00-100 $ 129,000.00 215800WP20-100 $ 4,000.00 Account Name: Expense: Capital- Land Acquisition-Ronald Nunn Family Ltd- Measure WW Delta Access Acquisition Allocation Area-Option Deposit

Account: 333-6330-141-7010 / 215800WP20-110 $ 100,000.00 Account Name: Expense: Capital- Land Acquisition-Ronald Nunn Family Ltd- Measure WW Delta Access Acquisition Allocation Area-Option Deposit extension

Account: 333-6330-141-7010 / 215800WP20-110 $ 25,000.00 REASON FOR BUDGET CHANGE ENTRY As being presented at the Board of Directors meeting on June 16, 2015 the General Manager recommends that the Board of Directors authorize the transfer of $129,000 of Measure WW Acquisition Delta Access allocation area to augment the existing acquisition project budget of $25,000. Previously, staff budgeted $15,000 Measure WW Acquisition Delta Access funding and $10,000 East Contra Costa Conservancy funding to start the project.

As approved at the Board of Directors Meeting on date: 6/16/2015 Board of Directors Resolution Number: 2015-6- Posted By: Posted date: Signature:

T:\BOARDCLK\BOARD MATERIAL\2015\11 - June 16, 2015 - Big Break\From DAP\215800 Option Agreement with Nunn Family 85

Page Left Blank Intentionally

86 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

3. FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES

a. Discussion of Community Facilities District (CFD) Formation for Funding Open Space Dedications at Las Trampas and Approval of Local Goals and Policies for Community Facilities Districts (Spaulding/Auker/Collins)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager and Board Finance Committee (by unanimous vote) recommend that the Board of Directors discuss the process for Community Facilities District (CFD) formation for funding open space dedications at the Las Trampas/Podva property and approve a resolution adopting Local Goals and Policies for CFD’s as required by law.

REVENUE/COST

There is no direct cost to this action; however, the total cost of CFD formation, including legal assistance, is estimated to be $20,000. These costs are eligible for CFD funding reimbursement and will therefore be recovered over time.

BACKGROUND

The District is commencing the process of forming a Community Facilities District (CFD) as a mechanism to fund the maintenance of open space areas. CFD’s are formed under the Mello- Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, California Government Code Sections 53311 and following (Act). This is the first CFD formation for the District. However there are other areas where developers are expected to request CFD formation in the near future to fund the management of open space dedications.

The current CFD proposed is for a 20-parcel single-family residential development project located in the Town of Danville. The conditions of approval issued by the Town of Danville for this project include the dedication of 96 acres of open space on the eastern slope of the Las Trampas Hills, and the requirement that the developer confirm a funding mechanism to finance the maintenance of this open space and the trails adjacent to the development.

A second potential CFD is located in the City of San Ramon on 450 acres. This development, called the Faria Preserve, has been approved for 740 homes. This development is also adjacent to

87 the Las Trampas Regional Wilderness. Approximately 144 acres would be dedicated to the District as permanent open space. There would also be several trails and staging area improvements. If pursued, this CFD formation will be brought to the Board for separate consideration and approval.

Properties in both CFD areas are entirely owned by private developers who have expressed interest in CFD funding for maintenance of trails, open space and related improvements.

Benefits of CFD’s as a Funding Mechanism – Historically the District has utilized Lighting and Landscape (LLD) Special Assessment Districts and Zones of Benefit to address specific trail maintenance priorities for certain development projects. While LLD Special Assessment Districts are still available, CFD’s have become preferable for developers and local agencies for the following reasons: • Since the enactment of Proposition 218, a number of court rulings on legal challenges to assessment districts have changed the legal status of assessment districts; the deference that the courts previously gave to local jurisdictions has been replaced by more exacting requirements regarding the special benefit conferred by the assessment. The CFD model on the other hand is a special tax, not an assessment, and there is no requirement to use a special benefits analysis when creating the special tax formula. • Zones of Benefit assessments are subject to a “protest ballot procedure” each time a new zone is formed. Assessments can only be charged for the amount of special benefit identified and the general benefit costs must be excluded from the assessments charged. Agencies must prove that there is a direct benefit to the property owners using objective analysis and statistics. • The administration for CFDs is less cumbersome, because once a CFD is formed there is no requirement for annual engineering reports or annual Board action to establish the tax levy. The District will need to provide an annual report stating the number of parcels subject to the special tax, and how funding is budgeted and spent. • CFD’s allow funding for more services, including public safety.

The CFD Formation Process – The following process for Community Facilities District formation is required by the Act:

1) Local Goals and Policies: Under the Act, the District must adopt Local Goals and Policies before initiating proceedings to form the District’s first CFD. The District’s Local Goals and Policies will be applicable to all CFD’s formed by the District, and may be changed by action of the Board from time to time. Because the Local Goals and Policies are general in nature, they address topics (such as credit quality of CFD bonds) that will not apply to the first CFD.

2) Timelines, Goals and Objectives: The District and Developer agree on timelines, goals and objectives for the CFD.

3) Budget: District staff develops an annual operating budget for the CFD services.

4) Rate and Method of Apportionment:

88 With the assistance of the Special Tax Consultant, the District develops the Rate and Method of Apportionment (RMA) which states the process for determining the tax levy. This RMA (along with the Boundary Map mentioned below) must be recorded with the County after approval of the CFD and the Special Tax by the Board and the landowner voters.

5) Petition/Waiver: The landowner/developer submits a CFD petition/waiver that requests formation of the CFD and waives applicable waiting periods for CFD special tax election.

6) Map: Confirm the Boundary Map to be approved by the Board and recorded with County.

7) Resolution of Intention: Board approves a Resolution of Intention, including the RMA and sets dates for public hearing and landowner election.

8) Election Materials: District provides landowner ballot, envelope and instructions in advance of public hearing.

9) Board Actions to Approve Formation and Election: Board conducts the public hearing, approves a Resolution of Formation and Resolution Calling Election, conducts the landowner election, and Declares Election Results by resolution.

10) Ordinance to Levy Special Taxes: At the same meeting the Board approves the Ordinance to Levy Special Taxes.

Staff will walk the Board through all these steps and the expected timeline as noted below.

First Action – June 16 1) Staff is recommending the approval and adoption of Local Goals and Policies for CFD’s. The Finance Committee reviewed these goals and policies at the May 27th meeting. The Local Goals and Policies must be adopted by any local agency before formation of a CFD is allowed. (See Exhibit A) The primary objectives of these goals and policies can be summarized as follows: a) Provide nominal policy guidance to the District on use of CFD’s, and transparency to the public; they may be amended later. b) State facilities and services priorities for the District when using CFD’s. c) Discuss issues of equity in CFD special tax formulas, as well as guidelines for maximum tax levels and overall tax burdens on any parcels. d) Establish debt/bond guidelines as well as any appraisal guidelines (for CFD’s where bonds are issued to finance infrastructure). e) State terms of initiation of a CFD by petition.

2) Staff will introduce the budget and model developed to determine cost of maintaining the open space. This cost supports the calculation of the maximum annual tax per unit and is documented in the Rate and Method of Apportionment (RMA) which contains the formula by which the rate of the special tax is determined and levied on the parcels in the CFD each year. The RMA will be presented for approval at the July 7th Board meeting.

89 a) The RMA establishes the date to commence the special tax levy and when parcels are subject to the tax. b) Defines all terms related to the RMA. c) Defines exempt real property. d) Establishes the maximum annual tax, by property land use type, which is subject to an increase based on the special tax escalation factor (change in annual CPI for SF-Oak-SJ as of December) on July 1 of each year.

Maximum Annual Tax Calculation – District staff from Planning, Operations, MAST and Finance worked together to create a cost model to determine the total cost of maintaining the dedicated open space. This cost model considers the estimated staff time necessary to manage the new donated open space and surrounding area, as applicable. The model also attempts to consider the additional general property tax that will be generated by the new development and reflects a portion of the costs to be covered by the District. The components of the cost that require further discussion with the developer are related to the mitigation requirements on the 30 acre conservation easement area. These stewardship costs have been removed from the cost model and the District is recommending that the developer fund these responsibilities with a separate funding source, such as an endowment.

The Finance Committee suggested that staff consider the following while creating the cost model: • Developed property will provide additional general property tax. • Land donated that is within/adjacent to current regional park property that is already in service or provides trail connectivity will have more accessible resources. • Land donated that is within the District Master Plan or which has a current land use plan should receive a greater percentage of District contribution in the cost model. • Provide criteria for reasonableness when a development has very few units (20 or less).

The current cost model reflects an annual cost of $16,839. This total cost includes $5,815 for stewardship, expected to be funded by the developer separately. Additionally, the District will fund $5,059 using general property taxes. When these two amounts, for stewardship and the District contribution, are subtracted the net annual amount to be funded by the CFD is $5,965. The net cost divided by 20 units establishes the initial maximum annual tax at $298 per unit.

Second Action – July 7 Staff will be recommending the approval of the Resolution of Intention, which the Finance Committee has reviewed, and which: a. Declares the Board’s intention to establish the CFD and authorize the levy of special taxes. b. Names the CFD: CFD No. C-1 Las Trampas. c. Confirms the boundary map. d. Establishes the types of services to be funded. e. States the intent to levy special taxes annually, subject to a landowner approval at a special election. f. Approves the Rate and Method of Apportionment (RMA). g. Sets the public hearing date and directs the required notice to be published.

90 Included in the information provided to the Board is the Landowner/Developer Petition (including Waivers) which is a document from the landowner requesting that the District establish a CFD to provide financing for the costs of the maintenance, improvement, and servicing of parklands, trails, open space, and related parkland access improvements within or in the vicinity of the CFD. In this document the landowner has requested and agreed to the CFD formation process. The CFD Boundary Map (See Attachment 2) is also provided by the developer, and will be recorded with the County between the July 7 meeting and the September 1 public hearing.

Third Action – September 1 The Board will hold the public hearing on September 1, and will then consider the remaining actions required to form the CFD and levy the special tax, which are the Resolution of Formation, Resolution Calling for Election, Declaring the Results of the Election, and the Ordinance to Levy Special Taxes. These items will be reviewed by the Finance Committee at the June 24th meeting, and Staff will be recommending approval of all of these final actions.

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Directors: a) Approve the resolution to adopt Local Goals and Policies for use of Community Facilities Districts, and b) Direct staff to proceed with the CFD formation process.

Attachments: 1. Resolution Approving and Adopting Local Goals and Policies a. Draft Local Goals and Policies 2. Boundary Map

ALTERNATIVES

None are recommended.

91 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO. 2015-6

June 16, 2015

APPROVAL OF LOCAL GOALS AND POLICIES FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS

WHEREAS, the East Bay Regional Park District (the “District”) is authorized to establish community facilities districts (“CFD”) under the provisions of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being sections 53311 and following of the California Government Code (the “Act”); and

WHEREAS, the Act establishes a funding mechanism for local agencies to support provision of needed infrastructure, public facilities projects, and public services; and

WHEREAS, Section 53312.7(a) of the Act requires that a local agency consider and adopt local goals and policies concerning the use of the Act prior to the initiation of any proceedings on or after January 1, 1994 to establish a CFD; and

WHEREAS, this Board of Directors intends to consider the establishment of a CFD within the District, and desires at this time to adopt local goals and policies so that it may commence proceedings for establishing a CFD; and

WHEREAS, the District determines that adoption of this Resolution is in the public interest.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby finds, determines, and resolves that all of the foregoing recitals are true and correct.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby finds that the East Bay Regional Park District Statement of Local Goals and Policies Concerning the Use of the Mello- Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the “Local Goals and Policies”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and made a part of this Resolution, meet the requirements of the Act.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors hereby adopts for purposes of compliance with the Act, subject to further amendment by this Board of Directors as may be required from time to time, the Local Goals and Policies.

BE IF FURTHER RESOLVED, that this Resolution and the Local Goals and Policies shall be effective from and after the date of the adoption of this Resolution by this Board of Directors.

92 Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and approved this 16th day of June, 2015, by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT STATEMENT OF LOCAL GOALS AND POLICIES CONCERNING THE USE OF THE MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES ACT OF 1982

1. GENERAL

Section 53312.7(a) of the California Government Code requires that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District ("District") consider and adopt local goals and policies concerning the use of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended ("Act") prior to the initiation of proceedings on or after January 1, 1994 to establish a new community facilities district (“CFD”) under the Act.

These goals and policies ( “Local Goals and Policies”) provide guidance and conditions for the conduct by the District of proceedings for a CFD established under the Act and the issuance of bonds secured by special taxes levied within a CFD. These Local Goals and Policies are intended to be general in nature; specific details will depend on the nature of each particular financing. These Local Goals and Policies are applicable to financings under the Act and are intended to comply with Section 53312.7(a) of the Act. These Local Goals and Policies shall not apply to any assessment financing or any certificate of participation, or similar financings, involving leases of or security in public property.

2. FINANCING PRIORITIES.

Eligible Facilities. The improvements eligible to be financed by a CFD must be owned by a public agency or public utility and must have a useful life of at least five years, except that up to 5% of the proceeds of an issue can be used for facilities owned and operated by a privately-owned public utility.

It is acknowledged that the Act permits the financing of fee obligations imposed by governmental agencies, the proceeds of which are to be used to fund public capital improvements of the nature permitted by the Act.

The funding of public facilities to be owned and operated by public agencies other than the District shall be considered on a case-by-case basis. If the proposed financing is consistent with a public facilities financing plan approved by the District, or the proposed facilities are otherwise consistent with approved land use plans for the property, the District may consider entering into a joint community facilities agreement or joint powers authority agreement in order to finance these facilities. A joint agreement with the public agency that will own and operate any such facility must be entered into at the time or times required by the Act.

A CFD may also be formed for the purpose of refinancing any fixed special assessment or other governmental lien on property, to the extent permitted under the Act, as applicable.

Priority for CFD financing of public facilities shall be given to public facilities that: (a) are necessary for development to proceed in an orderly fashion, (b) are otherwise coordinated to correspond to the phasing of the related private development project, or (c) provide a clearly defined public benefit. If appropriate, the District shall prepare a public facilities financing plan as a part of the specific plan or other land use document that identifies the public facilities required to serve a project, and the type of financing to be utilized for each public facility. The District may require preparation of the aforementioned plan(s) as a condition of approval of a project, at the cost of the developer of the project. The District will attempt to schedule construction of public facilities financed by a CFD in a manner such that private development will not occur ahead of the installation of public infrastructure necessary to support that development.

Eligible Services. The services eligible to be financed by a CFD are those identified in the Act. To the extent required by the Act, the CFD may only finance services to the extent they are in addition to those provided in the territory of the CFD before the CFD was created, and the additional services may not supplant services already available within the territory of the CFD when the CFD was created.

Page 1 of 6 94

Subject to the conditions set forth in the Act, priority for public services to be financed by a CFD shall be given to services which are: (a) necessary for the public health, safety, and welfare, and (b) would otherwise be an additional burden to the District’s general fund. The District may finance services to be provided by another public agency if it determines the public convenience and necessity require it to do so, although the District prioritizes financing services to be provided by the District. If appropriate, the District may require the preparation of a public services financing plan as a part of the specific plan or other land use document that identifies the public services required to serve a project and the source of funding for each such service.

Eligible Private Facilities. Financed improvements may be privately-owned in the specific circumstances, and subject to the conditions, set forth in the Act.

3. BOND FINANCINGS; CREDIT QUALITY.

Value-to-Public Lien Ratio. All CFD bond issues should have at least a three to one value to public lien ratio, unless otherwise specifically approved by the Board of Directors as provided in Section 53345.8(b) or (c) of the Act. Value may be based on either an appraisal (as described in Section 6 below) or on assessed values as indicated on the county secured tax roll. The public lien amount shall include the CFD bond issue currently being sold plus any public indebtedness secured by a lien on the properties to be subject to the special tax of the CFD.

Entitlement Status. Except as otherwise approved by the Board of Directors, the District will require all major land use approvals and governmental permits necessary for the development of land in the CFD to be substantially in place before bonds may be issued.

Reserve Fund. In most cases, a reserve fund equal to the lesser of: (a) 10% of the original proceeds of the bond issue, (b) the maximum annual debt service on the bonds, or (c) 125% of the average annual debt service on the outstanding bonds will be required. A smaller reserve fund may be required by the District for bond issues where development thresholds identified by the District have been met. A reserve fund may not be required for the financing of privately owned improvements if it is not required by a bond purchaser that the District concludes has sufficient knowledge and experience in financial and business matters so as to be capable of evaluating the merits and risks of the bonds.

Failure to Meet Credit Criteria; Exceptions. Less than a three to one value to public lien ratio, excessive tax delinquencies, or projects of uncertain economic viability may cause the District to prohibit the sale of bonds or require credit enhancement prior to bond sale.

