Reminder: Leadership Group meetings are confidential

Working Council

Thursday, June 4, 2015 Location: Blach Construction

2020 Fortune Drive, Suite 100, San Jose, CA

DRAFT AGENDA

7:30 a.m. Coffee & Conversation

8:00 a.m. Call to Order & Meeting Confidentiality Reminder

Welcome and Introductions

Welcome to new Member Company Representatives

Staffing Updates

President's Report

Turning Red Tape into Red Carpet 3.0 kickoff – June 11th Application Kickoff

Q2 Leadership Group Board Meeting @ Yahoo, June 11th

Workplace Wellness Summit @ Brocade, June 12th

Annual Public Official Staff Appreciation @ SJ Giants, August 3rd

Discussion / Action Item

Strategic Path Forward - Work Plan Criteria Final

Work Plan (ROI Metrics) Review and Recommendations

(Policy, Programs, Projects and Events) Action

Events Criteria Review and Recommendations Action

Consent Items

Approval of the Meeting Minutes: May 7, 2015 Working Council Regular Meeting

SB 550 (Hertzberg) - Net Energy metering Recommended Action: Support

AB 90 (Atkins) - CalHome Program Recommended Action: Support

Guest Speaker

Update on Governor Brown’s Delta Plan – Secretary John Laird, CA Natural Resources

(confirmed) 9:10 AM Time Certain

Action Items

Governor Brown’s Delta Plan Recommended Action: Support

SB 471 (Pavley) - Water, energy, and reduction of

Greenhouse gas emissions Recommended Action: Support

AB 366 (Bonta) & SB 243 (Hernandez) Medi-Cal:

Reimbursement: Provider rates Recommended Action: Support *

AB 1096 (Chiu) – E bikes Recommended Action: Support *

AB 1056 (Atkins) Housing assistance for formerly Recommended Action: Support

Incarcerated tenants

*NOTE: (AB 1300, AB 366, and AB1096 are pending Health Committee and Transportation

Committee action respectively)

2015 Home Run Goal Updates 1-minute reports on top item in each portfolio area

Energy Transportation Federal Issues

Education Government Relations Tax Policy

Environment Housing & Land Use Health

Community Technology Policy

10:15 a.m. Adjournment

Next Meeting: July 9, 2015 Location: Santa Clara University

2015 Working Council Meeting Schedule

January 8

February 5

March 5

April 2

May 7

June 4

July 9

August 6

September 3

October 14 Strategy Conference*

November 5

December 3

*Conference location confirmed @ LinkedIn Sunnyvale

Working Council

Thursday, May 7, 2015

7:30 a.m. - 10:15 a.m.

Blach Construction, 2020 Fortune Drive, Ste. 100

San Jose, CA

Members Present:

Erin Brennock, Working Council Chair

Jeff Rangel, Brocade; Working Council Vice-Chair

Patrick Quinn, Blach Construction, Host

Kay O'Neill, #YesWeCode

Diane Matulich, Advanced Micro Devices

Jason Lundgaard, Apple

Monica Gomez, Applied Materials

Angela Yang, AT&T

Sara Broadbent, Avaya

Gail Mohr, Bank of America

Matthew Brown, BD Biosciences

Roger Kirkpatrick, Bloom Energy

Pat Mapeli, Cargill

Brian Hubinger, Chevron

Ralph Dickman, City National Bank

Theo Pahos, Constellation

Rena Lane, eHealth

Adam Simpson, EtaGen

John Mummert, Foothill College

Vicki Wilkerson , Fortinet

Blair King, Harmonic

Jennifer Hernandez, IBM

Dryden Little, Insikt

Nancy Noe, Johnson & Johnson

Mike Rizzo, KLA Tencor

Chris Schwarz, Lam Research

Mike Alba, LinkedIn

Ashley Howell, Lockheed Martin Space Systems

Diana Bautista, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital

Thomas Baity, Neslon Technology

Allison Darin, Nexenta

Ron Gonzales, Presencia

Ross Highnchi, Protiviti

Rahul Chandhok, San Francisco 49ers

Stacy Gleixner, San Jose State University

Steven Shee, SanDisk

Jackie Forsythe, Santa Clara University

Kellie Drenner, SAP

Craig Robinson, Silicon Valley Bank

Francesca Wahl, SolarCity

Maya Biery, SunEdison

Debra LaTourette, Synnex

Janikke Klem, Tech CU

John Hogan, TeenForce

Leslie Rodriguez, Texas Instruments

Donna Blitzer, UCSC

Todd Lewis, UPS

Sabine Middlemass, Virgin America

Navid Sarrafzadeh, Webcor Builders

Sunil Pandya, Wells Fargo

Bob Bowen, Western Digital

Jim Davis, XOvertime

Staff Present:

Casey Beyer

Brian Brennan

Bena Chang

Kathleen Cook

Paul Escobar

Alex Felton

Angela Gile

Catharine Ingram

Tim McRae

Mike Mielke

Zoe Mullendore

Kristina Perlata

Eddie Truong

Connie Vieaux

AGENDA 8:01 – 8:21

8:05 - Erin Brennock called the meeting to order and thanked Blach Construction Company for hosting the

meeting.

8:06 – 8:17 – Carl Guardino led the introductions of first time Working Council attendees

8:17 – 8:20 – Carl Guardino gave staffing updates: Kathleen Cook, Executive Assistant to Carl Guardino will be

leaving at the end of the month

8:20 – 8:21 – Carl Guardino announced we need Working Council Hosts for August – December of 2015

President's Report 8:21 – 8:31

Debriefed Annual Sacramento Advocacy Trip

CEO Business Climate Summit @ Microsoft, May 13th

Regional Economic Forum @ Computer Museum,

May 29th

Q2 SVLG Board Meeting @ Yahoo, June 11th

Workplace Wellness Summit @ Brocade, June 12th

Discussion/Action Item 8:31 – 9:30

Leadership Group’s Sustainable Work Plan 2016-2018 – A Path Forward led by Carl Guardino and Bena Chang

The Five Criteria to eliminate items from the WorkPlan were discussed, and edits were made. Questions and

comments were raised by: Jeff Rangel, Erin Brennock, Sara Broadbent, John Hogan, Janikke Klem, Gail Mohr,

Bob Bowen, Jim Davis, Vicki Wilkerson, Brian Hubinger, John Mummert, Diane Matulich, Nancy Noe, Jason

Lungaard

Criteria Number Made the Motion to Approve Seconded

1 Erin Brennock Ron Gonzales

2 Patrick Quinn Janikke Klem

3 Matthew Brown Ralph Dickman

4 Chris Schwarz Robert Bowen

5 Diane Matulich John Mummert

Grant Piece John Hogan Ron Gonzales

Overall Criteria Janikke Klem Ron Gonzales

Consent Items

All of the consent items were approved.

Ron Gonzales made the motion to approve, Nancy Noe seconded. One abstention.

Approval of the Meeting Minutes: April 2, 2015 Working Council Meeting

AB 1236 (Chiu and Low) EV Charger Permitting Action: Support

AB 746 (Ting) - SF Bay Restoration Authority Action: Support

SB 16 (Beall) -State Transportation Funding Package Action: Support

AB 1288 (Atkins) – CA Global Warming Solutions Act Action: Support

AB 57 (Quirk) – Wireless Tower Siting Action: Support

SB 235 (Block) - Small-dollar loan pilot program Action: Support

AB 1483 (Gatto) -- Establishment of New UC Campus Action: No Position

Action Items

All of the action items were approved.

SB 286 (Hertzberg)- Direct Access Action: Support in concept

Presenter: Jim Davis

AB 674 (Mullin)- Non-by passable charges for Distributed Generation Action: Support

Presenter: Jim Davis

AB 1360 (Ting)- Transportation Network Companies and Splitting Fares Action: Support

Presenter: Mike Alba

AB 789 (Calderon) - Non-resident Contact Lens Seller Registration Act Action: Oppose

Presenter: Nancy Noe

SB 172 (Liu) – High School Exit Exam Action: Support

Presenter: Janikke Klem

AB 377 (Linder) AP/IB Test Fee Grant Action: Support

Presenter: Janikke Klem

SB 323 (Hernandez) / AB 1306 (Burke) – Nurse Practitioners &Certified Nurse-Midwives Action: Support

Presenter: Alexandria Felton

SB 364 (Leno) Ellis Act Reform Action: No position

Taken off the Action Item List

10:10 am – Meeting adjourned.

Criteria for Strategic Realignment of Workplan

1. Alignment with Leadership Group Priorities: Does the item fall under an existing policy vertical (e.g. housing, environment, energy)?

2. Leadership Group Influence: Is this item something the Leadership Group is uniquely

positioned to do? Could we point to this item and say that the Leadership Group made a unique and specific contribution to make the effort succeed?

3. Broad Membership Support: Is this item important to a broad set of our members, not just one

or two companies? Does the issue have a long-term impact on Leadership Group members? Does the issue have an important secondary impact on Leadership Group members (e.g. issues around workforce recruitment and retention or worker productivity)?

