DOCSLIB.ORG

MEASURE AA SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION AUTHORITY San

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

MEASURE AA and the status of projects funded under the Measure. SAN FRANCISCO BAY RESTORATION These annual audits and reports would be submitted to an AUTHORITY Independent Citizens Oversight Committee for review, with the committee's findings posted on the Authority's website. San Francisco Bay Clean Water, Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Program. The parcel tax would appear as a separate item on residents' property tax bills and would be collected by tax To protect San Francisco Bay for future generations by collectors at the same time as and in the same manner as reducing trash, pollution and harmful toxins, improving other property taxes. water quality, restoring habitat for fish, birds and wildlife, protecting communities from floods, and increasing A "yes" vote is a vote to approve a parcel tax of $12 per shoreline public access, shall the San Francisco Bay parcel on taxable parcels within the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority authorize a parcel tax of $12 per Area for a period of 20 years to fund San Francisco Bay year, raising approximately $25 million annually for twenty restoration projects. years with independent citizen oversight, audits, and all A "no" vote is a vote not to approve a parcel tax of $12 funds staying local? per parcel on taxable parcels within the San Francisco Bay Area for a period of 20 years to fund San Francisco Bay IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS OF restoration projects. MEASURE AA By: The San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority was created Kenneth K. Moy by the State of California to fund projects to protect and Counsel to the San Francisco Bay restore the San Francisco Bay. The Authority does not Restoration Authority receive any dedicated local, state or federal funding to underwrite such shoreline projects. Reviewed and revised by Orry P. Korb, County Counsel The Authority has placed on the ballot Measure AA, for the County of Santa Clara which if approved by two-thirds of the voters voting on the Measure, would assess a special parcel tax of $12 per year on each parcel of taxable real property wholly or partially within its jurisdiction, the San Francisco Bay Area comprising the Counties of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma and the City and County of San Francisco. The parcel tax would be assessed for a period of 20 years, from July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2037. According to the Measure, the parcel tax would raise approximately $25 million annually. According to the Measure, proceeds would be used to fund shoreline projects to protect and restore San Francisco Bay for future generations by (1) reducing trash, pollution and harmful toxins; (2) improving water quality; (3) improving habitat for fish, birds and wildlife; (4) protecting communities from floods; and (5) increasing shoreline access for public enjoyment. Projects would be prioritized based on criteria set forth in the Measure, including but not limited to, their positive impact on the San Francisco Bay as a whole, in terms of clean water, wildlife habitat, beneficial use to the residents, and ensuring projects are funded in each of the San Francisco Bay Area's nine counties. The Measure ensures allocation of 50% of the funds to the North Bay, East Bay, South Bay, and West Bay proportional to their populations, with the remaining 50% allocated to projects within the jurisdiction without regard to location. Proceeds from the parcel tax would be used solely for the programs set forth in the Measure, would be deposited in a separate account, would be spent exclusively for projects in the nine counties comprising the Authority, and could not be taken by the State, with total administrative expenditures limited to no more than 5% of the Measure's proceeds. An independent, annual audit would be conducted of all proceeds and expenditures, and an annual report would be published detailing the amounts deposited and expended CC-9012-X1 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE AA MEASURE AA Join Senator Dianne Feinstein and environmental, Preserving the Bay and ensuring clean water are important; business and community leaders from across Contra so are honesty and accountability. Measure AA is more Costa County in voting YES on Measure AA for a clean about filling politicians’ pockets than it is about helping the and healthy San Francisco Bay. This measure is critical environment. to restoring wetlands and protecting wildlife habitat for future generations throughout the Bay Area. Renters, homeowners and small business owners OPPOSE Measure AA because: San Francisco Bay is a part of all of our lives – whether we live along the Bay; work there; walk, jog, or visit parks • Measure AA doesn’t nail down how money will along its shores; or simply appreciate it as we drive over a be spent. In fact, Section 5.A. says the Authority bridge. The Bay also attracts tourists, supports commercial Board can “amend this measure by majority vote.” fishing and attracts quality employers to the region – all of This is like TAXPAYERS WRITING A BLANK which help keep our economy strong. CHECK. • Measure AA ensures POLITICS, NOT SCIENCE, But pollution and other problems have put the health of the DRIVES DECISIONS. There is no requirement for Bay at serious risk. Fish in the Bay