The District may consider exceptions to the requirements of this Section 3 for bond issues that do not represent an unusual credit risk, either due to credit enhancement or other reasons specified by the District, and/or which otherwise provide extraordinary public benefits, to the extent permitted by and subject to, any applicable requirements of the Act.

Credit Enhancement; Escrows. If the District requires letters of credit or other security, the credit enhancement shall be issued by an institution, in a form and upon terms and conditions satisfactory to the District. Any security required to be provided by the applicant may be discharged by the District upon satisfaction of the applicable credit criteria specified by the District.

As an alternative to providing other security, and subject to federal tax law, the applicant may request that a portion of the bond proceeds be placed in escrow with a trustee or fiscal agent in an amount sufficient to assure the financing will meet the applicable credit criteria, including, but not limited to, meeting a value to public lien ratio of at least three to one on the outstanding proceeds. The escrowed proceeds shall be released at such times, and in such amounts, as may be necessary to assure the applicable credit criteria has been met.

Page 2 of 6 95

Investor Suitability. The District will require that bond financings be structured so that bonds are purchased and owned by suitable investors. For example, the District may require placement of bonds with a limited number of sophisticated investors, large bond denominations, and/or transfer restrictions in situations where there is an insufficient value to public lien ratio, where a substantial amount of the property within a CFD is undeveloped, where tax delinquencies are present in parcels within the CFD, and in any other situation identified by the District.

4. DISCLOSURES

Purchasers of Property. At a minimum, any disclosures mandated by applicable state law to inform prospective purchasers of their obligations under the CFD shall apply to each CFD. In addition, there may be additional requirements mandated by the District for particular types of financings on a case-by-case basis. The District may prescribe specific forms to be used to disclose the existence and extent of obligations imposed by CFD.

Disclosure Requirements for the Resale of Lots. The District shall provide a notice of special tax to sellers of property (other than developers) which will enable them to comply with their notice requirements under Section 1102.6 of the California Civil Code. This notice shall be provided by the District after receiving a written request for the notice from the applicable property owner. A reasonable fee may be charged for providing the notice, not to exceed any maximum fee specified in the Act. Nothing in this section is intended to require the District to provide any notice, except upon request and only with respect to the information provided herein.

Continuing Bond Disclosure. Landowners in a CFD that are responsible for 10% or more of the annual special taxes must agree to provide: (a) initial disclosure at the time of issuance of any bonds, and (b) annual disclosure as required by the underwriter of the bonds in order to comply with Securities Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12, as amended, until the special tax obligation of the property owned by such owner drops below 10%.

5. EQUITY OF SPECIAL TAX FORMULAS AND MAXIMUM SPECIAL TAXES

Minimum Special Tax Levels. Special tax formulas shall provide for minimum special tax levels that satisfy the following payment obligations of a CFD:

(a) 110% gross debt service coverage for all CFD bonded indebtedness,

(b) the administrative expenses of the CFD (which may be covered in the 10% debt service coverage described in clause (a)), and

(c) amounts equal to the differences between expected earnings on any escrow fund and the interest payments due on related bonds of the CFD.

Debt service coverage as described in the previous sentence will not be required for the financing of privately owned improvements if it is not required by a bond purchaser that the District concludes has sufficient knowledge and experience in financial and business matters so as to be capable of evaluating the merits and risks of the bonds.

In addition, the special tax formula may provide for the following to be included in the special tax levies: (a) any amounts required to establish or replenish any reserve fund established in association with the indebtedness of the CFD, (b) the accumulation of funds reasonably required for future debt service, (c) amounts equal to projected delinquencies of special tax payments, (d) the costs of remarketing, credit enhancement, and liquidity facility fees, (e) the cost of acquisition, construction, furnishing, or equipping of authorized facilities, (f) lease payments for existing or future facilities, (g) costs associated with the release of funds from an escrow account, (h) the costs of services, and (i) any other costs or payments permitted by the Act.

Page 3 of 6 96

Equity of Special Tax Allocation Formula. The special tax formula shall be reasonable in allocating the CFD’s payment obligations to parcels within the CFD. The formula will be clear, understandable, equitable, and reasonable. The special tax formula may include a back-up special tax in the event of significant changes from the initial development plan and may also include procedures for prepayment.

Exemptions from the special tax may be given to parcels that are publicly owned, are held by a property owners' association, are used for a public purpose such as open space or wetlands, are affected by public utility easements making impractical their utilization for other than the purposes set forth in the easements, have insufficient value to support bonded indebtedness, and other exemptions permitted by the Act.

Aggregate Tax Burden -- Non-Residential Property. At the time a CFD is formed, the total projected property tax levels on non-residential property (including ad valorem taxes, any maintenance, landscaping or other impositions on the land in the CFD, and other similar annual government charges levied on parcels in the CFD, but excluding property owners’ association annual levies and as to any special tax levies, based on the expected special tax rates and not any "back-up" special taxes) for any CFD (or, if a CFD has multiple improvement areas, for each improvement area and not the entire CFD) must be reasonable, as considered by the Board of Directors on a case-by-case basis.

Aggregate Tax Burden -- Residential Property. At the time a CFD is formed, the total projected property tax levels on residential property (including ad valorem taxes, any maintenance, landscaping or other impositions on the land in the CFD, and other similar annual government charges levied on parcels in the CFD, but excluding property owners’ association annual levies and as to any special tax levies, based on the expected special tax rates and not any "back-up" special taxes) for any CFD (or, if a CFD has multiple improvement areas, for each improvement area and not the entire CFD) shall not exceed the lesser of: (a) 2.0% of the estimated initial sales prices (from the builder to the first homeowner) of the respective homes to be constructed in the CFD (with such prices to be determined by reference to an absorption study or appraisal prepared for the CFD, or such other information as may be available to the District in its sole discretion), or (b) any maximum specified in the Act; provided, however, that the District may waive this requirement with respect to any CFD whose qualified electors are registered voters.

The annual increase, if any, in the maximum special tax for any parcel shall not exceed any maximum specified in the Act. The increase in the special tax levied on any residential parcel as a consequence of delinquency or default by the owner of any other parcel shall not exceed any maximum specified in the Act.

Levy on Entire Parcels. Special taxes will only be levied on an entire county assessor's parcel, and any allocation of special tax liability of a county assessor’s parcel to leasehold or possessory interests in the fee ownership of such county assessor’s parcel shall be the responsibility of the fee owner of such parcel; the District shall have no responsibility therefore and has no interest therein. Failure of the owner of any county assessor’s parcel to pay or cause to be paid any special taxes in full when due shall subject the entire parcel to foreclosure in accordance with the Act.

Feasibility Analysis. The District may retain a special tax consultant to prepare a report that: (a) recommends a special tax for the proposed CFD, and (b) evaluates the special tax proposed to determine its ability to adequately fund identified public facilities, services, administrative costs, and other related expenditures for the proposed CFD. Such analysis shall also address the resulting aggregate tax burden of all proposed special taxes plus existing special taxes, ad valorem taxes, and assessments on the properties within the CFD.

6. APPRAISALS

The definitions, standards, and assumptions to be used for appraisals shall be determined by District staff on a case-by-case basis with input from District consultants and CFD applicants, and by reference to relevant materials and information promulgated by the State of California (including, but not limited to, the California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission). The appraiser shall be selected by, or otherwise

Page 4 of 6 97

acceptable to, the District, and the appraisal shall be coordinated by and under the direction of, or otherwise as acceptable to, the District.

The appraisal must be dated within three months before the date the bonds are priced, unless the Board of Directors determines a longer time is appropriate.

All costs associated with the preparation of the appraisal report shall be paid by the entity requesting the establishment of the CFD, if applicable, through the advance deposit mechanism described below.

7. DISTRICT PROCEEDINGS.

Petition. A landowner petition meeting the requirements of the Act shall be required for new development projects. The applicant is urged to obtain unanimous waivers of the election waiting period. In applying to the District for formation of a CFD, the applicant must specify any reasonably expected impediments to obtaining petitions, including from co-owners or lenders of record (where required). Waiver of the requirement for a landowner petition shall be made only upon showing of extraordinary hardship. For existing development, petitions are preferred, but may be waived, depending on the nature of the project and degree of public importance.

Deposits and Reimbursements. All District staff and consultant costs incurred in the evaluation of CFD applications and the establishment of the CFD will be paid by the entity, if any, requesting the establishment of the CFD by one or more advance deposits. The District shall not incur any expenses for processing and administering a CFD that are not paid by the applicant or from CFD bond proceeds. In general, expenses not chargeable to the CFD shall be directly borne by the applicants requesting establishment of the CFD.

Any petition for formation of a CFD shall be accompanied by an initial deposit in the amount determined by the District to fund initial staff and consultant costs associated with CFD review and implementation. If the requirement for a landowner petition is waived, the applicant requesting establishment of the CFD shall make a deposit in the amount determined by the District before the beginning of any proceedings to form the CFD. If additional funds are needed to off-set costs and expenses incurred by the District, the District shall make written demand upon the applicant for such funds. If the applicant fails to make any deposit of additional funds for the proceedings, the District may suspend all proceedings until receipt of such additional deposit.

The District shall not accrue or pay any interest on any portion of the deposit refunded to any applicant or the costs and expenses reimbursed to an applicant. Neither the District nor the CFD shall be required to reimburse any applicant or property owner from any funds other than the proceeds of bonds issued by the CFD or special taxes levied in the CFD.

Representatives. The District and the applicant shall each designate a representative for each CFD formation. The representatives shall be responsible for coordinating the activities of their respective interests and shall be the spokespersons for each such interest. The purpose of this requirement is to avoid duplication of effort and misunderstandings from failure to communicate effectively. In the case of the District, it allows the District’s consultants to report to a single official who will, in turn, communicate with other staff members.

Time Schedule. The final schedule of events for any proceeding shall be determined by the District, in consultation with its financing team and the applicant. Any changes will require approval by the appropriate District official. Time schedules will (unless specific exceptions are allowed) observe established Board meeting schedules and agenda deadlines. To the extent possible, financings will be scheduled to allow debt service to be placed on the tax rolls with a minimum of capitalized interest. Decisions to capitalize interest will be made on a case-by-case basis, with the intent that if allowed, it should improve the credit quality of the bonds and reduce borrowing costs, benefiting both current and future property owners.

Page 5 of 6 98

8. FINANCING TERMS

All terms and conditions of any CFD bonds shall be established by the District. The District will control, manage, and invest all CFD issued bond proceeds. Each bond issue shall be structured to adequately protect bond owners and to not negatively impact the bonding capacity or credit rating of the District through the special taxes, credit enhancements, foreclosure covenant, and reserve funds.

All statements and material related to the sale of bonds shall emphasize and state that neither the faith, credit, nor the taxing power of the District is pledged to security or repayment of the Bonds. The sole source of pledged revenues to repay CFD bonds are special taxes, bond proceeds, reserve funds held under the bond document, proceeds of foreclosure proceedings, and any additional security instruments provided at the time of bond issuance.

The District, in its sole discretion, shall select all consultants necessary for the formation of the CFD and the issuance of bonds.

All costs associated with any bond financing shall be paid with the proceeds of the bonds or by the entity requesting the establishment of the CFD, if applicable, through an advance deposit mechanism described above.

9. EXCEPTIONS TO THESE POLICIES

The District may find in limited and exceptional instances that a waiver of any portion of these Local Goals and Policies then in effect is reasonable given identified special benefits to be derived from such waiver. Such waivers only will be granted by action of the Board of Directors.

These Local Goals and Policies may be revised, supplemented, amended or deviated from, from time to time upon a determination by the Board of Directors that such revision, supplement, amendment or deviation is necessary or desirable. Any portion of these Local Goals and Policies shall be deemed amended or supplemented if, and as of the date, such amendment or supplement is required to ensure compliance with the Act, any other laws of the State of California, and laws of the United States of America.

Page 6 of 6 99 Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS

2633 CAMINO RAMON, SUITE 350 (925) 866-0322 SAN RAMON, CALIFORNIA 94583

100

Page Left Blank Intentionally

101 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

3. FINANCE AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES

b. PUBLIC HEARING

Approval of Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2015/2016, Adopt Resolution Confirming Diagram and Assessment, Order Maintenance, Improvements and Levy Annual Assessment for East Contra Costa County Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1; Adopt Resolution Regarding Protests (Rasmussen/Auker/Collins)

RECOMMENDATION

The General Manager recommends that the Board of Directors:

1. Receive public comments regarding the Draft Engineer's Report for operation of the East Contra Costa County Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1 (ECCC- 1) for Fiscal Year 2015/2016;

2. Approve the ECCC-1 Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2015/2016;

3. Adopt a resolution confirming the diagram and assessment as set forth in the Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2015/2016 (available for review through the Clerk of the Board);

4. Order the maintenance and improvements and levy the assessment as set forth in the Engineer's Report for Fiscal Year 2015/2016;

5. Adopt a resolution overruling protests.

REVENUE/COST

Assessment revenues, disregarding delinquencies, totaling $714,658 are expected to be raised from the ECCC LLD proceeding. These revenues are anticipated in the 2015 and 2016 District year budgets and are restricted to maintain parkland, open space, trails and related parkland access within the boundaries and provisions as described in the attached draft Engineer’s Report. 2015 appropriations total $586,880.

102 BACKGROUND

On May 19, 2015, the Board passed a Resolution of Intention to Order Improvements for the FY 2015/2016 operation of ECCC-1, establishing Tuesday, June 16, 2015, at 6:00 p.m. at the Big Break Visitors Center at the Delta, 69 Big Break Road, Oakley, CA 94561 as the date, time, and place to conduct a public hearing, and instructing the Clerk of the Board to provide appropriate notice. The proposed FY 2015/2016 program is described in the Engineer's Report (Attachment A) submitted with this board report.

East Contra Costa County (ECCC) was annexed to the District in 1981. This annexation occurred without redistribution to the District of tax revenues being collected by the County and, as a result, no operating revenue for regional park and trail facilities could be provided. In the mid-to-late 1980s, substantial residential development, and corresponding population growth occurred in the area inevitably leading to local citizen requests for regional park facilities and services in the far ECCC area.

The passage of Measure AA in 1988 provided capital funds for the acquisition and development of regional park and trail facilities in ECCC. Without tax revenues, however, there was no funding available for maintenance and operation of these new regional park facilities. In recognition of this problem, the Board appointed a representative community-based ECCC Citizens Task Force to consider approaches for providing operation and maintenance funding. After a long deliberation, the Citizens Task Force recommended creation of a Landscaping and Lighting Special Assessment District to provide needed operational revenues. The District then initiated legal proceedings which culminated in a December 1991 Board action to form the East Contra Costa County Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1 (ECCC-1).

ECCC-1 began its first year of operation on July 1, 1992. The initial assessment established for all qualifying parcels was an annual rate of $19.70. At the time of formation, the Board indicated its intention to retain future annual assessments, with possible adjustments for inflation, at the same approximate level. The $19.70 rate has not changed.

In November 1996, consistent with the provisions of Proposition 218, the continuation of the assessment rate and services provided by ECCC-1 was placed on the ballot as Measure LL. This ballot measure was approved (67.8% in favor) by the citizens of ECCC.

The proposed program for FY 2015/2016 is described in the Engineer's Report, Attachment A. The assessment for FY 2015/2016 would remain the same as last year at $19.70 per dwelling unit.

The General Manager recommends that the Board approve the Engineer’s Report. By taking the recommended action, the District will make it possible for the ECCC-1 to continue its current service to East Contra Costa residents in the 2015 and 2016 District budget years.

At this Board meeting, on June 16, 2015, the Board will receive public comments and thereafter determine whether to approve the Engineer’s Report (Work Program, Budget and Rate of Assessment).

103

A second resolution is a requirement of State law that the Board must adopt a resolution overruling any protest to the assessment if any should be received.

ALTERNATIVES

None are recommended.