4. Time & Treasure: Amount of staff time needed versus impact. Is the amount of staff time

invested justified for the expected impact? Is the expected financial cost to our members justified by the expected impact? What kind of return do we expect for the effort we put in?

5. Grant funded workplan items: For this year, items that are grant funded will stay in the

workplan until the grant is completed. This does not guarantee that after the grant term is over that this item will stay in the workplan.

6. Timeliness: Is this item going to move this year? Are the political and policy stars aligned? We

can capture items that are not moving on a separate list apart from the workplan.

Metrics for Policy Impact a. Legislation is passed or killed b. Initiative (if it is a ballot measure) is passed or killed c. Regulatory or administrative issue is adopted or killed d. Number of legislators with whom we talked e. Number of co-authors that signed on f. Weighing financial investment g. Probability of Success

5/29/2015

Silicon Valley Leadership Group 2015-2017 Workplan Overview

Regional Workforce Development: Promote state and regional policies and partnerships that develop and promote a strong regional workforce. (Berglund, Faron, Karavadra,Mummert)Staff: Kristina Peralta/Alexandria Felton

Clean Energy: Promote financing and deployment of clean energy and emerging technologies and engage in efforts to advance AB 32, to the benefit of the tech sector. (Plund)Staff: Tim McRae

Advance 21st Century Water Supply System: Advance necessary water reforms, practices, policies and tools and financing to ensure the region has the water it needs for a growing population. (Yolles) Staff: Mike Mielke

1a. US High-Skilled Immigration Reform: Support modern immigration system/highly-skilled talent. (Becker, Milligan, Polese) Staff: Emily Lam/Grace Kay*SVCIP

Silicon Valley Roundtables and Outreach: Organize a dozen strategic roundtables on the federal, state & local levels to develop legislative relationships and further policy. (various) Staff: Grace Kay

Prevention and Wellness: Continue to help employers start or improve wellness programs and offerings as a long term cost containment strategy. (Dawes, Fallon, Karavadra) Staff: Alexandria Felton

State Funding: Identify and support funding sources for affordable housing. Advance a "permanent source" bill. (Berkes) Staff: Amanda Montez *SVCIP

US Business Tax Reform & Permanent R&D Tax Credit: Lower business tax rate/territorial tax. (Becker, Karavadra, Bergmann, Parker)Staff: Grace Kay*SVCIP

Cybersecurity* (Archambeau, Karanadra, Milligan, Padwal) Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz

BART to Silicon Valley: Advocate for Phase 2 funding at the federal and state levels. (Engh, Qayoumi) Staff: Bena Chang*SVCIP

Applied Materials Silicon Valley Turkey Trot: Secure 28,000 paid participants, supported by 2500 volunteers, raising $1,000,000 for charity. (Boland, Splinter) Staff: Carl Guardino

Industry/Higher Education Task Force: Help shape and support legislative efforts to increase the pipeline of employable graduates; convene biannually. (Blumenthal, Maner)Staff: Kristina Peralta

Energy Efficiency: Assist end users with improving energy efficiency and data center efficiency. (Bullington, Tierney-Lloyd) Staff: Tim McRae

Support Corporate Environmental Sustainability: Advance corporate sustainability drivers and showcase solutions that protect the environment while growing new markets &/or reducing costs. (Chorley) Staff: Mike Mielke

1b. US Business Tax Reform & Permanent R&D Tax Credit: Lower business tax rate/territorial tax. (Becker, Karavadra, Bergmann, Parker)Staff: Grace Kay*SVCIP

Silicon Valley Caucus: Strengthen and expand the Silicon Valley Caucus with 100 executives and 13 legislators. (Berglund, Blach, Alusic)Staff: Grace Kay

CA Health Exchange - Small Business Program: Advocate for reduced premiums, long term cost containment, and more employer choice. (Boyd, Dickman) Staff: Emily Lam

Regional Planning at Lawrence Station: Lead adoption of a plan with higher densities, aggressive mode shift goals and additional affordable housing. (Sege) Staff: Zoe Mullendore

Permanent CA Sales and Use Tax Exemption on R&D/Mfg Equipment Purchases: Improve existing partial and temporary exemption. (Gordon) Staff: Grace Kay*SVCIP

Regulatory (including FDA and emerging tech)* Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz

2016 Santa Clara County Transportation Measure: Build a coalition, define expenditure plan, and conduct polling on a potential transportation measure. Staff: Bena Chang*SVCIP

1,000 Hearts for 1,000 Minds: Reinitiate with SJ Mayor Sam Liccardo to recruit another 500 caring tutors for K-8 students in reading, math and science. Staff: Paul Escobar *SVCIP

Educare Capital Campaign: Conclude capital funding effort in advance of school opening in Aug. 2015. (McNeely, Ferrer)(Kristina Peralta)*SVCIP

Grid Modernization: Promote participation and facilitate integration of technologies that support a smarter, reliable grid and enable development of a new energy market structure. (King) Staff: Tim McRae

Support Regional and State Climate Change Planning and Preparedness: Engage business community in state and regional climate change adaptation efforts. (Maloney) Staff: Mike Mielke

Cybersecurity: Advocate and pass collaborative public-private partnership to protect national cyber infrastructure and enhances the innovation economy. (Archambeau, Karanadra, Milligan, Padwal) Staff: Casey Beyer

Federal and State Advocacy Trips: Participation of 40 executives and public officials on the DC trips (Spring & Fall) and Sacramento trip. (Becker)Staff: Emily Lam/Grace Kay

CA Health Exchange - Web Based Brokers: Implementation of policy allowing web based brokers to enroll subsidy eligible Californians through private internet based marketplaces. (Lauer) Staff: Emily Lam

Public Agency Surplus Land: Lead campaign to change VTA's real estate development policy to include affordable housing requirements. (Johnson) Staff: Zoe Mullendore

Improve CA Research and Development Tax Credit: Support solutions to expand R&D investment in California. (Chu, Slater, Korniakov) Staff: Grace Kay*SVCIP

Infrastructure (including broadband)* Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz

Caltrain: Work with Caltrain on short, mid and long term strategies to double ridership in 10 years to 120,000 daily riders. Co-lead the Caltrain Commuter Coalition with the Bay Area Council and SAMCEDA. (Berglund) Staff: Bena Chang/ Zoe Mullendore *SVCIP

Pasta Bowl Community Partnership w/49ers: Raise $200,000 for education programs for disadvantaged kids in needy schools. Staff: Catharine Ingram

Education Summit: Produce annual education conference for industry leaders with 300 attendees, focus on industry hiring needs. (Forsythe, Sege) Staff: Kristina Peralta

Energy RD&D: Advocate for state and federal investments in energy research, development and demonstration projects.(Rotman) Staff: Tim McRae

Promote Co-Equal Goals of Reliable Water Supply & Ecosystem Health: Support Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process. (Ball) Staff: Mike Mielke

STEM/Scientific Research Funding: Support technology innovation investments in scientific research agencies (eg. NIH, NSF and others) (Adesnik)Staff: Emily Lam

Fresh Ideas: Host new California state legislators for get-to-know- you sessions in Sacramento. (Sager, Whitten) Staff: Grace Kay

Promote policies that encourage innovation: Pursue growth policies in health including biotech, genomics, and IT. Staff: Emily Lam/ Alexandria Felton

Homelessness: Establish homeless employment initiative to open up 250 jobs over three years at the Leadership Group member companies. Target 50 jobs in the first year. (Faron, Joseph, Sege) Staff: Amanda Montez

Silicon Valley Property Tax Valuation Fairness: Partner with County Assessors to promote fair valuation tables, consistent & efficient audits. (Slater/Harris) Staff: Grace Kay

Privacy/Big Data* (Forsythe)Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz

Transit & Rail: Pursue efficient, effective and sustainable transit. Advocate for sustainable pricing policies. (Tueckmantel)Staff: Bena Chang

TiVo Santa Run Silicon Valley: Secure 5,000 race participants, raising $125,000 for charity. (Karavadra, Wymer) Staff: Carl Guardino

Young Women's Leadership Summit: Produce 1 regional summit in low-income school, reach 450+ girls & contribute to STEM programs. (Grahan, Turner, York)Staff: Alexandria Felton/Kristina Peralta*SVCIP

Energy Agency Modernization and Reform: Identify and support long-term changes needed at California public agencies in charge of energy policy-making. (Amram) Staff: Tim McRae

Support Regional & State Climate Change Mitigation Efforts: Advance enabling environment that allows clean & efficient energy to scale. (Mohr, Randlett) Staff: Mike Mielke

Support High-Growth Entrepreneurship: Improve the business and regulatory environment for startups. (Becker, Polese) Staff: Grace Kay/Brian Brennan

Red Tape into Red Carpet (RT2RC): Innovative awards reception to honor local governments that achieve meaningful reforms and high quality job creation services. (Sege) Staff: Casey Beyer