Attachment A: FY 2015/2016 Engineer’s Report for ECCC-1

104

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO. 2015 – 06 -

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

APPROVAL OF ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2015/2016, ADOPT RESOLUTION CONFIRMING DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT, ORDER MAINTENANCE, IMPROVEMENTS AND LEVY ANNUAL ASSESSMENT FOR EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1

WHEREAS, on April 21, 2015, the Board of Directors approved Resolution 2015-4-110 initiating proceedings and directed NBS, the Engineer, to prepare and file an Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2015/2016; and

WHEREAS, at the time of the formation of ECCC-1 in 1991, the Board indicated its intention to retain future annual assessments at the same approximate level and this rate has been continued at $19.70; and

WHEREAS, in November 1996, consistent with the provisions of Proposition 218, the continuation of the assessment rate and services provided by ECCC-1 was placed on the ballot as Measure LL and this ballot measure was approved (67.8% in favor) by the electorate of East Contra Costa County; and

WHEREAS, on May 19, 2015, the Board of Directors granted preliminary approval to the Draft ECCC-1 Engineer’s Report for Fiscal Year 2015/2016, adopted a Resolution of Intention to Order Improvements within ECCC-1, and set a public hearing to be held on June 16, 2015, at 6:00 p.m. at the Big Break Visitors Center at the Delta, 69 Big Break Road, Oakley, CA 94561, and notice of the hearing was given in the time and manner required by law; and

WHEREAS, at the public hearing the Board of Directors afforded to interested persons an opportunity to protest the annual report either in writing or in person, and the Board of Directors has considered the protests.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby approves the Engineer's Report for ECCC-1, approves the diagram and assessment, orders the maintenance and operation of the Assessment District, and hereby levies the assessment, all as set forth in the Engineer's Report for 2015/2016; and

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

105

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and adopted this 16th day of June 2015, by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

106

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

RESOLUTION NO. 2015-6-

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS (Pursuant to the Landscaping & Lighting Act of 1972)

WHEREAS, on June 16, 2015 the Board of Directors opened a public hearing on the approval of the Engineer's Report on the proposed maintenance and operation of the East Contra Costa County Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1 (ECCC-1) for Fiscal Year 2015/2016; and

WHEREAS, at or before the time set for hearing, certain interested persons made protest, or objections to the proposed maintenance and operation, the extent of the assessment district, or the proposed assessment; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors finds that the protest against the proposed maintenance and operation (including all written protests not withdrawn in writing before the conclusion of the protest meeting) is made by the owners of less than one-half (50%) of the area of the land to be assessed.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby overrules each of these protests.

Moved by Director , seconded by Director , and adopted this 16th day of June, 2015, by the following vote:

FOR:

AGAINST: ABSTAIN: ABSENT:

107 East Bay Regional Park District

East Contra Costa County Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1 (ECCC-1)

Fiscal Year 2015/16 Engineer’s Report

June 2015

Main Office 32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100 Temecula, CA 92592 Toll free: 800.676.7516 Fax: 951.296.1998

Regional Office 870 Market Street, Suite 1223 San Francisco, CA 94102 Toll free: 800.434.8349 Fax: 415.391.8439

108 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT EAST CONTRA COSTA COUNTY LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 1 (ECCC-1)

2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California 94605 Phone - (888) 327-2757

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

Whitney Dotson, Board Member

John Sutter, Board Member

Dennis Waespi, Board Member

Doug Siden, Board Member

Ayn Wieskamp, Board Member

Beverly Lane, Board Member

Diane Burgis, Board Member

DISTRICT STAFF

Robert E. Doyle, General Manager

Dave Collins, Assistant General Manager

Carol Victor, Legal Counsel

Debra Auker, Chief Financial Officer

NBS

Tim Seufert, Project Director

Nick Dayhoff, Consultant

109 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 1-1

2. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS ...... 2-1 2.1 Description of the District Boundaries ...... 2-1 2.2 Description of Areas to be Improved ...... 2-1 2.3 Description of Improvements...... 2-2 2.4 Identification of Benefit...... 2-3 3. ESTIMATE OF COSTS ...... 3-1 4. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM...... 4-1 5. ASSESSMENTS ...... 5-1 5.1 Method of Apportionment...... 5-1 5.2 Appeals of Assessment Levy to Property...... 5-2 5.3 Assessment Roll ...... 5-2

110 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On April 21, 2015, the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District (the “EBRPD”), State of California, under the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (the “Act”), adopted its Resolution Initiating Proceedings for the Annual Levy of Assessments and Ordering the Preparation of an Engineer’s Report for the East Contra Costa County Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District No. 1 (the “District”).

The Resolution of Initiation directed NBS Government Finance Group, DBA NBS, to prepare and file a report presenting plans and specifications describing the general nature, location, and extent of the improvements to be maintained, an estimate of cost of the maintenance, operations, and servicing of the improvements for the District for the referenced fiscal year, a diagram for the District, showing the area and properties proposed to be assessed, and an assessment of the estimated costs of the maintenance, operations, and servicing the improvements, assessing the net amount upon all assessable lots and/or parcels within the District in proportion to the special benefit received.

The following assessment is made to cover the portion of the estimated cost of maintenance, operation, and servicing of said improvements to be paid by the assessable real property within the District in proportion to the special benefit received:

SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT

Fiscal Year 2015/16 Fiscal Year 2015/16 Proposed Assessment Maximum Assessment As Confirmed by Board $714,657.70 $714,657.70

The assessment has been levied in accordance with the assessment methodology adopted and approved by the Board at the time of District formation.

The District was formed prior to the passage of Proposition 218, The Right to Vote on Taxes Act, which was approved by the voters of California on November 6, 1996, and is now Article XIlIC and XIlID of the California Constitution. Although this assessment is consistent with Proposition 218, the California judiciary has generally referred to pre-Proposition 218 assessments as "grandfathered assessments" and held them to a lower standard than post Proposition 218 assessments. As required by Proposition 218, the voters of eastern Contra Costa County approved the continuation of the District in November of 1996 (Measure LL). This measure passed with 67.8% approval from the voters within the District.

ECCC-1 Engineer’s Report – East Bay Regional Park District 1-1 Prepared by NBS – Fiscal Year 2015/16 111 2. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 2.1 Description of the District Boundaries

The District is defined by the boundaries of the Liberty Union High School District, in east Contra Costa County. The parcels of land, which have been determined to be within the boundaries of the District using County Tax Rate Areas, are those parcels shown in the assessment roll for the District.

2.2 Description of Areas to be Improved

The acquisitions and improvements to be maintained, improved, and serviced by the assessments include parklands, trails, and related parkland access improvements throughout the District. The District improvements are generally as follows:

Marsh Creek Trail 7.74 miles - Big Break Trail to Creekside Park: The Creekside Park to Cypress Road portion of this trail is 6.54 miles long and was opened in phases from December 1992 to 1997. Construction costs for the first phase (Cypress Road to Dainty Avenue) were $775,000 for the trail and $260,000 for bridges. In 2001, the operation of the Dainty Avenue to Balfour Road section of the trail was transferred to the EBRPD from the City of Brentwood. The 0.5 mile Balfour Road to Creekside Park portion of the trail was built by subdivision developers in 1996/97 and opened in 1997. Beginning in Fiscal Year 2005/06, the EBRPD has maintained responsibility for a trail tunnel beneath O'Hara Avenue and a tunnel beneath Sand Creek Road. The EBRPD expects to maintain a 9/10 mile extension to the Delta Shoreline Trail after completion of a restoration project.

The Cypress Road to Delta Shoreline portion is 1.2 miles long and opened May 31, 1997, with a construction cost of $421,000 for the trail and railroad underpass.

Delta/De Anza Trail Approximately 3.5 miles - Cypress Road to Neroly Road: The Cypress Road to Neroly Road portion of the trail is about 2.5 miles long and opened June 1, 1996, with a construction cost of $355,000 (trail and screen fencing). The Hillcrest to Ridgeline segment opened 2007/08 and added one additional mile of trail. The one mile section of trail between Ridgeline and Neroly Road was completed and opened in 2014.

Big Break Trail 1.7 miles - Jordan Lane to Big Break Bridge: The Marsh Creek Bridge to Jordan Lane section of trail, which opened in 1998, is 1.7 miles in length and cost $525,000 to construct. Additionally, a trail from Big Break Road to the flood control channel has been constructed and is being maintained.

ECCC-1 Engineer’s Report – East Bay Regional Park District 2-1 Prepared by NBS – Fiscal Year 2015/16 112 ECCC Trails Service Yard Adjacent to the Iron Horse Sanitation District facilities in Oakley: The Iron Horse Sanitation District Plant (IHSD) in Oakley opened September of 1994. The EBRPD acquired land from IHSD nearby for a permanent service yard which was completed in 2003. The ECCC Service Yard provides necessary support for the continued growth of the District Trails and Park Program.

Vasco Caves Regional Preserve This 750 acre property was acquired by the Contra Costa Water District and the EBRPD in 1997/98 at a cost of $1,360,000 and is currently maintained by the EBRPD. It opened in 1999/2000 for public use by reservation only. An additional 617 acres were acquired on December 23, 2004, at an additional cost of $2,961 600. There is also a security residence at this location.

Round Valley Regional Preserve The Purviance property of 1,165 acres was acquired in 1995 at a cost of $2,058,500. The Aswad property of 160 acres was acquired in April of 1996 at a cost of $224,000. The Cowell property was leased to the EBRPD in 1996 and opened in 1998. The construction cost of staging area and access was $921,500. There are 3.2 miles of trail. An additional 45 acres was added on January 31, 2000, at a cost of $313,250. There is also a security residence at this location. A group camp site, which may be reserved, opened in 2007, and a bridge was installed in 2012 to complete the loop trail.

Delta Access

The EBRPD acquired the Fallman property on June 20, 2002, at a cost of $1,500,000. The property is 276 acres in size and is located adjacent to the Werner Dredger Cut, east of Knightsen, in the Orwood Tract. The property is currently in agricultural use and will be kept in land bank status until funding is obtained for the development and operation of a delta access facility. An additional 90 acres of Delta access known as the Aginson Prime property was acquired in September of 2013 at a cost of $1,165,000. The purchase price included a security residence and a dock that may eventually allow small boat access to the Delta. The District is participating in the replacement of the Orwood Bridge, which crosses the Dredger Cut adjacent to the Fallman property. The new bridge will include a segment of the Mokelumne Coast to Crest Trail.

2.3 Description of Improvements

The level of operations, maintenance and servicing include, but are not limited to: culvert service and repair, drinking fountains repair, entry structure repair, erosion control, fence repair, fire suppression, inlet, pipeline and outfall service and repair, litter control, mowing, painting, ranger patrol, repaving and crack repair, rest room maintenance, sign maintenance, stair tread repair, tree and shrubbery trimming and removal, weed abatement, landscaping, grading and soil preparation. The operations, maintenance and service include personnel, electrical energy, and utilities such as water, materials, contractual services, administrative costs and other items as necessary. All work will be performed to an acceptable standard and in accordance with applicable safety, environmental, aesthetic and building standards and regulations. Any plans for these improvements will be filed with the EBRPD and are incorporated herein by reference.

ECCC-1 Engineer’s Report – East Bay Regional Park District 2-2 Prepared by NBS – Fiscal Year 2015/16 113 2.4 Identification of Benefit

The District provides funds needed to maintain, operate, and construct parks, trails, open space, and other related park and access improvements within the District, as prescribed in the State of California Streets and Highways Code. Cost of acquisition and development of the regional facilities is funded primarily through Federal and State grants, Bond Acts, and various public and private donations.

By definition, all District lands maintained with the assessment revenues are directly related to property within the District, and benefits are received equally by all residential property owners within the District. A single zone of benefit for residential properties is in effect throughout the entire area of the District, and assessments are established accordingly. Assessments are directed exclusively to owners of all individual residential parcels which include a residence or residences as defined by the Contra Costa County Assessor, according to the plan defined below in this Report. The plan reflects varying rates of assessment, dependent upon the number and type of residential units located on the various parcels.

ECCC-1 Engineer’s Report – East Bay Regional Park District 2-3 Prepared by NBS – Fiscal Year 2015/16 114 3. ESTIMATE OF COSTS

The EBPRD receives revenue funding from the District. Revenue from this source will be used for the improvement, maintenance, and servicing of the public facilities within the District. The budget for Fiscal Year 2015/16 is shown in the following table:

DESCRIPTION AMOUNT Sources Beginning Fund Balance, January 1, 2015 $245,686 Total Assessment FY 2015/16 714,658 County Collection Fees (26,908) Interest 300 Total Sources $933,736 Uses Maintenance Expenditures: Salaries and Benefits $577,880 Supplies 0 Services 3,000 Administrative Expenses: Intra-District Charges 0 Engineer Charges 6,000 Transfers Out 0 Total Uses $586,880 Projected Change in Fund Balance $101,170 Projected Ending Fund Balance, December 31, 2015 $346,856

ECCC-1 Engineer’s Report – East Bay Regional Park District 3-1 Prepared by NBS – Fiscal Year 2015/16 115 4. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM

An Assessment Diagram for the District has been submitted to the EBRPD Clerk in the format required under the provision of the Act. The Assessment Diagram is on file with the EBRPD Clerk and by reference herein is made part of this Report. The lines and dimensions shown on maps of the Contra Costa County Assessor for the current year are incorporated by reference herein and made part of this Report.

ECCC-1 Engineer’s Report – East Bay Regional Park District 4-1 Prepared by NBS – Fiscal Year 2015/16 116 5. ASSESSMENTS

The actual assessments for Fiscal Year 2015/16, apportioned to each parcel as shown on the latest equalized roll at the County Assessor’s office, are listed and submitted as Section 6 of this Report for the District. The description of each lot or parcel is part of the records of the Contra Costa County Assessor and such records are, by reference, made part of this report.

5.1 Method of Apportionment

Assessments for individual parcel owners will be included as a part of the annual tax bill. Senior citizens, whose annual income is below the State of California defined poverty level, are entitled to a 50% discount on their assessment. Assessments for the individual parcels in the District, consistent with approved residential property assessment practices in other Contra Costa County special assessment districts, are based upon the schedule shown below.

1. Single Family Units on a single parcel (home, condominium, townhouse, mobile home, rural residential) are assessed $19.70 per unit

For Fiscal Year 2015/16, there are 34,750 assessable units for a total of $684,575.00.

2. Two or more residential units, to a maximum of four residential units, on a single parcel (homes, duplex, triplex, mobile home) are assessed $19.70 per individual living unit

For Fiscal Year 2015/16, there are 586 assessable units for a total of $11,544.20.

3. Multiple living units (apartments of five living units or more) are assigned an assessment rate of 0.5 units per individual living unit, or $9.85 per individual living unit

For Fiscal Year 2015/16, there are 1,470 assessable units for a total of $14,479.42.

4. Living units in hotels, motels, and mobile home parks are assigned an assessment rate of 0.25 units per individual living unit, or $4.92 per individual living unit

For Fiscal Year 2015/16, there are 825 assessable units for a total of $4,059.00.

All assessments are rounded down to an even cent for placement on the Contra Costa County property tax roll.

ECCC-1 Engineer’s Report – East Bay Regional Park District 5-1 Prepared by NBS – Fiscal Year 2015/16 117 5.2 Appeals of Assessment Levy to Property

Any property owner, who feels that the assessment levied on the subject property is in error as a result of incorrect information being used to apply the foregoing method of assessment, may file a written appeal with the Chief Financial Officer/Controller of the EBRPD, or designee. Any such appeal is limited to correction of an assessment during the then current or, if before July 1, the upcoming fiscal year. Upon the filing of any such appeal, the Chief Financial Officer/Controller or designee will promptly review the appeal and any information provided by the property owner. If the Chief Financial Officer/Controller or designee finds the assessment should be modified, the appropriate changes shall be made to the assessment roll. If any such changes are approved after the assessment roll has been filed with the County of collection, the Chief Financial Officer/Controller or designee is authorized to refund the property owner the amount of any approved reduction. Any dispute over the decision of the Chief Financial Officer/Controller or designee shall be referred to the EBRPD Board of Directors and the decision of the Board shall be final.

5.3 Assessment Roll

Each year the EBRPD obtains a current listing of all parcels located within the District boundaries from the County Assessor. The listing identifies each individual parcel, its owner, and defines the County Assessor Use Code for the parcel. The complete listing of all parcels to be assessed, including name of owner, parcel address, and amount of the proposed assessment, is on file at the EBPRD headquarters office. Parcel references are consistent with Contra Costa County Assessor parcel numbers, in order to avoid confusion or misunderstanding by residential property owners.

ECCC-1 Engineer’s Report – East Bay Regional Park District 5-2 Prepared by NBS – Fiscal Year 2015/16 118 BOARD AND STAFF REPORTS

119 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

4. BOARD AND STAFF REPORTS

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

City of Concord – Concord Reuse Project (CNWS)

On Thursday, May 26, 2015, the Concord City Council, sitting as the Local Reuse Authority, voted 4-0 to approve agreements to negotiate with Catellus Development Corporation and Lennar for potential selection as master developer of the first phase of development of the Concord Reuse Plan. Councilmember Ron Leone recused himself from the decision due to the proximity of his residence to the proposed development area. The agreements to negotiate with the two development companies is the first step towards generating a term sheet that will guide the Local Reuse Authority through the negotiations on the price and terms, and influence the ultimate selection of one development company to serve as the master developer. The City expects to select a master developer for phase 1 in September, 2015. Once selected, the City and the master developer will be able to negotiate with the U.S. Navy with the goal of attaining an agreement on the property’s value from the Navy. The City of Concord will be applying for an Economic Development Conveyance for the portion of the property proposed for development in the Concord Reuse Plan. The East Bay Regional Park District will be receiving the future regional park area of 2,540 acres through a Public Benefit Conveyance that results in a no-cost transfer sponsored by the National Park Service. Once agreement is reached with the Navy, the City of Concord will complete a final Disposition and Development Agreement with the master developer.

120 GM COMMENTS

121 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

5. GENERAL MANAGER’S COMMENTS

STAFF PRESENTATION No Presentation

GM COMMENTS Public Safety From April 20, to May 19, 2015 the Public Safety Division handled 696 service calls and 520 total incidents. Highlights are included below.

Police There were 26 arrests made throughout the District for a variety of felony and misdemeanor offenses, including DUI, weapons possession, drug possession, violation of court restraining orders, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, and indecent exposure. Officers also issued 190 citations for Ordinance 38, vehicle code, and parking violations. Officers handled 272 field interviews (contacts without citations or arrests) and contacted 11 people on probation or parole to conduct compliance checks.

• Crocket Hills: On May 1, an officer conducted a security check of the vacant residence and noticed the door was pried open. A sink and dishwasher had been stolen sometime in the previous few days. No suspects were seen in the area.

• Hayward Shoreline: On May 2, a suspect, who was identified as committing burglaries at Garin and Anthony Chabot, was located and arrested. The arrest also helped close numerous burglary cases in Hayward, Fremont, San Mateo, and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office.

• Lake Chabot, South County Corp Yard: On May 7, an officer responded to the report of a nude person who wandered into the corporation yard bothering the mechanics. The man was taken by ambulance to the hospital for a mental health evaluation.

• Mission Peak: On April 28, an officer responded to the report of a possible human bone located by a park user. The bone was determined to be from an animal.

On May 5, an officer, Eagle 6, and an ambulance responded to the report of a park user with a possible broken ankle. Eagle 6 assisted in transporting the patient from a steep terrain area to paramedics who then transported the patient to the hospital for treatment.

122 • Outside of Park in Alameda, Veterans Administration (VA) Point: On May 1, Eagle 6 assisted with an emergency landing of a small plane that had an electrical fire. The pilot landed at VA Point and was uninjured. The aircraft needed minor repairs and was removed a few days after the emergency landing.

• Redwood Road: On May 1, CHP had no available units and requested an officer respond with medical personnel to the report of a motorcycle accident with injuries. The victim was transported to the hospital by paramedics and the report was referred to CHP.

• Round Valley: On May 7, officers were dispatched to the report of a subject who was yelling at park users and demanding a ride. The subject told Dispatch he was off his medication and he was taken to the hospital by ambulance for a mental evaluation.

• Tilden: On May 9, officers responded to the report of theft from the Golden Gate Steamers storage area. It was determined a locomotive was stolen by a previous club member. The locomotive was returned and charges are pending for burglary, grand theft, and trespassing on railroad property.

• Wildcat Canyon: On May 6, officers, Eagle 6, and medical personnel responded to the report of person who was shot in the face with a BB gun. The victim was evaluated by medical personnel but refused medical treatment. Suspect information was provided to officers and the investigation is ongoing.

Fire Operations Fire Response • Briones: On May 19, a park user requested assistance with her injured horse which had fallen down an embankment. District fire personnel, police, and Contra Costa Fire Department responded. The horse did not survive its injuries.

• Del Valle: On April 26, fire personnel along with Alameda County Fire responded to a vegetation fire. Approximately one acre was burned. It was determined the cause of the fire was a remote control plane.

• Pt. Pinole: On May 13, fire personnel and Richmond Fire, responded to a tool shed fire located in the maintenance yard. There was damage to a storage outbuilding, tractor/bulldozer, and some vegetation. The cause of the fire is currently under investigation.

Fire Training • Lake Chabot: On April 30, and May 7, fire personnel participated in an Aggressive Hose Lay training with the Alameda County Fire Department.

• Tilden: On May 18, 20, and 22, fire personnel along with Berkeley, Oakland, Moraga- Orinda, Alameda County, and Contra Costa County fire departments, participated in a Mutual Response Area Drill. The focus of the drill was communications, tactics, and strategies for wildland urban interface fires.

123 Special Services • Ardenwood: On April 26, firefighters were on standby to provide medical services at the annual Sheep Shearing Festival.

• Brazil Room: On May 13, firefighters along with Cal Fire, hosted the Council of Western State Foresters 2015 spring meeting. The meeting included a presentation of Bay Area fire history by Park District retiree, Jerry Kent.

• On May 16, firefighters participated in an annual public education Fire Safety presentation at Moraga-Orinda Fire Department Station 45.

Fire Fuels Management District-wide • During the month of May, the department utilized goat-grazing services as a fire management tool at Ardenwood, Bishop Ranch, Claremont Canyon, Anthony Chabot, and Cull Canyon. Fire personnel also used a mower to manage grassland fuel loading in on-going fuel break maintenance projects located in Tilden Park (RTA T1012 and T1015).

• On May 6, PG&E awarded the Diablo Firesafe Council a $50,000 grant for fuels reduction work in the Park District. The work will be performed by youth work crews from the Student Conservation Association, (SCA), and will take place over a five week period. Vegetation removal and trail maintenance will take place in Claremont Canyon, Redwood, Sibley, and Tilden. The District has partnered with Diablo Firesafe Council and the SCA in Oakland, who provided funding for partial youth wages.

Lifeguard Service

• On April 25, staff participated in the YMCA of the East Bay’s Healthy Kids Day event at Lake Merritt in Oakland. Staff promoted general water safety, lifejacket safety, and swimming programs at the Park District. The event served over 150 attendees.

• On April 25, staff started the 2015 Lifeguard Academy for seasonal lifeguard cadets. Nearly 50 cadets participated in the academy.

• On April 30, and May 14, staff provided lifeguard and first aid support to the Regional Parks fishing derby at Shadow Cliffs and Lake Temescal.

• On May 2, staff participated in the Golden Gate Bridging event for Girl Scouts of Northern California Bridge Day at Crissy Fields in San Francisco. Over 6,000 girl scouts were in attendance at this event with over 300 girl scouts actively participating with lifeguard service staff in water safety, splinting, bandaging, and first aid skills.

• On May 9, staff provided an information booth on public safety job opportunities and CPR demonstrations at the Run to Remember at Shadow Cliffs. Over 1,000 attendees were at this event.

124 • On May 9, 10, and 16, staff tested and interviewed 87 Junior Lifeguard Aide applicants. Lifeguard service will accept approximately 50 into our Junior Lifeguard Aide program, a two week counselor-in-training type program designed to prepare kids ages 13-15 to become future leaders. The program is being held at Shadow Cliffs, Contra Loma, Cull Canyon, Lake Temescal, and Lake Anza.

• On May 16, staff partnered with the California Division of Boating and Waterways for the 16th Annual Life Jacket Trade-In at Lake Del Valle. This is a statewide event that allows boaters to trade in lifejackets, which are damaged or too small, for a brand new one. Staff distributed 50 new life jackets.

• On May 19, staff partnered with Contra Costa Water District Canal Patrol to talk about canal/water safety and swimming programs at Mission Elementary School in Antioch. During two different assemblies, approximately 600 students in grades K-5 were reached.

• On May 19, staff conducted classrooms presentations at Sutter Elementary School in Antioch. Topics were water safety and swimming programs being offered at Contra Loma Regional Park. The lifeguards were able to talk to approximately 500 students from K-5th grade.

125

Event Calendar June - July 2015 Board Meeting Date: June 16, 2015

Date Day Time Event Location Sponsoring Organization 6/14, 21 Sundays 1 – 3 pm Historic Hay Harvest Ardenwood EBRPD & 28 7/4 Saturday 2 – 4:30 pm 4th of July Open House Crab Cove EBRPD and Anniversary 7/4 Saturday 10 am – 4 pm Old-Fashioned Ardenwood EBRPD Independence Day 7/10 Friday 4:30 - 7:30 pm Concert at the Cove Crab Cove EBRPD & Alameda Rotary Club 7/11 Saturday 12 – 4:30 pm Hazel-Atlas Mine Open Black Diamond EBRPD House Mines 7/19 & Sunday 1:30 – 2:30 pm Historic Wheat Harvest Ardenwood EBRPD 26 7/25 Saturday 10 am – 4 pm Ardenwood’s 30th Ardenwood EBRPD Anniversary Celebration

126 BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS

127 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

7. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS

a. Board Executive Committee (5/28/2015) (Dotson)

Present

Board: Whitney Dotson (Chair), Doug Siden, Ayn Wieskamp

Staff: Robert Doyle, Bob Nisbet, Becky Pheng, Larry Tong, Dave Sumner, Mimi Waluch

Public: Eri Suzuki (Local 2428)

The meeting was called to order at 12:35 p.m.

1. Withdrawal from Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JPA) with the Cities of Pinole and Hercules and the North Contra Costa Shoreline

Bob Nisbet, Assistant General Manager, presented this agenda item.

Pinole-Hercules JPA In 1985, the Board of Directors authorized the execution of a JPA with the cities of Hercules and Pinole, and allocated $5,000 in Board contingency funds to implement the agreement. The purpose of the JPA was to prepare a plan for the preservation and enhancement of the Bayfront Shoreline within the cities. The Pinole Shoreline Trail Alignment Study was completed in 1994. In Hercules, the “Shoreline Trail,” now the “San Francisco Bay Trail”, is either complete, under construction or in design. Therefore, the purpose of the JPA has been achieved.

North Contra Costa Shoreline JPA In 1990, the Board authorized the formation of a second JPA along the North Contra Costa County Shoreline with Contra Costa County. The purpose of the second JPA was to complete a feasibility study to explore park and shoreline related uses for the unincorporated portions of the North Contra Costa County Shoreline. In 1991, the North Contra Costa County Shoreline Corridor and Rodeo Waterfront Feasibility Study was completed. The purpose of the second JPA, therefore, has also been achieved.

128 The CFO/Controller of Park District is the Treasurer of the JPA and is responsible for filing the JPA’s Annual Financial Transactions and Compensation Report with the State Controller’s Office. The Park District has a reporting burden and is at risk of receiving a $5,000 fine annually from the State Controller’s Office if these conditions are not met. As such, staff is recommending the withdrawal from the JPAs.

Robert Doyle, General Manager, commented that the Richmond Liaison Committee is still active and that the liaison committee also addresses some of the issues along the Richmond- Pinole Shoreline. Staff also noted that the other parties to the JPA have been already been notified of the Park District’s intent to withdrawal from the JPA, and at this time, there have been no formal issues or concerns raised by the other parties.

Recommendation: By motion of Director Siden and seconded by Director Wieskamp, the Board Executive Committee voted 3-0 to approve the Park District’s withdrawal from the Pinole-Hercules JPA and the North Contra Costa Shoreline JPA, and to institute a liaison committee on an as needed basis made up of representatives of governing bodies along the North Contra Costa Shoreline to address issues of mutual interest.

2. Six-Month Extension of Joint Powers Agreement for Hayward Area Shoreline Planning Agency (HASPA)

Larry Tong, Interagency Planning Manager/Chief of Planning & GIS, presented this agenda item.

HASPA, which was formed in 1970, is a JPA that consists of representatives from the City of Hayward, Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, and East Bay Regional Park District. The purpose of the JPA is to “jointly exercise the common powers of the parties to study, plan, and adopt policies concerning the land uses in the Shoreline area, in order to develop a comprehensive plan for the governing bodies of the parties to that the plans and actions of each party are compatible with those of the other parties.”

Over the years, the JPA has been extended. The term of the current JPA is set to expire on July 1, 2015. The staffs of the three agencies would like to continue the JPA, and believe that the purpose of the JPA and the roles and responsibilities of the member agencies should be reviewed. As such, staff is recommending that the JPA be extended for six months.

Director Doug Siden commented that HASPA is an active group. He also commented on the group’s involvement in reviewing and studying sea level rise. Director Ayn Wieskamp asked if there were any issues with extending the JPA. Staff responded that there were no issues. It is staffs intent to clarify the Park District’s role and responsibilities.

Robert Doyle, General Manager, noted that he has spoken to Hayward’s city manager about the extension of the JPA. He emphasized that the purpose of the JPA and the role of each member agency must be updated and clarified.

2 129 Dave Sumner, Audit Manager, emphasized the State’s reporting requirement and that the burden to report is placed on the Park District.

Recommendation: By motion of Director Wieskamp and seconded by Director Siden, the Board Executive Committee voted 3-0 to approve the six-month extension of the HASPA JPA.

3. Public Comment

There were no public comments.

4. Board Comments

The Committee commented that they would like to reschedule or cancel the August 13, 2015 meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Becky K. Pheng

130 AGENDA REGULAR MEETING BOARD OF DIRECTORS

EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

C. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD

7. BOARD COMMITTEE REPORTS

b. Finance Committee Minutes and Recommended Actions from the March 25, 2015 (Lane)

Attendees Board: Directors Beverly Lane, Ayn Wieskamp, Dennis Waespi

Staff: Robert E. Doyle, Dave Collins, Debra Auker, Deborah Spaulding, Pam Burnor, Kim Balingit, David Sumner, Jim O’Connor, Meadow D’Arcy, Sharon Corkin, Sukari Beshears

Speakers: Bartel Associates, John Bartel & Doug Pryor PFM, Director Carlos Oblites

Public: None

Committee chair Beverly Lane began the meeting at 12:30 PM with the introduction of committee members.

Agenda Item No. 1 Update on CalPERS Pension Actuarial Issues

CFO Debra Auker introduced John Bartel and Doug Pryor with Bartel Associates, the firm that provides actuarial information about the District’s EBRPD Retirement Plans and info required by GASB 67 and 68. Additionally, annually Bartel Associates provides an update on the status of the District’s CalPERS retirement plans.

CalPERS Actuarial Issues – 6/30/13 Valuation for Miscellaneous and Public Safety Plans John Bartel reported on the CalPERS Actuarial Issues – 6/30/13 Valuation for Miscellaneous and Public Safety Plans (the most recent valuation available from CalPERS).

• The District’s unfunded pension liabilities are decreasing. The unfunded liability of the Miscellaneous Plan, based upon market value (MV) of assets, was $68.0 million as of 6/30/13, down from $75.5 million as of 6/30/12. The unfunded liability of the Safety

131 Plan, based upon MV of assets, was $12.6 million as of 6/30/13, compared to $13.7 million at 6/30/12. • The 2014/15 employer pension contribution rate for miscellaneous employees is 21.9% and will increase to 22.5% in 2015/16. The employer rate for safety employees is 27.7%, and will decrease to 26.0% in 2015/16.

Committee chair Beverly Lane asked if the CalPERS Board decides on how to invest and if any restrictions. Bartel responded yes; Proposition 162 gave CalPERS the authority to invest the assets; generally 70% of the assets are invested in equities, some investments in real estate and bonds.

Bartel continued his report advising committee of the new accounting standards effective for the District’s current fiscal year. The unfunded liability will be shown on the District’s financial statement whereas in the past it was not shown. It is projected the June 30, 2014 unfunded liability will be about $60M (estimate).

Committee chair Lane asked what the unfunded liability figure was in the past. Bartel advised under the old accounting rules the figure was zero, the old rules stated you did not put anything on the face of your financial statement unless you did not make the contribution as required by the actuary.

AGM Dave Collins asked how the District compares to other agencies in general and what options do we have to try and moderate volatility. Bartel responded District is in better shape as compared to other agencies.

Committee member Dennis Waespi inquired if GASB only requires reporting the unfunded liability. Bartel replied that is correct.

AGM Collins added CalPERS new policy is to charge the District each year base on the market value, what will that mean to the District on an annual basis? Bartel replied the amount of volatility may be greater due to the changes in market value on the specific valuation dates. The District may want to explore new investment tools that could reduce volatility. Committee member Ayn Wieskamp added her appreciation on what actuaries do.

Recommendation: None. This is an informational item only.

Agenda Item No. 2 PFM Investment Portfolio Update

CFO Auker introduced Carlos Oblites, Director with PFM, the District’s investment management firm. His presentation included a review of 2014 investment market conditions, a forecast for 2015, which included a discussion about projected interest rate movement and impact on the market value of the District’s investment portfolio.

132 Mr. Oblites discussed “2014 Review of Portfolio”, a PFM report which was an overview of the District’s portfolio, and projection for 2015. As background he noted that the District’s investing options are governed by California Gov’t Code and the District’s own investment policy which restricts the District to short duration fixed income investments..