Promote Health in All Policies: Approach to improve community health including participation in Partnerships to Improve Community Health (PICH) CDC grant. (Ferrer) Staff: Alexandria Felton

CEQA: Lay groundwork for legislation through ongoing public relations and education. Oversee completion of 6 regional CEQA tours. (Ball) Staff: Amanda Montez*SVCIP

Intangible Software Tax Fairness: Support reasonable, simple and fair application of state business taxes on software & technology. (Slater/Rodriguez)Staff: Grace Kay

Basic Research Funding* Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz

Vehicle Innovation: Encourage the adoption of advanced technology to green our vehicle fleet, enhance mobility & promote sustainable transportation. (Berglund) Staff: Bena Chang

Lam Research Heart & Soles 5K Run or Walk: For Year 2 secure $180,000 funding for another 60 salad bars to bring our 2 Year total to 116. (Anstice, Boland, Hayse) Staff: Carl Guardino

Young Men's Leadership Summit: Produce 1 regional summit in low-income school, reach 450+ students & contribute to STEM programs. (Graham, McNeely) Staff: Kristina Peralta*SVCIP

Grid Reliability: Promote greater grid resiliency, safety and reliability for both gas and electric systems. (Burt)Staff: Tim McRae

Patent Reform: Advocate for legislation that modernizes the patent system. (Marlow, Luftman) Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz

Road to the White House: In-depth policy discussions with top 2016 Presidential candidates in partnership with the Tech Museum. (Boland, Coleman, Hawkins, Johnson, Lauer) Staff: Carl Guardino

Project Advocacy: Endorse and advocate for 10 housing proposals. (Kramer) Staff: Zoe Mullendore

Board of Equalization - Reasonable Audits: Develop reasonable valuations and audit manual guidance for business taxpayers. (Matulich, Rodriguez) Staff: Grace Kay

Patents* Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz

Active Transportation: Promote active transportation modes like biking and walking. (Ball) Staff: Zoe Mullendore

SV Talent Partnership: Encourage member companies to support the work of the Silicon Valley Talent Partnership, to provide short-term, pro bono technology assistance to public agencies.(Hernandez) Staff: Casey Beyer

Outreach and Education: Educate key decision makers on housing issues by organizing one housing tour, four lunches for city officials and four dinners for neighborhood leaders. (Sherrard) Staff: Zoe Mullendore

Net Neutrality* Staff: Sr. Director for Technology & Innovation Policy Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz

Superbowl Transportation: Convene quarterly meetings with all 35 Regional Transportation Agencies to ensure a successful Transit Plan. (York)Staff: Zoe Mullendore

CCBI: Incubated through 2016, the California Climate Breakthrough Initiative will help educate the general public and engage key influencers regarding climate change impacts and solutions. (Hayse)Staff: Mike Mielke

Regional Traffic Relief: Assist San Francisco and Santa Cruz Counties with passing 2016 transportation measures. (Kannappan, Schwager) Staff: Zoe Mullendore*SVCIPAirport: Increase service to Silicon Valley (SJC) to better link the region & support the fiscal sustainability of the airport. Staff: Bena Chang

KEY: 71 - Deliverables Green - Complete Yellow/Green - Partial Yellow - On Track Red - Off Track *Silicon Valley Competitiveness and Innovation Project

Housing Advocacy: Serve on executive committee to administer grant funds to decide whether to form a new housing advocacy organization in Silicon Valley.(VanEvery) Staff: Amanda Montez

*These topics are preliminary, pending the deliberations of the Technology & Innovation Policy Committee to be formed in Q1 2015.

Latino Technology Scholarship Fund:In partnership with HFSV, help provide scholarships to 500 local students to earn college degrees in STEM.(Gonzales, Gonzalez, Hastings, Sanchez, Titinger, Urrutia)Staff: Carl Guardino

Advocates for policies that reflect reliable, environmentally-

responsible and competitively-priced energy.

Improve the quality of life for residents and companies in Silicon

Valley.

Ensure environmental sustainability that improves the quality of life and

supports business growth. Increase the ease and

sustainability of mobility in Silicon Valley.

Advocate for federal policies that improve national business climate and

foster innovation.

Provide opportunities to develop in-depth relationships with local, state and federal

policy leaders.

Advocate for regulatory and legislative tax policies that improve the U.S. and California

Promote policies and programs to improve the health of Silicon Valley

employees. Facilitate land use and development patterns

that increase housing attainability.

Promote a policy environment conducive to the development and

adoption of technology products and processes.

Improve quality of teaching and learning in birth-through-workforce

pipeline.

5/29/2015

Silicon Valley Leadership Group 2015-2017 Workplan Overview with Staff & Committee Recommendations

New Education Reforms: Support the implementation of new statewide and national reforms, such as Common Core, Next Generation Science Standards and STEM.Staff: Kristina Peralta/Eddie Truoun

Clean Energy: Promote financing and deployment of clean energy and emerging technologies and engage in efforts to advance AB 32, to the benefit of the tech sector. (Plund)Staff: Tim McRae

Advance 21st Century Water Supply System: Advance necessary water reforms, practices, policies and tools and financing to ensure the region has the water it needs for a growing population. (Yolles) Staff: Mike Mielke

Silicon Valley Roundtables and Outreach: Organize a dozen strategic roundtables on the federal, state & local levels to develop legislative relationships and further policy. (various) Staff: Grace Kay

Prevention and Wellness: Continue to help employers start or improve wellness programs and offerings as a long term cost containment strategy. (Dawes, Fallon, Karavadra) Staff: Alexandria Felton

Permanent Funding: Identify and support funding sources for affordable housing on the local and state level. Advance a "permanent source" bill. (Berkes) Staff: Amanda Montez *SVCIP

US Business Tax Reform & Permanent R&D Tax Credit: Lower business tax rate/territorial tax. (Becker, Karavadra, Bergmann, Parker)Staff: Grace Kay*SVCIP

Patent Reform: Advocate for legislation that modernizes the patent system. (Marlow, Luftman) Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz

BART to Silicon Valley: Advocate for Phase 2 funding at the federal and state levels. (Engh, Qayoumi) Staff: Bena Chang*SVCIP

Applied Materials Silicon Valley Turkey Trot: Secure 28,000 paid participants, supported by 2500 volunteers, raising $1,000,000 for charity. (Boland, Splinter) Staff: Carl Guardino

Diversifying the STEM Pipeline: Promote policies and programs that prepare and encourage the inclusion and participation of women and underreprsented minorities in STEM careers.Staff: Kristina Peralta/Eddie Truong

Energy Efficiency: Assist end users with improving energy efficiency and data center efficiency. (Bullington, Tierney-Lloyd) Staff: Tim McRae

Support Corporate Environmental Sustainability: Advance corporate sustainability drivers and showcase solutions that protect the environment while growing new markets &/or reducing costs. (Chorley) Staff: Mike Mielke

Silicon Valley Caucus: Strengthen and expand the Silicon Valley Caucus with 100 executives and 13 legislators. (Berglund, Blach, Alusic)Staff: Grace Kay

CA Health Exchange - Employer Advocacy: Advocate for reduced premiums, long term cost containment, and more employer choice. (Boyd, Dickman) Staff: Alexandria Felton

Regional Planning at Lawrence Station: Lead adoption of a plan with higher densities, aggressive mode shift goals and additional affordable housing. (Sege) Staff: Zoe Mullendore

Permanent CA Sales and Use Tax Exemption on R&D/Mfg Equipment Purchases: Improve existing partial and temporary exemption. (Gordon) Staff: Grace Kay*SVCIP

Cybersecurity: Advocate and pass collaborative public-private partnership to protect national cyber infrastructure and enhances the innovation economy. (Archambeau, Karanadra, Milligan, Padwal) Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz

2016 Santa Clara County Transportation Measure: Build a coalition, define expenditure plan, and conduct polling on a potential transportation measure. Staff: Bena Chang*SVCIP

1,000 Hearts for 1,000 Minds: Reinitiate with SJ Mayor Sam Liccardo to recruit another 500 caring tutors for K-8 students in reading, math and science. Staff: Paul Escobar *SVCIP

Education Technology: Advocate for educational technologies that support and improve learning (child development, academic outcomes, skills training).Staff: Kristina Peralta/Eddie Truong

Grid Modernization & Reliability: Promote participation and facilitate integration of technologies that support a smarter, reliable grid and enable development of a new energy market structure. (Burt, King) Staff: Tim McRae

Support Regional and State Climate Change Planning and Preparedness: Engage business community in state and regional climate change adaptation efforts. (Maloney) Staff: Mike Mielke

Federal and State Advocacy Trips: Participation of 40 executives and public officials on the DC trips (Spring & Fall) and Sacramento trip. (Becker)Staff: Emily Lam/Grace Kay

CA Health Exchange - State Legislation: Implementation of policies that increase access to care and ensure long-term cost containment.(Boyd, Dickman) Staff: Emily Lam

Public Agency Surplus Land: Lead campaign to change VTA's real estate development policy to include affordable housing requirements. (Johnson)Staff: Zoe Mullendore