Mr. Oblites summarized PFM’s 2014 District portfolio accomplishments: 1) maintained the duration shorter to limit the risk due to rising interest rates, 2) bought yield advantage investments to increase current income, and 3) identified opportunities that added additional yield.

Chair Lane asked if the credit quality on investments is as high as it possibility could be? Mr. Oblites responded for the best credit quality the portfolio could consist entirely of AAA rated investments by buying Gov’t Securities, however the yield and total return would lag because you are purchasing safety and by this you would be giving up return. One of the reasons the District hires PFM is to do due diligence on credit related issues that are AA and AAA rated.

Mr. Oblites continued to report on the portfolio returns. PFM strategy for the year proved to be effective. The portfolio return for the year exceeded the return of the benchmark; the total return was .71%, compared to the market at .62%, and compared to the State pool which was .24%.

Committee member Waespi asked what strategies were used to beat the benchmark. Mr. Oblites responded a mix of investments however the biggest driver is the short duration of 1.73 years, the benchmark is 1.82 years.

None. This is an informational item only.

Agenda Item No. 3 Benefit Provider Change from Lincoln Financial to GIGNA Group

Human Resource Manager Sukari Beshears reported the District’s broker of record is ABD Insurance and Financial Services (ADB). ABD reviews the Districts benefit plans and programs. Lincoln Financial is the current vendor for Life, AD&D and Long-Term Disability Insurance.

It has come to staff’s attention that there have been issues over the past several years with response time and overpayment of funds by Lincoln Financial.

As a response to these issues with Lincoln Financial, ABD opened a bid process for suitable vendors for Life, AD&D and Long-Term Disability Insurance. The bid response yielded CIGNA Group and MHN. ABD recommends CIGNA Group for the District’s new service provider for the following reasons: 1) CIGNA has an “A” A.M Best Rating and 2) CIGNA provided a 3- year rate guarantee which includes the ability to sign the public safety group to this carrier as well. Lincoln Financial does not provide coverage to the public safety group.

133 GM Doyle reiterated there will be no change in coverage; it will save the District money for the same coverage.

Recommendation: Approved by Ayn Wieskamp and seconded by Dennis Waespi that the Finance Committee recommends to the full Board acceptance to change the benefit vendor for Life Insurance, AD&D and Long-Term Disability Insurance from Lincoln Financial to CIGNA Group effective May 1, 2015. This will confirm a 3-year rate guarantee which saves the District $60,885 over the term, and the District will also have the ability to cover all employees under one carrier. Motion Approved.

Agenda Item No. 4 Review of Election Costs

CFO Auker reported the District’s Fiscal Policies outline several areas in which it is prudent to set aside reserves (commit fund balance) for a probable yet non-recurring specific purpose. The Board of Directors has committed general fund balance for legal contingency, redevelopment tax increment funds, workers compensation claim contingency, election costs, etc.

The District’s reserves for election costs are currently set at $2.2 million, to be used in the event the District has a ballot measure or when elected officials encounter challengers and the District is required to include Board of Director positions on the election ballot. This committed fund balance eliminates the necessity of appropriating extraordinary operating funds during election years, thus stabilizing operating expenditures. Additionally, the obligation of election costs is often not known until the candidate filing deadlines, mid-way through the budget cycle. The 2014 election expense of approximately $520,000; which has been drawn from the reserve, will be proposed for replenishment at mid-year or in the 2016 budget.

The $2.2 million reserve is based on the estimates received by the County election office in both Contra Costa and Alameda counties. The counties recommend that the District budget $5.00 per registered voter, per election item. Under ordinary circumstances there may be up to four contested seats on the Board of Directors on any one election cycle; although it is possible that unexpected vacancies could increase that number. The District may also include a ballot measure that would include registered voters of both counties. With an estimated 377,664 registered voters in our jurisdiction, equating to about 54,000 voters per ward, an election year combining a ballot measure and four ward elections could exceed $2.9 million.

Below are historic Election Costs for the District: 2014 Contra Costa Director election (one) $194,686 2014 Alameda Director election (one) $325,132 2012 Contra Costa Director election (one) $454 2012 Alameda Director election (one) None received 2008 Contra Costa Measure WW ballot measure $860,678 2008 Alameda Measure WW ballot measure $947,779

134 Recommendation: None. This is an informational item only.

Agenda Item No. 5 Fourth Quarter 2014 General Fund and Other Governmental Funds Financial Reports

Assistant Finance Officer Deborah Spaulding reported on the General Fund and Other Governmental Funds Financial Reports adding that this is estimated, preliminary results for year end.

As of December 31, 2014 the Districts financial activities are as expected when compared to prior year and to the current year budget.

General Fund Revenues & Expenditures as of December 31, 2014 Both revenues and actual expenditures are on track for the year.

The Report attachments provided additional information on the General Fund Revenue and Expenditures and commenting on areas with revenues or expenditures 10% higher or lower than prior year (with explanation) and summarized financial information for all other governmental funds.

Assistant Finance Officer Spaulding added the increase in actual revenues is mainly due to property taxes coming in higher than budgeted.

Committee chair Lane asked where the one time Redevelopment money is located. AGM Collins replied Redevelopment money is recognized in the General Fund Revenues. CFO Auker noted all Redevelopment money is shown in the General Fund as property tax and added she will supply a report to the committee stating what portion of property taxes are Redevelopment monies.

Assistant Finance Officer Spaulding continued to report on the status of the General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance providing the table below.

Estimated General Fund Unassigned Fund Balance Beginning Unassigned Fund Balance (1/1/14) $ 44,514,739 Release of the Committed Fund Balance (1/1/14) 9,000,000

2014 Preliminary Revenue 117,857,537 2014 Preliminary Expenditure (123,119,913) Replenish Legal Contingency Commitment (1,000,000) Replenish Election Costs Commitment (520,000) Other changes in Committed Fund Balance (est.) (500,000)

UNAUDITED Estimated Ending Fund Balance (12/31/14) $ 46,232,363

135 Estimated Excess (deficit) over 32% Reserve $ 8,517,951

Reserve Target per Policy * $ 37,714,412 (32% of annual revenue)

* The Fund Balance Reserve Policy states that 32% of annual revenue is the minimum reserve to be maintained by the District to provide emergency funding in the event of a disaster, temporary revenue shortfall, or other qualified circumstance. Use of the funds requires Board of Director approval.

Committee chair Lane asked if District has $37M in reserve. Assistant Finance Officer Spaulding replied yes, that is the District’s target reserve. District currently has $46M in reserve.

Revenues and Expenditures for Other Governmental Funds • Special Revenue Fund – revenues and expenditures are as expected for this point in the year. • Project Funds – revenues and expenditures are as expected for this point in the year. • Debt Service Fund - reviews and expenditures are as expected for this point in the year.

Recommendation: Motioned by Ayn Wieskamp and Seconded by Dennis Waespi that the Finance Committee recommends to the full Board of Directors for approval of the Fourth Quarter 2014 General Fund and Other Governmental Funds Financial Reports. Motioned Approved. [Staff notes that the Audited Financials Statements (CAFR) will be presented to the full Board in July and that this preliminary results if for information only.]

Agenda Item No. 6 Cancel April 29, 2015 Finance Committee meeting

CFO Auker requested permission to cancel April 29, 2015 Finance Committee meeting.

All committee members agreed to cancel meeting.

Agenda Item No. 7 Board Comments

No comments

Agenda Item No. 9 Public Comment

No public in attendance.

136

Chair Lane adjourned the meeting at 2:35 p.m.

Next meeting is May 27, 2015 at 12:30 p.m.

Respectfully submitted Connie Swisher Finance Department

137 NEWSCLIPS

138

Muir conservation group to buy and preserve 600 acres near Moraga

By Denis Cuff [email protected] POSTED: 05/28/2015 01:17:47 PM

MORAGA -- Nearly a square mile of hilly grazing land with sweeping views of the Bay Area is being bought by a conservation group to preserve it for open space and recreation.

The John Muir Land Trust announced Thursday it has agreed to buy the 600-acre Carr Ranch in rural Moraga from a family that has grazed cattle there for a century. The purchase bars housing development on the land, which has oak and Bay tree forests, grasslands, three ponds and springs that bubble out of the hills -- even in a drought. "The views here are spectacular," said Glen Lewis, a land trust ranger. "It is an extremely wild and natural area, especially considering the large populations a few miles away."

Cattle graze on the Carr Ranch property on Wednesday, May 27, 2015 in Moraga, California. (Aric Crabb/Bay Area News Group)

The precise sales price was not disclosed. The conservation group, however, reported it has budgeted $7 million to buy the land and care for it.

The land trust bought the land to protect open space, wildlife habitat, and the quality of runoff that flows downhill to the neighboring Upper San Leandro Reservoir.

"The purchase is of regional significance," said Linus Eukel, the land trust's executive director. "This is about protecting water at its source."

Buying the land prevents housing development that could lead to erosion and pesticide-laden runoff flowing into the reservoir.

139 Some grazing on the land will continue. But the public will get access for hiking, horse riding and other low-key recreation some time after the sale is completed around June, 2016, the land trust said.

On a tour of the site Thursday, land trust employees showed off hilly land with views of the reservoir and San Francisco Bay to the south, and Orinda, Moraga, Lafayette and Suisun Bay to the north.

To the east is EBMUD's Rocky Ridge property famous for big rocks, and also Las Trampas Regional Park, which has a trail along Las Trampas Ridge between Moraga and Alamo and Danville.

A mountain lion was recently photographed on the land.

The land trust has expressed an interest in seeking help from EBMUD to help pay for the property. While EBMUD has made no commitment, the water district is willing to consider helping if the land trust pledges to manage the land to protect water quality, said Richard Sykes, head of the district water and natural resources department.

The Carr Ranch purchase will be one of the biggest made by the land trust, which already has preserved some 2,500 acres mostly between Martinez and Hercules.

Expanding its role, the conservation group recently launched a $25 million fundraising campaign to buy and care for another 3,200 acres of open space in Contra Costa County.

Executive Director Linus Eukel of the John Muir Land Trust is photographed on the Carr Ranch property on Wednesday, May 27, 2015 in Moraga, California. (Aric Crabb/Bay Area News Group)

The land trust changed its name recently from Muir Heritage Land Trust to John Muir Land Trust to emphasize the inspiration it gets from John Muir, the late Martinez conservationist.

"We adopted Muir's full name as most accurately symbolic of our ongoing mission," Eukel said.

Also Thursday, the land trust announced it has completed purchase of the 44-acre West Hills property that it plans to donate to the John Muir National Historic Site in Martinez.

Contact140 Denis Cuff at 925-943-8267. Follow him at Twitter.com/deniscuff OAKLAND Debate Over Gun Range JUNE 2015

As East Bay park staff examine questions about noise and pollution,it’s business as usual at the Chabot Gun Club.

By Max Cherney The Chabot Gun Club has a long history in the park, operating for 50 years

Jason Siegel wants to preserve the future of the Chabot Gun Club and has rallied gun enthusiasts to do so.

“I was born in San Francisco, and I’ve tried ranges all across the Bay Area,” the former Marine Corps veteran said. “Indoor ranges are nasty. And Chabot is just a nice range.” Siegel is the initiator of a petition to keep the gun club open. There is a competing one to close it.

At the moment, the club, in a remote part of Anthony Chabot Regional Park, is operating under a one-year extension to a 25-year lease agreement signed in 1989. The agreement was set to expire Jan. 1, but an extension was granted in November. During the year, the East Bay Regional Park District will be completing several studies on noise generated from the gunfire as well as the extent to which lead from spent ammunition has seeped into the ground and contaminated nearby Lake Chabot.

“We gave a one-year extension because we figured we needed to do some studies on the environment and the noise,” park board director John Sutter said. “The cost of the studies is $700,000, and we’ve authorized that—and both the noise study and the pollution study will tell us what has to be done permanently. We won’t know that until the studies are complete.” 141 The club has been in continuous operation for about 50 years and was constructed in 1964- 65. It currently has about 1,000 paid members, and, since it’s open to the public, serves an additional 45,000 people annually, according to Denis Staats, the club’s president. “This range wasn’t built last year,” Staats said. “We represent 65 of the park’s 115,000 acres.”

The range is nestled in a beautiful canyon deep within the park. It is accessible only by twisting Redwood Road and then a smooth, well maintained striped two-lane road for most of the way with sweeping views of gently rolling East Bay hills and the far off Bay before dead-ending into a simple parking lot. There sit the gun club structures, dated but neat, on the grounds with multiple shooting ranges, picnic tables, patio furniture, and other pleasant areas for congregating. The range offers classes, matches, and training opportunities for law enforcement agencies, too. The gunfire can be heard throughout the park.

The two major concerns—noise, and the possibility of pollution—have generated complaints from the community. Surrounding neighbors have sent letters to park district officials complaining about the noise generated from the gunfire. “We’ve had dozens of complaints from residents on the western side of the park,” said Mark Raggatz, the park district’s chief of park operations.

“It depends on the wind conditions and weather,” he said. “But the campground is about a mile away, and campers are often bothered. The gun range runs seven days a week, and campers generally aren’t expecting to hear gunfire on a Saturday morning. It’s away in the distance but it’s pretty constant.”

Other park users are bothered by the noise. “Yeah, it’s irritating as hell to be up at the golf course when they’re shooting,” said Miriam Delagrange, a park user who plays golf often at the Chabot Golf Course. “It sounds like the war in Afghanistan out in a regional park. But on the other hand, it’s a park, and it’s designed to provide recreation for everybody. I’m kind of torn.”

Staats likened the noise complaints to the typical gripes of any urban neighborhood or park, but he doesn’t think that they are justification for shutting the range down. “I guess you could say some people don’t like to hear kids yelling, and people don’t like the fact that people zip up and down trails on their mountain bikes.”

But the potential of lead from shell casings seeping into the groundwater, which eventually drains into Lake Chabot, is a real concern. Last year there were high readings of lead, according to Raggatz, but he said it’s relatively straightforward to mitigate any harmful effects. “When you get a high reading, you take remedial actions to allow the lead to come out of the solution, so you create a retention pond, to slow it down so it doesn’t carry downstream.”

The park district has been working with the gun club for the last several years to come up with plans to address lead pollution flowing into the lake. “So they’ve done that to the satisfaction of the Alameda County Health Department—but there’s a lot of rhetoric that’s getting spread around,” Raggatz said. “But there is lead in the soil and that must be addressed.” 142

Staats said the gun club is doing its part to steward the land by cleaning as required and taking appropriate measures to limit or eliminate contaminants in line with government regulations.

Not everyone sees it that way. Former park district official Peter Volin has launched a petition to close the gun range, largely because of the environmental concerns. Volin could not be reached for comment by publication time. His petition has received 317 signatures, a number dwarfed by the competing petition that gun enthusiast Siegel mounted. He has amassed 6,157 signatures, which he said clearly demonstrates the community’s support for the range.

Siegel goes there to maintain the marksmanship training he received in the armed forces and feels a responsibility to maintain his proficiency, he said. “I’m not just a firearms owner; I’m a safe firearms owner,” he said. “I maintain my training with that in mind.”

Siegel said he believes owning firearms in the United States is an important right as well as a protection that he chooses to exercise. While he views the current government, despite occasional corrupt leanings, largely as benevolent, he said knowing how to use and owning firearms are important checks on any government that starts to run amok.

“I could see a situation where the government becomes something evil, and is taken over by people who are running around killing its own citizens, like the Nazis,” he said.

143

Mooving along: How to handle a cow on the trail

Take it slow when meeting a cow on the trail Know how to determine a cow’s ‘flight zone’ Most cow-human interactions end peacefully

A steadfast cow blocks the Sky Trail a couple of years ago at Crockett Hills, a 1,939-acres East Bay Regional Park above the Carquinez Bridge |Manny Crisostomo Sacramento Bee File

By Sam McManis May 28, 2015 [email protected] This cow was massive, wide as she was tall. She had her hooves dug in on the single-track trail on a hillside ridge at Crockett Hills Regional Park and wasn’t going to make the effort to move, simply for a few humans to pass. This was her turf, after all. The hikers were the interlopers, allowed to be there, yes, but warned on signs placed at the trailhead to defer to cattle grazing the range.

So a stalemate ensued. The recalcitrant cow – her less-hefty posse, including a calf or two, ringed like her backup singers on stage – engaged in several minutes of metronomic tail swishing and horizontal cud chewing while casting impassive, wide-eyed bovine stares at the group, which stayed rooted in place not 10 feet away.

144 Finally, a trail runner loped by, weaved between the idling hikers, clapped his hands and gave a guttural yelp. The cow lifted her head, turned with surprising swiftness for such a big girl, and loped off down the hillside, ending the standoff.

So did the bold runner react the way you are supposed to when encountering livestock on public open space property where cattle are allowed to graze? Or did the, uh, cowed hikers take the more prudent and safe course of action – or inaction, as it were?

Both, it turns out, made mistakes in dealing with the seemingly immovable cow. That’s according to a new downloadable brochure, “Sharing Open Space: What to Expect From Grazing Livestock,” published by University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

Standing stock still and waiting, the brochure states, will not compel the livestock to move, especially if they are well-acclimated to humans in their habitat. The better strategy, it states, is to slowly move into the cattle’s “flight zone,” the physical space where it loses its feeling of safety and will flee. The “flight zone” could range from 6 to 12 feet for most cattle, but as little as 3 or even 1 foot for cattle that often encounter humans.

Stepping into the “flight zone” usually is “all it should take to get them to turn away,” the brochure continues. “Patiently repeat this process until you have room to move down the trail without entering their flight zone.”

Waving one’s arms, clapping and yelling? Not recommended, according to the brochure: “Loud noises … near a cow can scare her, making her run, kick, panic or charge.”

Sheila Barry, a UC Cooperative Extension livestock and natural resources adviser, one of the brochure’s three authors, said hikers often are at a loss when encountering cattle.

“(Cattle) don’t necessarily react how you expect them to, because of that issue with the flight zone,” Barry said. “So, you think, ‘Hey, I’m getting really close, why aren’t you moving, cow?’ Most will move off, eventually. But there’s part of it that’s just not predictable.”

Attacks on hikers by livestock in open space areas are extremely rare, Barry said, but the UC extension and livestock experts want to educate people to better understand cow behavior in hopes of defusing any potential clashes.

“Actual quote-unquote ‘attacks’? Extremely rare,” she said. “There are people who report aggressive cattle, but even that’s rare. We get 2 million visitors to East Bay parks – and although I’m sure not everyone’s reporting every time they feel uncomfortable in a situation – they only get, in some years, maybe seven reports, maybe a dozen. It’s really nothing compared to aggressive dogs people (encounter) on trails.”

Yet, the sheer bulk of cattle – some weigh as much as 1,500 pounds – can be intimidating for trail users. Barry says people need to understand that livestock are “prey animals” so they “naturally experience and express fear and protective behavior,” especially when protecting their calves. The brochure advises people to keep their dogs on a leash and away from 145 cattle, which perceive dogs as predators, and to never allow a dog between a mother cow and her calf.

You can determine the countenance of a cow by reading its body language.

“When cattle get nervous, they usually lift their head, a posture called ‘high headed,’” the brochure states. “If cattle feel threatened, they may follow this head raising with aggressive behavior or running off.”

What to do if you encounter a visibly nervous cow? Step back, give it space, then slowly emerge into its flight zone.

Most of the time, the only injuries that occur in encounters between cattle and humans are the result of human fears.

“From what I’ve heard from parks reports, the most prominent thing is that people get injured trying to run away,” Barry said. “They get scared and there are lots of things to run into – barbed-wire fences, holes. I heard once of someone climbing a tree to get away and then falling out of the tree. And if the cattle are reacting crazy, too, that wouldn’t be a good situation.”

Call The Bee’s Sam McManis, (916) 321-1145. Follow him on Twitter @SamMcManis.

HOW TO ACT AROUND CATTLE

▪ Keep dogs close and under complete control. ▪ Continue to move past cattle rather than staying in their presence. Step slowly into their flight zone only if necessary to move them. ▪ Move slowly around cattle and use a normal speaking voice. ▪ If an animal appears to be uncomfortable or agitated, step back. ▪ Approach from the front or side; avoid the blind spot behind them. ▪ If you see cows that are clearly injured, notify park personnel so they can contact the livestock owner. Do not approach an injured animal. Don’t

▪ Don’t physically intervene if a dog is chased by or interacting with cattle. ▪ Don’t approach cattle from behind. ▪ Don’t get between a cow and her calf. ▪ Don’t make quick movements, or flap your arms. ▪ Don’t shout or make loud noises. ▪ Don’t “rescue” or touch calves that seem separated from their mother. Source: University of California Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/entertainment/living/health- fitness/article22448526.html#storylink=cpy146

Pleasanton Voters to Decide Eastside Planning Future

Posted: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 12:00 am

Pleasanton voters will determine if the process to approve an East Pleasanton Specific Plan will continue.

The Pleasanton City Council voted 3 to 1 last week to place the issue on the November 2015 ballot. The result of the vote would be advisory.

In the meantime, the Task Force will complete its work by recommending a preferred plan. No hearings or action will be taken on the preferred plan or on the draft environmental impact review until voters have their say in November.

Jerry Pentin was opposed. He supported a halt in the planning, but wanted to tie water availability and the end of the current emergency declaration in determining when the process might be started again. "It could be two or five years. We don't know."

Arnie Olson, who lives adjacent to the eastside planning area, was recused. However, he spoke during the public hearing in support of completing the entire process. He said that the majority elected the council knowing that councilmembers supported moving forward with the eastside planning process.

Councilmember Karla Brown in commenting on asking the Task Force to recommend a preferred plan, asked, "Aren't they supposed to also consider whether this is a good project?"

At the time the process begins again and a preferred plan were approved by a council, there would be the potential to place the preferred plan and EIR on a ballot. If adopted, the decision by voters would be binding.

Mayor Jerry Thorne said last Tuesday, "The review process could begin at a time in the future when the drought is over as determined by the governor, Zone 7 and the city council. I will put any plan on the ballot if it comes forward."

The eastside planning began in 2012 with the appointment of a task force. Last August, the task force removed all multi-family housing and reduced the potential number of units in the preferred plan from 1759 to 1300.

Issues raised by members of the public during numerous meetings and at last week's council meeting include the availability of water, school overcrowding, traffic, and the need to move147 the urban growth boundary to accommodate growth. In addition, it was pointed out that the city does not need to zone the area for housing. It currently has enough land to meet its regional housing needs assessment (RHNA) numbers through 2022.

There were concerns about safety with plans to place a school within 1.7 miles of the Livermore Airport runway, as well as the placement of homes next to deep lakes with steep sides.

The land is currently zoned industrial, with a small amount of housing and office uses. If the process were stopped, property owners could submit plans based on the industrial zoning. It was noted that only 130 acres out of the possible 400 that could be developed are assigned zoning.

About $1 million has been spent on the eastside planning process. Landowners are footing the bill for consultants.

Thorne, in an effort to speed up the hearing last Tuesday, asked audience members to raise their hands if they agreed with a variety of issues that they believe should cause the process to be stopped. They included the drought and need for water conservation, the El Charro expansion adding more traffic, lack of confidence in a school demographic report showing a decline in student population, current school overcrowding, the urban growth boundary, and the lack of need to zone for RHNA numbers.

The vast majority of those in the audience agreed those were reasons to stop the process.

During the public hearing, Pat Costanza represented Kiewit, one of the landowners on the eastside. He asked to have the process completed and the EIR certified. "I am surprised you are even contemplating stopping this process. The drought has no impact on the plan. Stopping the planning does not provide one drop of new water." He said if it didn't go forward, $125 million in public improvements to be paid for by development would be in jeopardy.

Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Scott Raty also asked that the process continue. Pleasanton's quality of life was achieved through a rich history of planning, he noted. Construction is not imminent; it's a good five years before it would begin.

Speaking for another landowner, Attorney Clark Morrison, offered an option for the council to consider. The EIR and plan should be finalized. If there were a pause, there needs to be some way to know when it would continue. He suggested that construction be held up until such time that it could be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the city council that the city's projected total water supply during normal years, single dry years and multiple dry years will meet the demand associated with the East Pleasanton Specific Plan and all of the city's other land uses.

148 Doug Jamieson of Pleasanton Gravel Company offered the view that placing any homes near gravel quarries would be a safety issue.

Sandy Yamaoda urged the council to stop both the planning and EIR process. She presented a petition signed by 312 residents supporting that request. "People lined up to complain about the plan," she told the council. She added, "The urban growth boundary was voted on by the people. Now you want to build on 112 acres outside the boundary."

Alfred Exner declared, "I find the EIR totally unacceptable in meeting the character of Pleasanton. It fails to address the need for athletic fields for the eastside, destruction of existing wetlands, and doesn't look at police and fire facilities."

Kelly Cousins, a task force member, stated that the base plan of 1300 units is not a good plan for Pleasanton. Residents have done their homework and are frustrated because the task force does not take into account their input on issues such as traffic, school overcrowding, and the UGB.

Herb Ritter, another task force member, said there was seldom 100% agreement on the task force. "We are waiting for your direction on our next steps."

John Bower told the council that not one person spoke in favor of the project at the two meetings he attended. He said that the EIR information that was used is old, gathered during the economic downturn.

George Bowen, asked who makes up the majority. "Maybe a vote is the best way to find out. One side will have a lot of development money behind it. The other will have citizen support. Sprawl is a real concern. The UGB was established to focus growth within the city and avoid sprawl."

Many other speakers spoke in opposition to continuing the planning for the eastside.

Thorne commented, "It's clear to me there are a number of issues that need to be vetted out. I think it would be a good idea to go to the voters and allow each side to present arguments. Any product has to go to the voters."

149

Officials Look at How to Expand Water Recycling

Posted: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 12:00 am | Updated: 9:21 am, Wed May 27, 2015.

Water officials are studying the possibility of expanding the Valley's recycled water capabilities.

Elected officials and their staffs met May 13 in Dublin to hear the Dublin San Ramon Services Dsitrict (DSRSD) engineering services manager Dan McIntyre present an overview of recycled water options. They then discussed those options among themselves informally.

Currently, the Valley uses about 1 percent of the total recycled water available in the Valley from the Livermore and DSRSD wastewater treatment plants. The water not used for irrigation in the Valley flows to the Bay for disposal, via the LAVWMA pipeline, which was built for that purpose. The water goes through three stages of treatment, called tertiary treatment, and used in some Valley irrigation projects.

Recycling the water for turf irrigation frees up water for potable purposes -- drinking, cooking, showering and other household uses.

However, the option would have been to discharge it into the Valley's streams, but it would have been difficult to meet discharge standards regulating the addition of salts to creeks, which can hurt fish and plant life.

The amount of recycled water for Valley use could go up to 5 or 10 percent, if the Valley built storage areas for it. The peak demand for irrigation water is in summer, but without storage, a big market for it is missed.

Building storage facilities could bring the cost of recycled water up to an estimated range of $2600 to $5100 per acre foot (AF), compared to the $1500 to $2000 per AF for the current system, according to McIntyre's report. The report includes contributions from the other Valley water agency staffs.

An alternative that eliminates the expensive storage option would be to use Reverse Osmosis (RO) filters at the waste-water treatment plants. This could expand recycled water usage to 15 or 20 percent.

150 The RO membranes filter out nearly everything except the water. If this water were injected into the groundwater basin, or stored in Lake Del Valle, the cost would be an estimated $820 to $2000 per AF.

Using the RO water for irrigation would save money by eliminating the need to install "purple pipes," as the double plumbing for recycled water is called.

A further possibility in the future would be to use the RO water as a potable water source directly. It could be injected into pipes. More likely, it would be mixed with other potable water sources, since pure RO water is very acidic, and can rust pipes, said DSRSD operations manager Dan Gallagher.

Direct use of RO water occurs now in some nations. California is working on health standards, but nothing is ready yet, and may not be for more than a year.

DSRSD owns RO filters, and would only have to refurbish equipment to get the operation going, said DSRSD general manager Bert Michalczyk.

DSRSD tried about 15 years ago to launch a similar project, but was stopped by public opinion in the Valley, and the permitting agencies. More than 100 people protested at a Zone 7 meeting, raising objections to possible health effects, based on a British study concerning endocrine receptors in fish. Zone 7 had assembled a panel of experts who listed no objections to the process.

Elected officials said they don't think that expanding the purple pipe system is the way to go compared to using RO for irrigation. Livermore Councilmember Bob Woerner said, "Given the severity of the drought, you can study (RO). The public expects it to be studied. If we are not studying this, we would be remiss."

The roundtable's purpose is to hold discussion. Any action would have to be accomplished at the meetings of the city councils and DSRSD.

151

Editorial: Gary's Outrageous Behavior

Posted: Wednesday, May 27, 2015 12:00 am | Updated: 9:24 am, Wed May 27, 2015.

Call it bullying or a tantrum. However, it is labeled, Livermore City Councilmember Stewart Gary's response to the vote to oppose off-highway vehicle expansion looked like a response from someone who has not gotten his way, and then attempts to diminish those who do not agree with him by launching unfounded accusations.

The attack on Gary's fellow councilmembers concerned the vote on plans to expand the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area into an adjacent 3000 acres, referred to as Tesla Park by opponents of the expansion.

Gary along with Mayor John Marchand voted against issuing the letter opposing the expansion; Laureen Turner, Steven Spedowfski, and Bob Woerner voted for it.

Gary accused the council majority of coming into the meeting with their minds made up, although he himself had made up his mind prior to the meeting. He declared, "This has been a stacked deck from day one."

Gary himself had made up his mind prior to the meeting.

Addressing the audience, he stated, "I think the activists ought to make a public records request for emails, campaign contributions and see who was backing whom." He was hinting at possible Brown Act violations and the buying of votes.

Gary announced that he would be sending a dissenting letter to the state's off-highway commission protesting the majority's decision. He would add comments about "what happened here tonight."

After the council meeting, Marchand said Gary had asked him to sign onto the letter. Marchand said that he has not seen any letter, nor does he know what issues may be contained in any proposed letter. "I have made no decision about any letter, but I need to maintain a working relationship with all of my council members."

Both Gary and Marchand cited lack of regulatory authority over the area as the reason to vote against registering Livermore's opposition to the off-highway vehicle expansion.

However, City Attorney Jason Alcala noted during an interview that while the city has no regulatory authority, the council does have the ability to vote on policy for or against an issue.

152 Such stands are not binding, but are designed to convey the city's position on something that could impact it.

In this case, the property, known for its unique habitat, is even included in the city's general plan as one well worth preserving.

Alcala also said that in his opinion, there was no violation of the Brown Act.

We are disappointed that Marchand echoed Gary's position on the vote. In the past, Marchand has defined himself as an avowed environmentalist. His "no" vote puts him on record as opposing those who do not want the expansion. If his aim was to remain neutral, he should have abstained.

As for Gary, his remarks were outrageous.

Councilmembers can disagree on issues. In fact, it can make for some lively debate. However, Gary used innuendo and threats to convey the impression that the councilmembers who disagreed with his position may have done something illegal.

We believe that the majority did not vote as they did for political or monetary gain. They voted against the loss of a valuable environmental, cultural and historic area because they knew it was the right thing to do.

153

Controversial plan to remove non-native trees from East Bay parks Posted: May 27, 2015 7:10 PM By Allie Rasmus, Reporter BioEmail

OAKLAND (KTVU) - Eucalyptus trees - are they an East Bay Hills icon, or a fire hazard? That question is at the heart of a controversial plan to remove non-native trees from parks in the East Bay, from Richmond all the way to Castro Valley. The contentious debate has pit neighbor against neighbor. At Redwood Regional Park, chirping birds within a canopy of trees are some of the sights and sounds hikers take in along the trails. Also part of this serene setting: thousands of non-native Eucalyptus and Monterey pine trees. They evoke very different responses in different people. "One of the things we really enjoy when we go on the hikes is going through the trees," Melissa Mayfield of Oakland, said. "The eucalyptuses make a lot of dust, they are full of hot oil and they burn like crazy," said Oakland resident Victor Gold. Removing Eucalyptus, Monterey Pines and Acacia trees over a 10 year period is the goal of what's being called a "Fire Risk Reduction" plan for the East Bay hills. "We'll be very selectively thinning out dead trees, dying trees, saplings as well. Some healthy Eucalyptus will stay," said Carolyn Jones, East Bay Regional Park District spokeswoman. The plan covers land owned by UC Berkeley, 11 East Bay Regional Parks and the City of Oakland. All three applied for $4.6 million in federal grant money for the project - which FEMA approved. On Tuesday night, the Oakland City Council's Public Safety Committee voted to accept the federal money and set aside matching taxpayer funds for the project. "There will be some period after these trees are cut down where we will see less trees," said Oakland City Council member Dan Kalb. "In the long term, we will have trees154 in the hills, they'll just be different trees," Residents opposed to the plan, voiced their concerns - in vain. "The goal - the project goal - is to remove the forest and to create grasslands with islands of shrubs," said Nathan Winogard, directly quoting a phrase used by FEMA in their five-page "Hazardous Fire Risk Reduction Record of Decision." The federal document explains: "All three sub applicants [UC Berkeley, East Bay Regional Park District, City of Oakland] propose to reduce fuel loads and fire intensity, primarily by thinning plant species that are prone to torching, and by promoting conversion to vegetation types with lower fuel loads. In many areas the proposed and connected actions would preserve oak and bay trees and convert dense scrub, eucalyptus forest, and non- native pine forest, to grassland with islands of shrubs." That sort of landscape is a nightmarish vision for Oakland Hills homeowner, and Save the East Bay Hills Coalition member, Nathan Winogard. "People from all over the Bay Area come to the hills to recreate," Winogard said. "All those people are going to be horrified when the trees start falling." Once the trees are thinned, part of the plan includes the use of herbicide to prevent eucalyptus saplings from growing back. "Eucalyptus are incredibly tenacious," said Jones. "It will be very selectively used, hand-applied on certain trunks. Nobody likes to use this stuff, but in some cases it is necessary over the long term." Winogard is concerned about run-off and the impact the use of the herbicide will have on property values nearby. He, and other opponents of the plan hope a lawsuit will stop it before it starts. But other Oakland Hills homeowners welcome the idea. Victor Gold remembers the fire in '91. "My wife ran out of the fire with our two young children," he said, explaining that his home was damaged, but not lost in the fire. He said he's happy to see the Eucalyptus go, and he's not concerned about the Monterey Pines, Acacias and other non-native trees that will also be removed. "Other trees will be planted, like Oaks and Redwoods which are native to the area," he said. When asked if part of the FEMA grant included money for replacing some of the downed trees, Jones explained: "In the beginning, I think the plan is to just let nature take its course." She said the hope is that once the non-native trees are removed, native plants will grow back on their own. For some, the non-native trees are an East Bay treasure, and for others - a danger. Both sides agree that without them, the landscape will look dramatically different. They just have opposing views about whether that's a good thing or not.