Improve CA Research and Development Tax Credit: Support solutions to expand R&D investment in California. (Chu, Slater, Korniakov) Staff: Grace Kay*SVCIP

Basic Research Funding Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz

Caltrain: Work with Caltrain on short, mid and long term strategies to double ridership in 10 years to 120,000 daily riders. Co-lead the Caltrain Commuter Coalition with the Bay Area Council and SAMCEDA. (Berglund) Staff: Bena Chang/ Zoe Mullendore *SVCIP

Pasta Bowl Community Partnership w/49ers: Raise $200,000 for education programs for disadvantaged kids in needy schools. Staff: Catharine Ingram

Workforce Development: Stimulate demand for the development of a diverse workforce in the Valley, with a focus on recruitment, training, and retention. Staff: Kristina Peralta/Eddie Truong

Energy RD&D: Advocate for state and federal investments in energy research, development and demonstration projects.(Rotman) Staff: Tim McRae

Promote Co-Equal Goals of Reliable Water Supply & Ecosystem Health: Support Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) process. (Ball) Staff: Mike Mielke

Fresh Ideas: Host new California state legislators for get-to-know- you sessions in Sacramento. (Sager, Whitten) Staff: Grace Kay

Promote policies that encourage innovation: Pursue growth policies in health including biotech, genomics, and IT. Staff: Emily Lam/ Alexandria Felton

Homelessness: Establish homeless employment initiative to open up 150 jobs over three years at the Leadership Group member companies. Target 50 jobs in the first year. (Faron, Joseph, Sege) Staff: Amanda Montez

Silicon Valley Property Tax Valuation Fairness: Partner with County Assessors to promote fair valuation tables, consistent & efficient audits. (Slater/Harris) Staff: Grace Kay

Privacy/Big Data (Forsythe)Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz

VTA Shuttles Policy: Work with VTA on a policy for private shuttles that meets VTA's operational needs and encourages shuttles to move SV employees.

Staff: Bena Chang

TiVo Santa Run Silicon Valley: Secure 5,000 race participants, raising $125,000 for charity. (Karavadra, Wymer) Staff: Carl Guardino

Support Regional & State Climate Change Mitigation Efforts: Advance enabling environment that allows clean & efficient energy to scale. (Mohr, Randlett) Staff: Mike Mielke

Red Tape into Red Carpet (RT2RC): Innovative awards reception to honor local governments that achieve meaningful reforms and high quality job creation services. (Sege) Staff: Casey Beyer

CEQA: Lay groundwork for legislation through ongoing public relations and education. Oversee completion of 6 regional CEQA tours. (Ball) Staff: Amanda Montez*SVCIP

Intangible Software Tax Fairness: Support reasonable, simple and fair application of state business taxes on software & technology. (Slater/Rodriguez)Staff: Grace Kay

Regulatory(including FDA and emerging tech)Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz

Superbowl Transportation: Convene quarterly meetings with all 35 Regional Transportation Agencies to ensure a successful Transit Plan. (York)Staff: Zoe Mullendore

Lam Research Heart & Soles 5K Run or Walk: For Year 2 secure $180,000 funding for another 60 salad bars to bring our 2 Year total to 116. (Anstice, Boland, Hayse) Staff: Carl Guardino

Project Advocacy: Endorse and advocate for 10 housing proposals. (Kramer) Staff: Zoe Mullendore

Outreach and Education: Educate emerging community leaders on housing issues through one housing tour and four dinners. Engage and cultivate housing advocates across the

i th h th i

Net Neutrality* Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz

Airport: Increase service to Silicon Valley (SJC) to better link the region & support the fiscal sustainability of the airport. Staff: Bena Chang

CCBI: Incubated through 2016, the California Climate Breakthrough Initiative will help educate the general public and engage key influencers regarding climate change i t d l ti ( )

KEY: 61 - Deliverables Green - Complete Yellow/Green - Partial Yellow - On Track *Silicon Valley Competitiveness and Innovation Project

Latino Technology Scholarship Fund:In partnership with HFSV, help provide scholarships to 500 local students to earn college degrees in STEM.(Gonzales, Gonzalez, Hastings, S h Titi U ti )

Housing Advocacy: Serve on executive committee to administer grant funds to decide whether to form a new housing advocacy organization in Silicon Valley.(VanEvery) St ff Z M ll d

Board of Equalization - Reasonable Audits: Develop reasonable valuations and audit manual guidance for business taxpayers. (Matulich, Rodriguez) Staff: Grace Kay

Infrastructure (including broadband) Staff: Peter Leroe-Munoz

Regional Traffic Relief: Assist San Francisco and Santa Cruz Counties with passing 2016 transportation measures. (Kannappan, Schwager) Staff: Zoe Mullendore*SVCIP

SV Talent Partnership: Encourage member companies to support the work of the Silicon Valley Talent Partnership, to provide short-term, pro bono technology assistance to public agencies.(Hernandez) Staff: Casey Beyer

Road to the White House: In-depth policy discussions with top 2016 Presidential candidates in partnership with the Tech Museum. (Boland, Coleman, Hawkins, Johnson, Lauer) Staff: Carl Guardino

Advocates for policies that reflect reliable, environmentally-

responsible and competitively-priced energy.

Improve the quality of life for residents and companies in Silicon

Valley.

Ensure environmental sustainability that improves the quality of life and

supports business growth. Increase the ease and

sustainability of mobility in Silicon Valley.

Provide opportunities to develop in-depth relationships with local, state and federal

policy leaders.

Advocate for regulatory and legislative tax policies that improve the U.S. and California

Promote policies and programs to improve the health of Silicon Valley

employees. Facilitate land use and development patterns

that increase housing attainability.

Promote a policy environment conducive to the development and

adoption of technology products and processes.

Improve quality of teaching and learning in birth-through-workforce

pipeline.

Event Specific Criteria

1. Objective: There should be a clear policy or relationship objective to the event. 2. Unique and specific message/purpose: There should be a unique role this event plays in driving

this policy or relationship that cannot be accomplished in another setting or program. 3. Timeliness: This event should be timely and relevant in driving this policy or relationship. 4. Broad Interest: There should be broad enough interest from our members and stakeholders to

attend the event - it should not be difficult to get buy-in from guests. 5. Time/Treasure: The staff time invested into this event should provide a worthwhile return on

sponsorships and paid participants. 6. Efficiency: This event should use the calendar space efficiently, and consider achieving the

objective, or elements of it in conjunction with another event or program. 7. (Budget: Revenue threshold of $50k for Signature Programs).

Event categories:

Signature Programs (the big 18):

150+ expected guests

Prior threshold of $30k-$50k

3+ program items comprised of panels and/or keynotes

3+ hours from start to finish Roundtable:

20-80 expected guests

hollow-square type format

conversational based program

typically less than 2.5 hours start to finish Workshop:

20-100 expected guests

theater or tabled seating format

program designed for presentation with break-out groups

Date: May 26, 2015 To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Working Council From: Ria Varghese, Energy Coordinator; Tim McRae, Sr. Energy Director RE: SB 550 (Hertzberg); Net-energy metering Issue This bill would codify the methodology used by Publicly-Owned Utilities (POUs) when establishing their net energy metering (NEM) program limits. The bill would also eliminate the exception that Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LA DWP) currently has from the NEM program as described in Public Utilities §2827. Energy Committee Recommendation Support Summary SB 550 attempts to establish a consistent, statewide policy for all electric utilities when calculating the NEM limit in their service territory. Current state law defines a “large electrical corporation” as one with more than 100,000 service connections in California. Existing law provides that an electric utility that is not a large electrical corporation is not obligated to provide net energy metering to additional eligible customer-generators in its service area when the combined total peak demand of all electricity used by these eligible customers exceeds 5% of the aggregate customer peak demand of the electric utility. This bill would codify the methodology to be followed when establishing a NEM program limit for electric utilities that are not large electric corporations (IOUs) and define the “aggregate customer peak demand” as the highest sum of the nonincident peak demands of all the customers in electric utilities in that service area that occurs in any calendar year. Under existing law, a local publicly owned electric utility (POU) that serves more than 750,000 customers and that also conveys water to its customers is exempted from the net energy metering requirements. The only POU which meets this criteria is LADWP and this bill would delete its exemption from the NEM program as described in Public Utilities §2827. The bill would also impose additional reporting requirements on the POUs. While Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) are required to file monthly reports with the state detailing their progress towards the NEM program limit, the POUs are currently exempt from this requirement. This bill would require POUs to file a quarterly report with the CEC detailing their progress towards the program limit as well as make this report available to the public for download from its internet website. In turn, the CEC would be required to post data on their website showing the progress of every electric utility (that is not a large electrical corporation) towards their respective program limits.

Background NEM policy allows the owner of an eligible renewable energy technology to receive retail credit for a portion of the electricity they generate. The “net” refers to what remains after energy generated is deducted from energy usage and can be either positive or negative. California's NEM law originally took effect in 1996 and eligible technologies are small solar, wind, hybrid (solar/wind), biogas and fuel cell generation facilities. On October 7, 2013 AB 327 (Perea) was signed into law, thereby giving the CPUC the authority to address inequities in current electricity rates, promote further development of clean energy and protect low income energy users. Additionally, AB 327 directed CPUC to develop a new standard contract to be offered to customers after each utility reaches its NEM cap.

The Leadership Group supported AB 327 and has a long history of commenting on NEM and rate design at the Public Utilities Commission (PUC). In 2012, the Leadership Group sent a letter in support of President Peevey's proposed decision (PD) on R.10-04-005 which addressed how to calculate the NEM cap and helped provide additional market certainty for stakeholders. In the letter, we stated that the Leadership Group “strongly supports the continued availability of NEM for homeowners, businesses, schools and governments seeking to invest in renewable energy sources. Many of our member companies have indicated that California's strong renewable energy policies were a key driver for locating their companies in this state and NEM is one of those key policies.” In March 2014, the Leadership Group submitted comments on the proposed decision (PD) for the NEM grandfathering transition period.

Analysis AB 327, in essence, codified the methodology to establish the NEM program limit for IOUs but left out the POUs. In

practice, each POU has interpreted “aggregate customer peak demand” differently, and are using different methodologies to calculate their net metering caps. Such demand within the service area is most easily determined by the use of smart meters. Several POUs do not have large, diverse customer bases over which to spread the cost of installing smart meters. Following the hearing at the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications committee, the bill’s author has included a clause to allow an electric utility that is not a large electrical corporation and does not have smart meters to determine aggregate customer peak demand using a method, as determined by the CEC, other than direct customer data collection. According to the author's office, at least four POUs have exceeded their 5% NEM caps to date and several more are rapidly approaching the caps. Enactment of this bill, as currently written, will mean that certain POUs – the City of Lompoc and in the Turlock Irrigation District, for example - that had exceeded the NEM cap, as calculated using their existing methodology for determining aggregate customer peak demand will be required to offer NEM to their customers once again. LADWP operates its own NEM program, which is not governed by Public Utilities §2827, and therefore an installer must comply with two sets of requirements depending on whether or not the work is performed in or outside of LADWP’s service territory. This offers an opportunity to implement best practices to standardize NEM practices across all applicable utilities in the region.

SB 550 aligns with Leadership Group principles on rate design as it encourages simple, transparent and equitable policies for all customers. With the deletion of LADWP's exemption from the NEM program and increased transparency for the POUs, this bill calls for the expansion of NEM program and ensures that the POUs are subject to the same restrictions that are currently imposed on IOUs within the state.

Status Introduced on February 26, 2015, was last amended by the author on May 4, 2015. The hearing at the Senate Appropriations committee was held on May 18, 2015 and the bill was placed on suspense file. The next committee hearing has been scheduled for May 28, 2015. Support Solar City (sponsor), The Alliance for Solar Choice (sponsor), Brightline Defense, California Solar Energy Industries Association, Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation, Environment California, School Energy Coalition, Sierra Club California, Solar Energy Industries Association, TerraVerde

Opposition California Municipal Utilities Association, City of Lompoc, Northern California Power Agency, Southern California Public Power Authority, Turlock Irrigation District

DATE: June 4, 2015

TO: Working Council

FROM: Land Use and Housing Committee

ACTION: Support AB90 (Atkins)

Background

The National Housing Trust Fund (NHTF) was established as a provision of the Housing and Economic

Recovery Act of 2008, assigning a portion of revenues from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the

dedicated funding source. It provides grants to states to support the acquisition, new construction, or

reconstruction of rental units for extremely low-income families, including homeless families, and

homeownership for extremely low- and very low income families. However before funds could get to

NHTF, Fannie and Freddie were hit by 2008 banking crisis so this source of dedicated money was put on

hold.

On December 11th, 2014, FHFA Director Mel Watt lifted the suspension and directed Fannie and Freddie

to set aside funds starting January 1, 2015. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

estimates states will receive the money from the summer of 2016.

Currently the State has the multifamily housing program to provide a standardized set of program rules

and features applicable to all housing types. It also establishes the CalHome Program to provide grants

and loans to enable low- and very low income households to become or remain homeowners.

Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins proposed AB90 which was to create a framework for how California will

spend any funds received by NHTF. The bill would designate the Department of Housing and Community

as the state agency and require the department to administer the federal funds pursuant to the

multifamily housing program, except that up to 10% of the funds may be appropriated by the Legislature

to the CalHome Program. The bill would require the department to submit notifications with specified

information relating to the distribution, awarding, and expenditure of the federal funds, as prescribed.

Analysis

Housing Trust Funds have been proved to be effective in meeting the housing needs of low-income

households. The Leadership Group has always supported affordable housing and helped to build

Housing Trust Silicon Valley in 1998. The Housing and Land Use Committee recommends a support

position of the Leadership Group.

Date: May 28, 2015

To: Working Council

From: Mike Mielke, Senior Vice President for Environmental Programs and Policy; Lucy Moore, Environment Coordinator

Re: Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) vs. California WaterFix and EcoRestore

Issue On April 30, Governor Brown announced new plans to accelerate restoration of the Delta’s ecosystem and fix the state’s aging water infrastructure. The plans, called California WaterFix and EcoRestore, rely on traditional year-to-year environmental permitting rather than the 50-year-long permit included in the previous Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP), which the Leadership Group supported. In addition, the new plans give each of the two coequal goals put forth by the BDCP— achieving water supply reliability and restoring the Delta ecosystem—a life of its own. This change is reflected in the two distinct proposals, California WaterFix and California EcoRestore. The new plans are designed to address uncertainty related to climate change, as well as to fix the state’s aging and environmentally damaging water infrastructure system. California WaterFix is essentially the same water conveyance system as was proposed in the BDCP. California EcoRestore offers a viable solution to address the deterioration of the Delta’s ecosystem and the new focus allows critical habitat restoration to go forward while the merits of the tunnel plans are evaluated separately. Recommendation Support. Background The Delta provides at least some portion of the drinking water for two-thirds of the state’s population and supplies water to millions of acres of farmland. Half a million people also reside in the Delta region itself. But for years now, the Delta’s natural systems have been under growing pressure. Fish species like the Delta smelt have become endangered and the elaborate system of levees in the region is more than 100 years old in some places. Due to the age and disrepair of the current levees, the system is at great risk of failure in the event of an earthquake, which would allow saltwater from the San Francisco Bay to enter the Delta and foul the freshwater, potentially halting water exports. The Delta Reform Act of 2009 was passed in an attempt to deal with the dire situation and set as state policy the coequal goals of achieving water supply reliability and restoring the Delta ecosystem. The BDCP was then devised as a strategy to meet these goals but public criticism and concerns from federal agencies about the scope of the project cast doubt as to whether the proposed 50-year-plan was realistic. In response, the California WaterFix and EcoRestore plans were put forth. Summary In the current system, water is pulled south in a “reverse flow” direction, taking with it young salmon and other migratory fish that need to reach the ocean to survive. Many of these fish are ground up in the pumps or drawn near protective screens, where they are easy and predictable prey. Because the operation of the current system reverses river flows in a manner that harms endangered species, the projects are unable to move water as needed during very wet years. The solution proposed by engineers is to divert the water farther north, from the Sacramento River. This new system could move water supplies during very wet years in a way that is safe for endangered species. As such, it is a critical adaptation to climate change, which will undoubtedly bring both more intensely wet periods and prolonged droughts to California. The project enables movement of water during wet years that, combined with investments in storage and groundwater management, can be called upon to sustain the state's economy during dry periods. Fresh water would flow to the tunnels naturally, by gravity, with no new pumps to reverse flow and block the fish migration, and no chance of saltwater intruding that far north and tainting supplies for farms and families. In addition, the new system would be more resistant to earthquakes, floods or rises in sea level because the tunnels would be 150 feet underground. Both the BDCP and California WaterFix propose the construction of 3 new intakes with maximum diversion capacity of 3,000 cubic feet per second each, on the east bank of the Sacramento River

between Clarksburg and Courtland in the north Delta. Each intake site would employ state-of-the-art on-bank fish screens that would be designed to help protect Delta smelt. Two 40- foot-wide underground pipelines would carry the diverted water by gravity flow approximately 30 miles south to the expanded Clifton Court forebay where two pumping plants would be constructed to maintain optimal water levels in the forebay for the existing State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) pumping facilities. Those existing pumps would lift the water into the canals that flow hundreds of miles to supply San Joaquin Valley farms and cities as far away as San Diego. Though the total capacity of the pumps is considerable, they will only be operated at their full capacity in wet and “above-normal” years. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group has historically supported the BDCP, given the project’s benefits for Silicon Valley and the lack of feasible alternatives.

Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) vs. California WaterFix and EcoRestore

BDCP

California WaterFix & EcoRestore

Key Issues and Questions

Environmental restoration: The BDCP called for the enhancement and preservation of 145,000 acres of the Delta’s habitats over 50 years. The benefits of this plan included the protection of endangered species of fish, restoration of natural floodplains, the return of more natural flow patterns to the Delta and the creation and protection of wetlands.