155

East Bay's Park It: How to avoid snakes bites on the trails

By Carolyn Jones Guest columnist POSTED: 05/27/2015 12:00:00 AM DAYS AG O Spring is probably the best time of year to explore East Bay parks. The hills are green and often coated with wildflowers, temperatures are mild, and the forests are filled with new life. It's also the time of year rattlesnakes are emerging from hibernation. Most rattlesnake sightings in East Bay parks occur in the springtime, when the snakes are out looking for food and mates after the long winter months. Rattlesnakes are California's only native venomous snake and play an important role in the food chain. They help keep the rodent population in check and in turn are eaten by other predators. They'll only strike if they feel threatened -- if given enough room, they'll happily slither away on their own. Nonetheless, hikers should be extra careful during these months, especially in some of the warmer and grassier parks like Sunol Regional Wilderness, Del Valle Regional Park and Black Diamond Mines Regional Preserve. Rattlesnake bites are extremely rare in the parks but here are a few tips to stay safe in snake country:  Keep your dog on a leash. Dogs are much more likely to be bitten than people.  Learn how to identify a rattlesnake. Rattlesnakes can resemble gopher snakes, which are more common and not venomous. The main difference is that rattlesnakes have triangular heads, slightly thicker bodies and rattles on their tails.  Wear hiking boots and long pants.  Stick to well-worn trails.  If you see a rattlesnake, give it ample room to retreat.  If you're hiking with kids, make sure they know not to pick up rattlesnakes. Bird events: Spring is also a great time for bird watching. We're lucky in the East Bay to have such varied bird habitats, from bay shoreline to open grasslands to oak forests and wetlands. The park district offers many guided outings for bird- watchers156 of all levels. Here are a few bird events coming up: On Monday, tour Del Valle Regional Park by boat to see what birds are swooping, diving, nesting and breeding at the vast Livermore lake. Bring binoculars. Registration is required. Go to www.ebparks to sign up. The cost is $5 or $7 for nonresidents. On June 7, check out the 16th annual Butterfly and Bird Festival at Coyote Hills in Fremont. Enjoy garden tours, family activities, educational speakers, music and tips on how to turn your yard into habitat for birds and butterflies. The festival is from 10 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. On June 8, join the Monday morning birders as they explore Tilden Park in search of hawks, woodpeckers, ducks and hopefully some fledglings and other surprises. Naturalist Anthony Fisher will lead the group around Jewel Lake and its environs to see what our feathered friends are up to. Meet at Tilden's Environmental Education Center at 9 a.m. Alameda: Get out your pails, shovels and creative energy -- it's time for the annual Sand Castle and Sculpture Contest at Crab Cove in Alameda. This popular event, slated for June 6, is a favorite for kids and grown-ups alike. Register at 9 a.m. and spend the next few hours crafting your sandy masterpiece, or just enjoy the handiwork of others. Judging begins at noon, and awards are issued at 1 p.m. The event is free. Fremont: If sand castles are not your preferred artistic medium, you might enjoy outdoor landscape painting at Ardenwood Historic Farm in Fremont. Join other artists and a naturalist on June 6 for some painting, a brief talk about the history of the plein air movement and camaraderie in a turn-of-the-century working farm. No registration is necessary. The event is free except for the Ardenwood admission fee, which is $6 for adults, $5 for seniors and $4 for children. Kids younger than 4 get in free. Berkeley hills: Budding artists (and musicians) may also want to check out a June 14 flute-making event at Tilden Park in the Berkeley hills. Participants will make a traditional Native American flute using elderberry branches and simple hand tools. Elderberry flutes were used by native Californians for millennia, enjoyed for their haunting and mystical music. Be forewarned, though: Elderberry flutes are easy to make, but hard to play! Registration is required at www.ebparks.org. The cost is $45 for residents, $7 for nonresidents. Healthy Parks drive: Three Healthy Parks Healthy People events are slated for June 6. These safe, low-impact, family-friendly outings are meant to encourage Bay Area residents to get outdoors and appreciate the health benefits of nature. 157 At Contra Loma Regional Park in Antioch, take a leisurely stroll around the lake to search for birds, otters and other wildlife. Meet at the main parking lot at 9 a.m. At Tilden, join a naturalist for some light farm chores at the Nature Area and Little Farm. Learn how to use a scythe, wheelbarrow and saw and enjoy the farm animals that live there. Meet in the Nature Area at 1 p.m. And finally, at Lake Temescal in Oakland, meet other families for an easy walk around the lake. Learn about the park and its natural offerings, and get some exercise, too. Meet at the Broadway entrance at 2 p.m. For more information about any of these events, go to www.ebparks.org or call 888-EBPARKS. Carolyn Jones, of the East Bay Regional Park District, is filling in for Ned MacKay, who writes a regular column about the district's sites and activities. Email him at [email protected].

158

Tri-Valley parks officials struggle to save turtles

By Beth Jensen Correspondent POSTED: 05/26/2015

A western pond turtle takes in the view at Turtle Town. ( Daniel I. Rienche )

courtesy of William Flaxington The red-eared slider turtle is invasive to... ( Nathaniel Jackson )

It turns out what you've heard is true. It really isn't easy being green. Especially if you're a western pond turtle.

Never mind that these gentle California natives -- California's only native turtles -- start out life as an hors d'oeuvre for almost all their neighbors. Or that they have to haul their home around on their backs. What really makes life tough for these saucer-sized amphibians is a loss of good habitat and, increasingly, uninvited guests to the pond who push them around, bogart their basking spots and food supply and eat their offspring. The intruders in question are red-eared sliders, who, despite having a name like a Norwegian luge team, actually are another type of turtle native to the southern United 159 States and northern Mexico. Sold as part of the international food and pet trade, juvenile sliders used to be marketed in U.S. pet shops and given as prizes at carnivals. Today, young sliders can only be sold in California for educational and research purposes, but older and larger ones are still sold as aquatic pets. Their new families, charmed by their antics, often are unprepared for the care and commitment required for an animal that can live for 30 years and outgrow its home tank.

"Who doesn't love a turtle?" said Livermore Area Recreation and Park District ranger Dawn Soles. "But (their care) can be difficult ... they hit a certain size when they're not as cute or colorful or as active as they were, and their dietary needs change. They're more carnivorous when younger and as they get older they become more omnivorous. They become not as entertaining a pet."

When that happens, some well-meaning owners have a "Born Free" moment, deciding to release their red-eared slider into area ponds. The result can be lethal for their pet, and life-threatening for the native turtle population.

"A lot of folks think they're putting them back where they'll be happy, but that animal, although it comes from wild stock, has never experienced the wild ... and most likely will die," Soles said.

The issue has come to light at the restored cattail pond at upper Sycamore Grove in Livermore, which supports a population of western pond turtles. These Yoda look-alikes often can be seen happily sunning on wooden rafts recently installed as part of a Girl Scout project. They average 4 to 8 inches across the shell and are quite mild-mannered, often stacking on top of each other as they jostle for the best basking sites. Turtles are ectotherms, or coldblooded, and require heat to digest their food and maintain health.

"We started noticing that one turtle didn't look like the others, and then a second showed up," Soles said. "Most likely someone noticed the habitat, saw the other turtles as friends and let them go. Once that happens, it seems to go like an avalanche; people see turtles and think all of them are created equal ... they're trying to do a good thing, but releasing them has unforeseen consequences."

At East Bay Regional Park District, wildlife biologist Dave Riensche works with a group of volunteers to track and study western pond turtles in an attempt to protect their habitat and their numbers. The study, begun in 2011, is the first of its kind in central California, and is part of the effort to safeguard the turtles, who are threatened and endangered in Oregon and Washington, and listed as a "species of special concern" in California.

The invasion of red-eared sliders poses significant problems for the natives; the sliders have already taken over some Bay Area ponds, particularly those in urban areas surrounded by residential neighborhoods, Riensche said. 160 "If you're big, you're a bully in a pond," he explained. "You're at a disadvantage if you're a native pond turtle. You have an alien there who's more aggressive and bigger. They also lay much bigger clutches (of eggs), and have a higher reproduction rate. It's biological warfare going on. Plus, they bring in a lot of pathogens and diseases that compromise the respiratory process of western pond turtles."

As part of the turtle study, Riensche and his team have placed tiny radio antennas on about 20 pond turtles at a couple of sites east of Mount Diablo.

"We have telemetry on them, and track them daily in the summertime," he said. "We know who they are, what they're doing, their growth rate, what part of the pond they're using, so we can develop management strategies to enhance the biodiversity of the ponds."

Life is full of lethal moments for pond turtles; Riensche estimates a 60 percent breeding failure rate, meaning nests are destroyed or mothers killed. Many females are attacked by predators when they come out of the water to lay eggs, and the quarter-sized babies run an ongoing gauntlet, preyed upon by everything from birds and raccoons to non-native Eastern bullfrogs and red-eared slider turtles.

"When you're a baby turtle, you're a walking hors douerve," he said. "Only 10 to 20 percent will survive to adulthood."

In 2016, EBRPD's study will be expanded to include a "Headstart" program in collaboration with Sonoma State University and the Oakland and San Francisco zoos.

"We'll harvest the eggs, hatch them in an incubator, and those babies will develop in a nurturing environment free from bullfrogs and red sliders," Riensche said. "We'll get them to size so we can return them to the same pond when they're not smorgasbord-sized."

Recent drought conditions have only made the turtles' plight worse, as ponds shrink and water quality degrades. Now, more than ever, those working to protect the native western pond turtle hope to see an end to the release of non-native red-eared sliders.

"The turtles are our patients, and we're the doctors," Riensche said. "Our goal is to keep them out of the intensive care ward. We want to understand what they need for healthy reproduction, we want to mitigate invasive species and be good stewards. We don't want to wait around until they're endangered and threatened.

"Turtles are pretty darned special," he added. "We want to keep these guys around."

FYI Resources are available to help surrender non-native turtles that are no longer wanted. Residents with pet turtles they can no longer care for should call their local pet store or animal control office to receive help in responsibly relocating their pets. Alameda County Animal Control: 925-803-7040 or log on to https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/cws_animal.php. Contra Costa County Animal Control: 925-335-8300

161

Concord Naval Weapons Station development means big changes for neighbors

By Lisa P. White [email protected]

CONCORD — For Beverly Marshall O’Ban and her neighbors in the Bishop Estates subdivision, the Concord Naval Weapons Station is literally in their backyards.

The neighborhood of two-story houses just off busy Concord Boulevard abuts the western edge of the former military base. Only a chain-link fence separates O’Ban’s property from a grove of trees and a field of golden grasses along the border of the weapons station, which closed in 2008.

Built during World War II as an annex to Mare Island Naval Shipyard, the Navy stored munitions there in precise rows of concrete bunkers. The bunkers have since been emptied, and when the Navy announced its plan to turn the 5,028-acre inland area of the weapons station over to Concord for redevelopment, the stakes were high for O’Ban and others living on its perimeter.

Alarmed by the number of homes the city initially proposed for the property, residents formed the Concord Naval Weapons Station Neighborhood Alliance in 2006 and pushed the city to keep as much of the land as possible free of development.

“We really wanted greenbelt and open space behind the existing houses,” O’Ban said.

Ultimately, the City Council adopted the Concord Reuse Project Area Plan, which preserves approximately 70 percent of the weapons station as parkland or open space — including a greenway buffer separating the new homes from existing neighborhoods.

The plan allows for building up to 12,272 housing units and 6.1 million square feet of commercial space on about 2,300 acres stretching from the North Concord/Martinez BART station south past Bailey Road. The Navy is expected to begin transferring property early next year — about 1,400 acres to Concord and 2,700 acres to the East Bay Regional Park District.

Clustering high-density housing near BART will ensure the project meets the open space target, said Rosanne Nieto, an alliance member.

162 At the other end of the base, homeowners in the Sun Terrace neighborhood are equally invested in how the development takes shape.

Sitting uphill from Port Chicago Highway, the subdivision of mostly one-story houses overlooks the weapons station. Homeowners there worry that concentrated development near BART will drag down their property values and ruin their expansive views, according to Paul Poston, a member of the Sun Terrace Neighborhood Partnership.

“The thing I like about (developer) Lennar is they’re going to start near Willow Pass Road and work toward BART,” Poston said. “We get a 10-year break.”

The city is negotiating with Catellus Development Corp. and Lennar Urban to become the master developer for the project’s first phase. The council is scheduled to choose one of the firms this summer.

Under the current timeline, in 2017 the master developer will begin installing the infrastructure — water lines, sewer, roadways and utilities — on the property, with final build out projected for 2035.

Despite having somewhat conflicting opinions about the ideal scale and location of the proposed development, the two neighborhood groups share concerns about water use, hazardous materials cleanup, pollution and traffic congestion, particularly along Denkinger Road, Concord Boulevard, Port Chicago Highway and Panoramic Drive.

Before the council narrowed the master candidates from three to two last month, Lennar and Catellus earned points by meeting with both neighborhood groups.

In its recommendation to the council, the alliance gave Lennar a slight edge for its willingness to work with residents, a proposed solar farm and a network of walking trails and bike lanes. Still, several members of the group expressed reservations about housing variety and potential profit for Concord since Lennar would be both developer and homebuilder.

Catellus won praise from the group for reaching out to neighbors, creating links to regional trails and saving two intertwined, 45-foot-tall oak trees when it developed a former airport in Austin, Texas. Poston, of Sun Terrace, said Catellus has been more proactive in its outreach to the community than Lennar. He’s also skeptical of Lennar’s proposed solar panel installation.

Residents welcome the developers’ proposals to build retail centers and office space on the former base.

“We really need jobs, we really need jobs more than we need housing,” said Katherine Dano-Luttjohann, an alliance member. “Good, high-paying tech jobs, not Taco Bell.”

163 However, they wrestle with the possibility that building such a self-contained community, where new residents could work, shop and play, might provide little incentive for them to venture beyond their new neighborhoods. That could inadvertently create the two Concords city leaders say they don’t want.

“It’s a big question, how connected are (the new residents) going to feel to Concord?” Poston asked. “It may develop some isolationism.”

With Sunvalley mall on one side of town and the new retail on the other, “I don’t know how we can say there will just be one place that’s Concord,” said Pete Stuart, of the alliance. “There will be different areas.”

Having won the early fight over open space, alliance members now have a wish list of environmentally friendly projects they would like as part of the development, such as irrigating with recycled water, restoring Mt. Diablo Creek and building “wildlife overpasses” to help animals safely cross the major roads.

“We’ve got a heritage and the land, and we want to leave a legacy for the next generation,” Stuart said.

Lisa P. White covers Concord and Pleasant Hill. Contact her at 925-943-8011. Follow her at Twitter.com/lisa_p_white.