Environmental restoration: The new CA EcoRestore proposal will pursue a more aggressive short-term schedule for habitat restoration in the Delta – 30,000 acres launched over the next four years – to more quickly address the deteriorating environment. The proposal has a reduced long-term objective and more limited authorizations under the federal and state endangered species acts in order to get the project going, which is one reason why federal agencies are more supportive of this proposal.

How, if at all, will the two distinct programs (WaterFix and EcoRestore) interact? What opportunities are there for continuing the restoration efforts beyond the initial 30,000 acres?

Water supply reliability: Construction of 3 new intakes on the east bank of the Sacramento River between Clarksburg and Courtland that would divert water from the north Delta into two 40- foot-wide underground pipelines. The tunnels would allow the diverted water to flow naturally to the expanded Clifton Court forebay, about 30 miles south.

Water supply reliability: California WaterFix proposes the same water conveyance system and provides 2,100 acres of habitat restoration (beyond the 30,000 acres included in EcoRestore) to mitigate construction and operation risks.

Without the 50-year permitting guarantee in the BDCP, how will water agencies get assurance of supply? How exactly will the year-to-year permitting plan work?

Timeline: Both the environmental restoration and water supply reliability projects were to be operated over a 50-year period. This goal was unprecedented and acted as a roadblock to federal approval.

Timeline: California EcoRestore will operate under a traditional year-to-year environmental permitting plan and restore 30,000 acres over the next 4 years. As EcoRestore is a more realistic plan, the state is ready to act now.

What is the timeline for California WaterFix?

Costs: Total cost of $24 billion. The habitat restoration and conservation measures were to be funded by $8 billion in general obligation (GO) bonds. The water supply reliability portion was projected to cost $15 billion, borne by the public water agencies that depend upon the SWP and CVP.

Costs: California EcoRestore is projected to cost $300 million over the next four years. These costs will come from Proposition 1 funds and other public dollars. California WaterFix’s water conveyance system is estimated to have the same $15 billion cost as was estimated in the BDCP.

Will California WaterFix have the exact same funding sources as the water conveyance system in the BDCP?

Analysis The new California WaterFix plan comes after federal agencies balked at the BDCP’s proposed 50-year-permit. The administration has emphasized that this new plan is prudent, science-driven and achievable while the BDCP was more of an “idea” or “desire” that was unlikely to get the money needed for over 100,000 acres of habitat restoration. As a more realistic approach, this plan is expected to generate more positive feedback from federal agencies. For Silicon Valley, the greatest benefit will be increased water supply reliability. Water exports from the Delta make up 40 percent of Silicon Valley’s water supply and are under constant risk of a major earthquake or flood, sea level rise and regulatory cut backs. By drawing water from the Sacramento River, before it ever enters the Delta, California WaterFix avoids many of these dangers. SVLG’s previously expressed support for the BDCP was largely based on its greater water supply reliability and this key element is maintained in California WaterFix. California EcoRestore will accelerate and implement a series of habitat restoration actions to support the long-term health of the Delta. As an independent project, California EcoRestore will be able to continue while the merits of the tunnel construction are evaluated separately. This change will allow the new intakes and pipelines to be assessed on their merits without stalling the habitat restoration that is critically needed for the Delta ecosystem. On the other hand, the direct linkage of these two goals in the BDCP was part of the effort to bridge the “fractured interests” of farmers, environmentalists, Delta landowners and Southern California citizens. Designating the project as a habitat conservation plan with a 50-year-permit gave water users paying for the project a greater sense of security. In separating the two goals of habitat restoration and water delivery, the new plan has been critiqued as a mere “water grab.” Many additionally claim that the commitment to coequal goals has now been broken with the introduction of the new plans, and that now the construction of the tunnels will go forward while the Delta’s health is relegated to a separate track. However, separating the two goals allows restoration efforts to begin immediately, as they are no longer contingent on the tunnels project. For a critically endangered ecosystem, immediate action is vital. While there is widespread agreement that the current status quo in the Delta is unsustainable, some groups have proposed alternatives including the improvement of existing levees or a downsized version of California WaterFix’s water conveyance system with a single tunnel. However, focusing solely on the levees would not improve water quality or the Delta’s ecosystem, and a single tunnel would mean no redundancy or backup in the event of that tunnel’s failure. SVLG’s support of California WaterFix is largely based on the resulting increase in water supply reliability and the lack of a viable alternative. Support California Chamber of Commerce, State Building & Construction Trades Council of California, IBEW, International Union of Operating Engineers, Laborers Union of North America, California Citrus Mutual, Fresno County Farm Bureau, Kings County Bureau, Western Growers, Natural Heritage Institute, Association of Water Agencies of Ventura County, Calleguas Municipal Water District, Southern California Water Committee (SCWC), California State Conference NAACP, California Black and Hispanic Chambers of Commerce, Association of California Cities—Orange County, Kern County Taxpayer Association, American Council of Engineering Companies— California, California Alliance for Jobs, California Metals Coalition, Engineering Contractor’s Association, California Small Business Association, California Chamber of Commerce, California Business Industry Association (CBIA), Inland Empire Economic Partnership (IEEP), LA County Business Federation, San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership, Valley Industry & Commerce Association (VICA), Ventura County Coalition of Labor, Agriculture & Business, Ventura County Economic Development Association Oppose Sierra Club California, Restore the Delta, California Water Impact Network, Planning and Conservation League, Golden Gate Salmon Association, Center for Biological Diversity, California Sportfishing Protection Alliance

Date: May 27, 2015

To: Silicon Valley Leadership Group Working Council

From: SVLG Environment Committee

Re: SB 471 (Pavley) – Water, energy, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions: planning

Issue SB 471 focuses on quantifying the water-energy-climate nexus — the connection between the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions generated from the energy used by our water system, to simultaneously advance solutions to climate change and drought. Position Recommendation Environment Committee Recommends Support. Summary SB 471 would direct the Air Resources Board, in cooperation with the State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Commission (CEC), the state Water Resources Control Board, and the Department of Water Resources to develop a statewide GHG emissions inventory for water, using best available data. The bill would establish a program to create a variety of water projects to qualify for funding from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF). Eligible projects could include precision agriculture, local water solutions that reduce energy-intensive water imports, clean energy generation at wastewater treatment facilities, leak detection, and water appliance efficiency. Background The California Energy Commission’s most recent data reveals that California’s water system accounts for almost 20% of the state’s total electricity consumption and 30% of non-power related natural gas consumed by the state

1. Additionally, according to an April 2015 report from the Union of

Concerned Scientists titled, Clean Energy Opportunities in California’s Water Sector, “The water sector uses electricity to pump, treat, transport, deliver, and heat water. And expected increases in groundwater pumping, water treatment, and water recycling mean the energy intensity of water will grow.” The report also states that, “Water and wastewater utilities access electricity by purchasing it from an electric utility or the wholesale market, by signing a contract with an independent generator, or by generating it themselves. Although the electricity purchased from electric utilities is governed by California’s Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) and must become cleaner over time, the electricity that water and wastewater utilities directly purchase or generate is not typically addressed by California’s climate and renewable energy policies.” State law requires electric utilities to disclose the sources of the electricity they sell; this requirement does not extend to water utilities that are not retail electricity providers. And although some water and wastewater utilities independently report the sources of their electricity, the information is not compiled in a standardized format or updated on a regular schedule across the water sector. Even in cases in which water utilities are required to submit power source disclosure forms, these forms combine electricity that they consume with electricity that is sold to other electricity providers. Thus, it is difficult to get a clear picture of the amount and type of electricity California’s water and wastewater utilities rely on and this information gap makes it difficult to understand how their electricity choices impact global warming emissions and the state’s efforts to decarbonize. Currently, state law requires electric utilities to disclose the sources of electricity they sell, yet this not extend to water utilities that are not retail electricity providers. While some water and wastewater utilities independently report their sources of electricity, the data is not documented or archived in a unified or scheduled manner.

1 Senate Environmental Quality. Apr. 27, 2015. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml#

Analysis Localized data remains sparse given the current state of water metering and lack of emissions information related to the water-energy nexus. SB 471 would require the necessary consistency and frequency of data documentation pertaining to energy usage for California’s water system in order to understand this usage and strategize how to minimize and progress with climate change mitigation. While some water-energy related climate pollution is already covered in the state’s cap-and-trade program by the electricity generation sector, water suppliers, treaters, distributors and end users currently lack the information and opportunity to do their part in advancing our climate and water conservation goals. As a result, a variety of projects that might reduce climate pollution from the water system do not currently qualify for project funding from the GGRF. SB 471 will ensure that project types that reduce emissions in furtherance of our state climate goals qualify for funding from the GGRF. Project types could include, but are not limited to precision agriculture, local water solutions that reduce energy-intensive water imports, clean energy generation at wastewater treatment facilities, leak detection, and water appliance efficiency. This bill further outlines that water recycling, wastewater treatment, water end-use efficiency, water technology improvements, best management practices, and other programs that reduce water system GHG emission be eligible for GGRF monies. Status Passed from Senate Environmental Quality on April 29, 7-0. Set for Senate Appropriations May 28. Fiscal impact SB 471 would help direct a portion of the state’s GGRF monies to those projects that reduce GHG emissions from California’s water system. Thus, this bill has no impact on the state’s General Fund. Support Sonoma County Water Agency, California Association of Sanitation Agencies, California League of Conservation Voters, Clean Water Action, Coastal Environment Rights Foundation, Environmental Entrepreneurs, LA River Revitalization Corporation, Las Virgenes Municipal Water District, Mono Lake Committee, Nexus eWater, Sonoma County Water Agency, The Climate Registry, The Energy Coalition, The River Project, TreePeople, Union of Concerned Scientists, US Green Buildings Council, Water and Power Department, City of Pasadena, California Municipal Utilities Agency, California Coastkeeper Alliance (support if amended) Opposition None on file at this time.

May 28, 2015

TO: Working Council

FROM: Health Committee

SUBJECT: Medi-Cal: Reimbursement: Provider Rates (AB 366 and SB 243)

Issue: There are two bills in the legislature, AB 366 (Bonta) and SB 243 (Hernandez), that

would repeal cuts to Medi-Cal provider reimbursement rates, require the Department of Health

Care to increase reimbursement rates for most outpatient providers (both fee-for-service and

Medi-Cal managed care providers) to Medicare levels and increase hospital Medi-Cal rates on a

one-time basis while requiring annual increases thereafter.

Committee Recommendation: Please note that this measure is currently under review with the

Health Committee. The Staff recommendation is that the Silicon Valley Leadership Group

support AB 366 and SB 243. We will have an official committee position on June 2nd.

Background: The Medi-Cal program, operated by the Department of Health Care Services,

provides healthcare services to low-income individuals, families, and children. The San Jose

Mercury News reported in February 2015 that the implementation of the Affordable Care Act

(ACA) has dropped the percentage of uninsured Californians from 22 to 11 percent, largely due

to the 2.7 million Californians who enrolled in Medi-Cal. However, there are not enough doctors

willing to treat Medi-Cal patients, whom will make up one-third of the population in 2016. The

lack of willing doctors to treat Medi-Cal patients results largely from the low reimbursement

rates that the state provides.

In 2011, the Legislature passed AB 97 (Committee of Budgets), which reduced Medi-Cal

provider payments for fee-for-service (FFS) benefits and managed care plan rates by 10 percent

after June 1, 2011. These reductions did not apply to certain provider categories, including

hospital inpatient and outpatient services, critical access hospitals, federally qualified health

centers and hospices, services provided under Family PACT and payments funded by

intergovernmental transfers. These rate reductions, however, did include physician services to

adults, other health care providers (nurse practitioners, psychologists, podiatrists, optometrists,

physical therapists), blood banks, adult day care centers MSSP provider, medical transportation

providers, durable medical equipment, dental service provider, clinics, and pharmacy providers.

According to DHCS, the AB 97 reduction totaled $550 million ($275 million General Fund)

savings in 2015-2016.

AB 366 and SB 243 are two identical companion bills that would increase provider payment

rates in the Medi-Cal program in order to improve access to care for Medi-Cal beneficiaries.

Specifically, the bills would:

Repeal implementation of prior year Medi-Cal rate reductions, including the 10%

reduction in AB 97.

Increase FFS Medi-Cal reimbursement rates for specified medical services to the

amounts reimbursed by the federal Medicare program, and by a similar amount for dental

services. Requires actuarially equivalent increases for managed care.

Increase Medi-Cal hospital reimbursement rate for inpatient hospital services by 16% on

a one time basis and requires annual increases linked to the medical component of the

California consumer price index (CPI). Requires actuarially equivalent increases for

managed care.

Increase rates paid to Medi-Cal primary care providers upon expiration of the temporary

increases require by state and federal law.

Condition granting rate increases on compliance with applicable federal law and

regulation, availability of federal financial participation, and obtaining necessary federal

approvals.

Contain an urgency clause and will go immediately into effect.

Analysis: The intended purpose of AB 366 and SB 243 is to ensure Medi-Cal beneficiaries have

access to necessary medical services by ensuring that providers are paid at rates sufficient to

allow them to continue to see Medi-Cal patients. However, this bill will increase provider rates

across the board and the Senate Committee on Appropriations have suggested that it would be

more cost-effective to develop targeted incentive programs to encourage providers to increase

the share of Medi-Cal patients they are accepting. AB 366 and SB 243 will also continue the

increase rate pay for Medi-Cal primary care providers, which was implemented by the ACA for

2 years and set to expire on December 31, 2014.

There are wide gaps between Medi-Cal enrollees and other insured populations with respect to

access to care. A 2011 survey funded by the California HealthCare Foundation (CHCF) of over

1,500 Medi-Cal beneficiaries identified difficulties in finding health care providers who accept

their coverage, as 34 percent of Medi-Cal beneficiaries said it was difficult to find health care

providers who accept their insurance, compared to 13 percent for people with other coverage.

The survey found a higher percentage of adults with Medi-Cal say they have more difficulty

getting appointments with specialists and primary care providers than adults with other health

coverage. Additionally, employers often bear the burden for cost-shifting due to underfunded

providers.

Financial Impact: AB 366 and SB 243 would acquire annual costs of $11.1 billion per year in

total funds ($6.6 billion General Fund) due to increased payments to Medi-Cal providers in

2016-17 and growing annually thereafter.

Status: AB 366 was introduced to the Assembly on 2/17/2015, passed by the Health Committee

on 4/08/2015, and is currently re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

SB 243 was introduced in the Senate on 2/17/15, passed by the Health Committee on 4/15/2015

and is currently placed on the suspense file by the Committee of Appropriations.

Support for AB 366 & SB 243:

California Academy of Family Physicians (co-sponsor)

California Hospital Association (co-sponsor)

California Medical Association (co-sponsor)

Association of California Healthcare Districts

Association of Northern California Oncologists

California Academy of Audiology

California Ambulance Association

California Association of Health Facilities

California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians

California Children’s Hospital Association

California Commission of Aging

California Coverage and Health Initiatives

California Dental Association

California Healthcare Institute

California Labor Federation

California Medical Transportation Association

California Optometric Association

California Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly

California School Employees Association

California Society of Anesthesiologists

Children Now

Children’s Defense Fund California

Community Action Fund of Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties

Da Vita Kidney Care

District Hospital Leadership Forum

Health Access California

Kaiser Permanente

Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

Maxim Healthcare Services

Medical Oncology Association of Southern California

National Association of Chain Drug Stores

National Coalition for Assistive and Rehab Technology

Occupational Therapy Association of California

Older Women’s League

Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons of California

Paramedics Plus

PICO California

Planned Parenthood Action Fund of Santa Barbara, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo

Counties

Planned Parenthood Action Fund of the Pacific Southwest

Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California

Planned Parenthood Mar Monte

Planned Parenthood Northern California Action Fund

Planned Parenthood Pasadena and San Gabriel Valley

Private Essential Access Community Hospitals

Rural County Representatives of California

SEIU-UHW

The Children’s Partnership

United Ways of California

Oppose for SB 243 and AB 366: None on file.

DATE: June 4, 2015

TO: Working Council

FROM: Transportation Policy Committee

SUBJECT: AB 1096 (Chiu) – Electric Bikes.

ACTION

Consider taking a support position on AB 1096, which would clarify the definition of electric

motor-assisted bikes (e-bikes) and update the regulations to treat low-speed e-bikes as regular

bikes.

BACKGROUND

In 2001, the U. S. Congress passed Public Law 107-319 which exempts electric bicycles under 750

watts/20 mph from the definition of a motor vehicle only "For purposes of motor vehicle safety

standards...", which means that the manufacturers of these bicycles don't have to meet federal

equipment requirements, and are instead governed by the manufacturing requirements.

California, however, still has a state law that define “electric bicycle” as "motored bicycles" or

"mo-ped". Under the existing definition, e-bikes are subject to all the rules of the road, and

additional laws governing the operation and safety of electric bicycles. It's legally a bicycle, so

you can use it wherever and however you can use a bike - except on bicycle and pedestrian

paths that are posted to prohibit "motorized bicycles".

Electric bikes are gaining popularity among Californians who want to get the benefit from

exercising but may be discouraged from traditional bikes due to limitations in physical fitness,

age, disability or convenience. They enable people to have longer trips and get over steep hills.

The range of commuting distance on traditional bikes is 1-5 miles while the range for e-bikes is 5-

20 miles. Removing restrictions for e-bikes on most bike paths will encourage more people

switching from driving to cycling.

Earlier this year, Assemblymemeber David Chiu sponsored a new bill to redefine e-bikes and

update regulations of where e-bikes can be used.