164

Submit your comments to help save Tesla Park by June 29 deadline

May 19, 2015 Leave a Comment

Hillside destruction at the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area. Photo taken Jan. 2015 by Celeste Garamendi

The California State Parks Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Division has finally released the Preliminary General Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Carnegie State Vehicular Recreation Area and its proposed expansion into Tesla Park land. We urgently need your help to save this biologically unique and culturally important natural area in eastern Alameda County from the damaging impacts of off-highway vehicles. Incredibly, the Draft EIR concludes that there are no significant impacts either from ongoing operation at Carnegie or from opening 3,100-plus additional acres to all types of off-highway vehicle recreation. The Draft EIR further found that no mitigation is required beyond General Plan guidelines and best management practices. What about erosion, destruction of vegetation and wildlife habitat, noise, and water sedimentation, to name just a few of the known impacts of off-highway vehicles? WhatYouCanDo

Tesla Park combines many important resources — natural, historic, and cultural — in one place. Help us preserve these resources for current and future generations: submit your comments by the June 29th deadline! The relevant documents may be viewed online at www.CarnegieGeneralPlan.com/document-library. Written comments should be submitted no later than June 29.

165 Comments can be submitted by email to [email protected], with a copy to [email protected], or by mail to: California Department of Parks and Rec OHMVR Division, c/o AECOM Attn: Carnegie SVRA General Plan 2020 L Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95811 Feel free to use the following language in your comments:

 I am opposed to the destruction of Tesla Valley’s natural and cultural resources.  The proposed project and DEIR should be revised so that no off-highway vehicle use is allowed in Tesla Park.

166

Proposed cemetery outside San Ramon a dead end for wildlife, water security

May 19, 2015 Leave a Comment

The cemetery would be about 2,300 feet away from existing homes and lie right next to future protected open space to the north and the Hidden Valley Ope Space area and Tassajara Ridge trail to the west.

A local land speculator has proposed a massive 100,000-grave commercial cemetery in Tassajara Valley. The Creekside Memorial Park Cemetery would lie outside the Urban Limit Line to the east of San Ramon. This is not some quaint churchside cemetery; the project would involve moving millions of cubic feet of earth, tearing down a significant ridgeline, and building a road that would bisect the property. This disruptive construction would take place adjacent to the Tassajara Ridge Trail, the Hidden Valley Open Space, and other land proposed for open-space designation. A 100,000-square-foot mausoleum would be built at the top of the property, ruining the visual and pastoral nature of the surrounding open space and marring ridgeline vistas. Not a drop to drink Because the project lies outside the Urban Limit Line, water cannot be piped to the site. In order to meet advertised claims of a “lush garden environment” — with many thousands of new plantings and acres of turf — the would-be developer intends to drill wells and pump groundwater. This despite the fact that local ranchers and residents have had to truck in water for a number of years because their own wells are running dry. The applicant’s own hydrology studies have shown that there is less than half of the needed groundwater under the existing site. The project’s draft environmental impact report concluded that the high level of water draw by the proposed cemetery is likely to affect the quality and quantity of the water in the wells used by neighboring residents. The unsustainable water use would also cause “significant and unavoidable” environmental impacts, even after mitigation.

167 Threatened species The proposed grading of 77 acres would destroy a wildlife habitat and migration corridor used by dozens of special-status species found at the site. These plant and animal species include the California red-legged frog, the California tiger salamander, the Golden eagle, the Western burrowing owl, Congdon’s tarplant, and San Joaquin spearscale. Difficult traffic conditions The proposed project would worsen already-difficult driving conditions on the narrow- shouldered, two-lane Camino Tassajara. Because funeral processions have the right- of-way, traffic would be blocked for ten or fifteen minutes at a time while vehicles perform a left turn into the property. Bicycling in the area would also become more problematic. Official opposition In a sign of the changing times in our area, the City of San Ramon — once the lead governmental body promoting the cemetery — is now on record as being opposed to it. Unfortunately, City opposition won’t be enough to stop the project, which is located in an unincorporated area and is thus under the jurisdiction of the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors. San Ramon’s elected officials and residents alike want to preserve the rural nature of the Tassajara Valley. Thousands of local residents have shown up at public meetings, gone on hikes led by ranchers on horseback to view the project area, and met with County officials to oppose this project. The grassroots opposition cites the environmental and logistical reasons listed above, as well as concerns about cultural issues and property values. Bad business In order to comply with state law, the project must be financially viable. But based on expected population growth, death rates, and the increasing popularity of cremation, the existing cemeteries in the Tri-Valley area have more than enough space to handle anticipated need. This type of project leads to development pressure and more land speculation. It is completely at odds with the agricultural and open-space nature of the rest of the Tassajara Valley. WhatYouCanDo To register your opposition, contact the State Cemetery Bureau at [email protected]. If you live in Contra Costa County, contact your Supervisor. The project is in Supervisor Mary Piepho’s district, so comments from her constituents will be particularly valuable. If you live in one of the surrounding communities, ask your elected officials to follow San Ramon’s example and oppose the project.

— Philip168 G. O’Loane serves on the San Ramon City Council

Gun club on park land should pay for lead cleanup

Photo courtesy of gritphim on Flickr Creative Commons

May 19, 2015

Gunfire is the last thing you might expect to hear as they stroll through the groves and grasslands of the East Bay hills. But for over 50 years the Chabot Gun Club has operated on East Bay Regional Park Distict land inside the Anthony Chabot Regional Park in Castro Valley. Now the Gun Club’s lease is up for renewal, and it’s a good opportunity to look at the environmental implications of having a gun range on public parkland.

Lead from bullets used at the gun range can permeate the soil and is likely to have leached into nearby Lake Chabot, where fishing is allowed (the Sierra Club has filed a public records request to learn about lead levels in the lake). The range is also adjacent to the Upper San Leandro Reservoir. Noise from the gun range can be heard from miles away by hikers in the Lamorinda hills.

Whether the range should continue on a lease renewal is open to debate. What is not in doubt is that the Gun Club should pay a lease and rental fee that will cover the costs of lead remediation and mitigation of noise impacts. The lead remediation will be costly. Lead remediation and cleanup for the Pacific Rod and Gun Club at Lake Merced, which closed this April after 80 years, will cost an estimated $22 million — and that site banned lead bullets in 1994. Lead bullets are still in use at the Chabot Gun Club. WhatYouCanDo

Contact the Park District Board and tell them that our taxpayer dollars should be not used to clean up the mess at the Chabot gun range. Tell the Park District that the lessee and users should pay a lease and rental fee to pay for the lead remediation and noise mitigation. Visit www.ebparks.org/about/board to find the email addresses for the Board members.

— Norman La Force, Chair, East Bay Public Lands Committee

169

Chapter sets priorities for park-funding measure

May 19, 2015

Measure CC is the East Bay Regional Park District measure that was passed by the voters in 2004. It taxes the area from San Leandro north to Pinole and west of the Hills at around $10 per parcel to provide funding for Park District operations. Sierra Club leaders played a key role in drafting the measure and in identifying the items on which the tax revenues would be spent, including vegetation management, habitat restoration, and wildlife-protection projects. The Club was also instrumental in getting it passed. Measure CC expires in 2020 unless renewed. The Park District is contemplating going to the voters in 2016 for a reauthorization. The Bay Chapter is again working to shape the reauthorization measure and ensure its passage. As with the original measure, we will insist that the projects slated to receive Measure CC funding are identified with great specificity to ensure that taxpayers know exactly how their money would be spent. As we work to draft a final reauthorization measure to send to the voters, the Sierra Club identifies the following as critical funding targets. All are considered equally important.

1. Funding for vegetation management should be increased from the amount designated in the original Measure CC. In addition, all vegetation-management funding should be allocated for the removal of non-native vegetation such as eucalyptus and its replacement with restored native habitat. Any funding for the mere thinning of non-natives must come from other sources. Over a period of 20 to 30 years, the costs of thinning with debris removal would be around $250 million, or $200 a year for each homeowner. 2. Second, Measure CC renewal should increase the funding for stewardship programs and positions in the Park District. This aspect of the Park District’s mission still remains underfunded. In particular, the Park District needs more staff directly involved with conservation, restoration, and habitat-enhancement programs. How we manage parklands is just as important as acquiring more lands. In this time of climate change, the premier park and open-space land agency in the United States must have the scientists and skilled stewards who can meet that challenge. 3. Third, funding for the McLaughlin Eastshore State Park should be increased to provide for the operation and maintenance of the Albany Bulb, the Brickyard, and other underfunded portions of the park. In addition, funding should provide the flexibility to pay for some of the costs of potential acquisitions such as the Golden Gate Fields race track site in Albany.

170 4. Fourth, the renewal should include funding in Alameda for the Triangle Park at Alameda Point, the Northwest Territories at Alameda Point, conservation work at the Alameda Wildlife Reserve, and operational funds for when the Crab Cove property becomes part of Crown Beach. 5. Fifth, Measure CC renewal should provide funding for the operations and maintenance of a nature preserve park at Point Molate. Richmond residents have demonstrated over and over that they want this important open-space resource protected as a public park. 6. Sixth, we oppose further taxpayer subsidy of the Oakland Zoo as it has demonstrated that it can fund its own operations from private sources. The original Measure CC provides $100,000 a year for the Oakland Zoo. 7. Seventh, no money should be allocated to fund any of the needed noise or lead mitigation at the Chabot Gun Range if the lease is extended for its operation. The range users and operators are the responsible parties and should bear those costs — not the taxpayers.

The Sierra Club looks forward to working with the Park District on the Measure CC renewal. You can help by writing the Park District Board of Directors to show your support for these key issues and insist that the Sierra Club be part of a working group that writes the renewal measure. — Norman La Force, Chair, East Bay Public Lands Committee

171

A sustainable development success story in El Cerrito

May 19, 2015

El Cerrito’s PDA will feature buffered bike lanes like this as well as protected cycle tracks.

Members of the Chapter’s Transportation and Compact Growth Committee are reviewing Priority Development Areas (PDAs), which are a cornerstone of the $292-billion Regional Transportation Plan. The purpose of PDAs is to reduce car travel by focusing new residents into areas where the transit service is good and where people can easily walk or ride a bike to nearby destinations. Grants of planning money are available to get the PDAs off the ground. This article will briefly review a PDA success story in El Cerrito. PDAs are complicated creatures, and in no way is this review meant to be comprehensive. El Cerrito has two PDAs, and both run along San Pablo Avenue, the main street in the city. El Cerrito’s city government treats them as one combined development area (the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan), and that is how they will be treated here, too. According to the Association of Bay Area Governments, in 2010 there were about 1,200 households within the boundaries of the combined El Cerrito PDA. By 2040, the plan is to have about 1,000 more households in the same area. Transit service in the area is good now, with bus service provided by AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, Vallejo Transit, and WestCat. Along San Pablo Avenue, there is an AC Transit bus about every 7 minutes. There are two BART stations in the PDA too. El Cerrito is moving forward to make things work for the expected new residents and to cut down on driving. First, the city asked developers what changes they would like to see made to make development easier. The city was told that the building height limit had to be increased and that the number of parking spaces required was too high. The City Council increased the height limit to 75 feet and cut down on the number of parking spaces required. In areas close to BART, the reduction in parking is greater than for housing units farther away.

172 The city is also working with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority and AC Transit to increase bus service along San Pablo Avenue. The first success was recently achieved when the 72 Rapid bus line began operating on weekends, not just on weekdays. One of the volumes of the Specific Plan that serves as a guide for the PDA is titled “Complete Streets.” It lays out, over 90 pages, what’s needed to make the area more attractive for transit passengers, pedestrians, and bicyclists. One interesting feature is the way bicycles and buses will be kept apart from one another, with a special, separate bike lane. There are other things that are necessary to make a PDA work, of course. Parks, schools, and shopping are important, too. It looks like El Cerrito has these elements under control and a successful PDA on its hands. You can check out the San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan. The next article in this series will review a PDA in Newark that unfortunately does not look as promising. Want more? Follow @abetterbayarea on Twitter for the latest on sustainable communities in the Bay Area. — Matt Williams, Chair, Transportation and Comact Growth Committee

173

Fighting the rising tide of shoreline development around the Bay — Updates on three campaigns

May 19, 2015

In my work as conservation chair for the Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter, I often ask myself: Is there actually hope that our society will recognize in time the need to protect and preserve the shoreline in the face of rising sea level? Or will we descend into fantasy and pretend that technology and engineering can solve all of our problems? Will the urge to develop every available acre mean that new communities face inundation and/or a shoreline consisting of high levees that hide the Bay from view and destroy the mudflats and tidal marshes that sustain aquatic life? Or will we, as a society, recognize that we need to provide room for wetlands to move into adjacent uplands wherever possible as sea level rises and existing wetlands disappear? Well there’s HOPE! Here are two recent instances where logic prevailed and the natural world was given a shot at survival — and one case where your advocacy is sorely needed. Oakland’s Coliseum City

www.oaklandnet.com/colliseumcity/

Recently, the Oakland City Council approved the “Coliseum City Specific Plan” project. This project proposes to develop over 800 acres of land including the site of the present Oakland Coliseum and the San Leandro Bay shoreline. The original proposal put dense housing right on top of a thriving seasonal wetland that was itself a mitigation project for the loss of wetlands at the Oakland Airport. It also proposed high-rise housing on the Oakland Business Park, a site immediately adjacent to the Bay and contiguous with one of the richest tidal habitats in the Central Bay, the Martin Luther King, Jr., Regional Shoreline Park. All of this would have had significant impacts on Bay wildlife. But thanks to the efforts of our volunteers, community members, and groups like the East Bay Regional Park District, the City rezoned the mitigated wetland (now called the Edgewater Wetland) and the immediate shoreline as open space. The city also kept the Oakland Business Park area zoned for business, not residential (business uses can be much more compatible with the adjacent Bay and its wildlife). We extend a large thank you to Oakland City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan, who authored the zoning decisions.

174 This is just one victory in a long and ongoing struggle. Despite the favorable zoning decisions, the actual Coliseum City Specific Plan was not changed, and it still calls for the destruction of the Edgewater Wetland and for building dense housing right on the Bay (all in areas that are predicted to be under water in 2100 or before). And the Plan still proposes to bury Elmhurst Creek. We have not seen a living stream culverted in the Bay Area for decades, as we now recognize that they play a crucial role in the health of our community and its aquatic resources. As this project progresses, stay tuned for opportunities to help protect our shoreline. Redwood City salt ponds

The Redwood City salt ponds. Photo courtesy Doc Searls on Flickr Creative Commons

In another victory for a healthy Bay, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently took action in Redwood City to protect the 1,400 acres of shoreline used as salt ponds by Cargill Salt. These ponds are bay waters that have been surrounded by levees and used to concentrate the water as it is moved from pond to pond until it starts precipitating salt — and presto! There it is on your table. Cargill Salt claimed that the “liquid” in these salt ponds is too salty to be considered water, and thus should no longer be protected under the Clean Water Act. While we’re all entitled to our opinions, this one fails the laugh test. So imagine our surprise and disappointment when the federal regulators of our nation’s waters and wetlands, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, actually swallowed Cargill’s ludicrous argument and proposed to give up jurisdiction over these salt ponds. They ignored the fact that each winter these salt ponds swell with rainwater (yes, even this year) and provide aquatic habitat to tens of thousands of waterbirds. Luckily, logic won out over Cargill’s army of lobbyists. In response to an outburst of protest over the Army Corps decision, the EPA stepped in and claimed jurisdiction over the decision of whether the salt ponds deserve protection. We don’t know when the EPA decision will be reached but we have faith that they will reach the obvious conclusion that water is water — even if it is behind a levee and even if evaporation has made it salty. We thank Jared Blumenfeld, Regional EPA Administrator, and national EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy for this brave action. More great news out of Redwood City is that City Councilperson Ian Bain came out publicly against large-scale development on lands (or in this case waters) that may be underwater by 2100. Given that the Redwood City Council has consistently supported Cargill’s desire to build on the salt ponds, this is an encouraging development.

175 Newark Area 4 wetlands

Newark’s “Area 4” tidal marsh, Photo by Margaret Lewis, courtesy SaveSFBay.org

And then there is Newark. If ever there was a city government that turned its back on the Bay and its wetlands, Newark may be the one. Despite massive logistical and regulatory hurdles, Newark has persisted in pursuing an ill-advised plan for a golf course and upscale housing development at the (unromantically named) Area 4 wetland. Area 4 was historically part of the bay before being walled off by levees in the 1960s. Yet even levees and regular pumping can’t keep the land dry; despite these measures, over half of the land is active wetland. This April, the Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge won a lawsuit over the city’s Environmental Impact Report (also opposed by the Sierra Club), which had found that the site was just fine for development. Unfortunately, winning a CEQA lawsuit does not magically stop bad projects. The City simply rewrote part of the document — changing essentially nothing — and the project starts up again. But that struggle isn’t over. The developer and the City still need permits from many agencies. Now is the time for citizen activism. We’ll be working to get these lands absorbed into the adjacent Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge. If you are interested in helping you can call me at (415)680-0643. — Arthur Feinstein, Conservation Chair

176