The main content of SB 1096 includes:

Create three classifications of e-bikes:

o Class 1 for pedal-assist bikes, or “pedelecs” (pedal electric cycle), speed limited

to 20 miles per hour;

o Class 2 for bikes with throttles, speed limited to 20 miles per hour; and

o Class 3 for “speed” pedelecs, speed limited to 28 miles per hour.

Class 1 bikes could go wherever traditional bikes are allowed, while Class 2 bikes would

be limited to paved surfaces. Class 3 bikes would be restricted to roads or bikeways that

are adjacent to a road unless authorized by a local ordinance.

Authorize a local authority or governing body to prohibit, by ordinance, the operation of

class 1 or class 2 electric bicycles on specified paths or trails.

ANALYSIS

AB 1096 will enable a reexamination of the access restrictions imposed on users of these bikes in

order to permit more access to bicycle paths, where appropriate and safe. Opening up bike

paths to e-bikes will encourage broader use of bikes in the state. By eliminating ambiguity in the

regulations, AB 1096 will also abet the fast-growing electric bike industry in California. E-bikes use

green battery technology and would be an important addition to California’s growing energy-

efficient transportation system. These quiet and low-speed transportation devices also benefit

small business owners by providing a cost-effective alternative to cars and trucks when used for

equipment transport and deliveries.

The Leadership Group has supported promoting bicycles and environment friendly vehicles for

years. Cycling helps attract and retain a quality workforce. Many of our member companies

encourage their employees to bike to work. This bill will further help promote cycling as an

alternative to driving to commute. Staff recommends taking a support position on AB 1096.

The Transportation Policy Committee will be reviewing this bill on June 3rd.

SUPPORTERS

California Bicycle Coalition (Sponsor);

PeopleForBikes;

Bicycle Products Suppliers Association;

Specialized Bicycle Components;

Bosch;

Mahindra GenZe;

Currie Tech;

Felt Bicycles;

Shimano American Corporation;

Yuba Bicycles

OPPONENTS

None on record (as of 5/15/15)

DATE: June 4, 2015 TO: Working Council FROM: Land Use and Housing Committee ACTION: Support AB1056: Housing assistance for formerly incarcerated tenants. (Atkins)

Background: Individuals released from our state’s prisons and jails either find themselves homeless on their very first night out of a correctional institution or only being able to secure temporary housing. In large urban areas such as Los Angeles and San Francisco, 30% to 50% of parolees are homeless. The existing systems are fragmented and no particular agency or entity is responsible for helping secure housing for individuals leaving the state’s prisons and jails. The lack of available housing is considered as one of the most significant barriers to re-entry and a main driver of recidivism for the formerly incarcerated. The criminal history locks formerly incarcerated individual out of many state and federal programs that would otherwise help them in their situation. AB 1056 is part of Speaker Toni Atkins’ affordable housing package . The bill would authorize a public housing authority to create a housing support program to conduct a needs assessment for each prospective tenant to determine the level of services needed and length of assistance, and provide rapid rehousing services and rental assistance for a specified period and. It would also directs a portion of the savings from Proposition 47, which reduces some crime from felony to misdemeanor, toward providing evidence-based post-incarceration supportive rental assistance. The housing supports include, but are not limited to: (a) financial assistance, including rental assistance, security deposits, utility payments, moving cost assistance, and motel and hotel vouchers; (b) housing stabilization and relocation, including outreach and engagement, landlord recruitment, case management, housing search and placement, legal services, and credit repair; and (c) mental health, substance abuse, and employment services as indicated by individual needs assessments. Analysis: National research has shown that 25-50% of the homeless population has a history of incarceration. Exiting homelessness is daunting regardless of one’s criminal record. However, individuals with past incarceration face even greater barriers to exiting homelessness due to stigmatization, policies barring them from most federal housing assistance programs, and challenges finding employment due to their criminal records. To meet basic necessities with these barriers, previously incarcerated individuals sometimes engage in criminal activities to get by, perpetuating the cycle of homelessness, re-arrest, and incarceration. The Leadership Group has put the homelessness issue on the Work Plan 2015-2017. Our focus has been on the employment side --- establish homeless employment initiative to open up 250 jobs over three years at the Leadership Group member companies. However, the bill, which would provide housing assistance directly to previously incarcerated individuals, is a direct approach and will prevent homelessness. The Land Use and Housing Committee recommends a support position for the bill.

May 28, 2015

TO: Working Council

FROM: Health Committee

SUBJECT: AB 1300 (Ridley-Thomas) – Mental Health: Involuntary Commitment

Issue: AB 1300 makes clarifying changes to better define the various steps of a 5150 detention

process to ensure consistent statewide application and that patients receive the most appropriate

care in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their needs.

Committee Recommendation: Please note that this measure is currently under review with the

Health Committee. The Staff recommendation is that the Silicon Valley Leadership Group

support AB 1300. We will have an official committee position on June 2nd.

Background: The Lanterman-Petris-Short (LPS) Act, a California law governing involuntary

civil commitment for psychiatric treatment, was enacted in 1967. LPS developed a statutory

process under which individuals could be involuntarily held and treated in a mental health

facility in a manner that protected their constitutional rights. The LPS Act also sought to end

inappropriate lifetime commitment of people with mental illnesses.

Under existing law, when a person, as a result of mental disorder, is a danger to others, or to

himself or herself, or gravely disabled, he or she may, upon probable cause, be taken into

custody by a peace officer, member of the attending staff of an evaluation facility, designated

members of a mobile crisis team, or other designated professional person, and placed in a facility

designated by the county and approved by the State Department of Health Care Services as a

facility for 72-hour treatment and evaluation.

The California Hospital Association reports that since the passage of the LPS Act, the changes in

the mental health delivery system has adversely impacted a patient’s ability to receive prompt

evaluation and treatment as required by the current law. Furthermore, California’s 58 counties

have fragmented and inconsistent application of the LPS Act, which has led to increasing

dependence on hospital emergency departments to care for mentally ill patients without the

necessary resources. This has resulted in individuals with mental illness waiting for hours, days

and sometimes even weeks for assessment and treatment.

AB 1300 seeks to modernize the LPS Act by standardizing the 72 hour hold process and easing

the transfer of psychiatric patients by appointed liaisons to move patients from emergency rooms

to psychiatric facilities and facilitating transportation between counties. Some key points of the

bill include:

Specifying that the period of 72-hour detention for evaluation and treatment begins at the

time the person is initially detained

Articulating when a 5150 stops, is discontinued, and who makes the decisions

Emphasizing prompt provision of services in LPS-designated and non-LPS designated

facilities

Prohibiting probable cause determination from considering the availability of beds or

services at designated facilities within or outside of the county

Prohibiting a peace officer or other authorized professional employee of an emergency

transport provider from being detained any longer than the time necessary to complete

documentation of the factual basis of the detention for evaluation and safely complete the

transfer of physical custody of the person

Analysis: In 2013, SB 364 (Steinberg) revised the law related to the 72 hour treatment and

evaluation for individuals with mental health disorders. SB 364 added to the types of facilities

that a county is allowed to designate to provide services to mental health disorder patients and

allowed county mental health directors to develop procedures to train professionals who detain,

evaluate and treat the patients subjected to Section 5150. AB 1300 would further expand and

clarify the LPS Act. Supporters of the bill contend that AB 1300 will define the steps of the 5150

detention process and will ensure that patient receive the most appropriate care in the least

restrictive environment. However, opponents of the bill are concerned that AB 1300 will result in

lower access to care for individuals with mental health disorders by limiting access to emergency

departments.

Financial Impact: The bill has been keyed fiscal but further analysis is not yet available.

Status: The bill was introduced to the Assembly on 2/27/2015 and passed both the Committee

on Health and the Judiciary Committee. AB 1300 is currently re-referred to the Appropriations

Committee.

Support:

California Hospital Association (co-sponsor)

California Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians (co-sponsor)

California Emergency Nurses Association (co-sponsor)

Alameda Health System

Antelope Valley Hospital

Association of California Healthcare Districts

Aurora Vista del Mar Hospital

California Medical Association

Citrus Valley Health Partners

Cottage Health System

Dignity Health

District Hospital Association

El Camino Hospital

Emergency Nurses Association

Fremont Hospital

Good Samaritan Hospital- Bakersfield

Good Samaritan Hospital- San Jose

Henry Mayo Newhall Hospital

John Muir Health

Long Beach Memorial Hospital

Mad River Community Hospital

Madera Community Hospital

Mammoth Hospital

Miller Children’s & Women’s Hospital Long Beach

Mission Community Hospital

O’Conner Hospital Parkview Community Hospital Medical Center

Pomona Valley Hospital

Redlands Community Hospital

Ridgecrest Regional Hospital

Saint Louise Regional Hospital

San Gorgonio Memorial Hospital

Sharp HealthCare

Sierra View Medical Center

Southwest Healthcare System

Stanford Health Care

White Memorial Medical Center

Oppose:

Consumer Attorneys of California

NAMI (National Alliance on Metal Illness) California (Oppose unless amended)

California State Association of Counties