are contaminated with a scientific advisory board to evaluate proposed harmful chemicals like PCBs, mercury and pesticides. projects or assess project accomplishments. Measure AA will restore wetlands throughout the Bay Grants will be based on politics instead of objective Area, which provide habitat for fish and wildlife and filter priorities. out pollutants from water to reduce toxins that threaten the • Measure AA is giving money to politicians that it ecosystem. Wetlands also act as a natural barrier against TAKES FROM THE POOR. Google, Facebook flooding and provide urban recreational open space, a and Apple Computer would pay the same tax as resource we all cherish. the owner of a one-bedroom condominium. • High property taxes DRIVE UP HOUSING COSTS Voting YES on AA will: FOR RENTERS AND HOMEOWNERS. Many • Reduce trash, pollution and harmful toxins in the people are unemployed, underemployed, or Bay financially stretched and CANNOT AFFORD TO • Improve water quality PAY MORE. • Restore habitat for fish, birds and wildlife • • Protect communities from floods If this tax passes, politicians will ask for more -- but • Increase shoreline public access they DON’T WANT THE PUBLIC HAVING A SAY in how their money is spent. Measure AA includes important fiscal accountability Our environment needs help, and we need to speak up for protections: it. We need to speak up for ourselves. • All funds must stay in the Bay Area to be used only on local habitat restoration and wildlife protection Measure AA doesn't help -- it's a sham. Demand projects accountability from politicians and VOTE NO! • An independent citizens’ oversight committee will oversee funds to ensure they are spent properly CONTRA COSTA TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION • Independent audits and annual public reports Jack Weir, President, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association ensure transparency Passing this critical measure will ensure that our children and grandchildren inherit a clean and healthy San Francisco Bay. Join us—vote YES on AA to protect San Francisco Bay, our greatest natural treasure. www.yesonaaforthebay.com Steve Glazer, Senator Tony Thurmond, Assemblymember John Gioia, Contra Costa County Supervisor David Lewis, Executive Director, Save the Bay Ron Brown, Retired Executive Director, Save Mount Diablo CC-9012-X2 REBUTTAL TO THE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR REBUTTAL TO THE ARGUMENT AGAINST MEASURE AA MEASURE AA We value clean water and a healthy environment, so we The argument against Measure AA relies upon need to demand genuine protection for them. Measure misinformation. We’ve researched the facts: AA represents a lot of money, but very little will go to the wetlands. The real goal of Measure AA is to raise a lot of Measure AA includes a detailed, equitable allocation money for politicians to spend any way they want. formula that ensures Contra Costa County will benefit. Half of Measure AA funds will be dedicated geographically, with Residents oppose Measure AA because: $90 million guaranteed to the East Bay. The other half will GIVES A BLANK CHECK TO POLITICIANS. be distributed on a competitive basis throughout the Bay • There’s no spending plan, only “example” Area. projects. • No one really knows how money would be spent. Measure AA requires that all projects competing for funding • Measure AA gives politicians power to change the must demonstrate they provide solid benefits in one of law, to spend money however they decide. four program areas: Safe, Clean Water and Pollution Prevention; Fish, Bird and Wildlife Habitat; Integrated Flood TRUE COSTS ARE HIDDEN. Protection; or Shoreline Public Access. Every dollar will be • The Authority plans to issue $1.5 billion in debt, to spent making San Francisco Bay cleaner and healthier. be added to our tax bills. • Repaying this debt, with interest, would cost our The baseline funding commitment of $1 per month that children and grandchildren up to $3 BILLION. Measure AA levies on all parcels represents the minimum FUNDS COULD GET TIED UP INDEFINITELY. we all can do to ensure the shared benefits of a clean • Wetlands restoration requires coordination and healthy bay are preserved for our children and among many agencies. grandchildren. • The San Francisco Bay is a jungle of jurisdictions and regulations. This proposal is rooted deeply in environmental science. • Currently there is no plan to efficiently coordinate Measure AA’s wetlands restoration goals are based on efforts among federal, state and local agencies. scientific studies (baylandsgoals.org). Bay scientists and • Reform must come first. wetlands engineers on the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority's Advisory Committee and Governing Board and WETLAND RESTORATION INCREASES FLOOD preeminent scientific organizations – like the Bay Institute RISKS.
Recommended publications
  • Regional Transportation Measure Revenue Estimates

    Regional Transportation Measure Revenue Estimates

    REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION MEASURE REVENUE ESTIMATES Prepared for: Silicon Valley Community Foundation December 6, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 4 Research Approach .............................................................................................................................. 5 Report Organization ............................................................................................................................. 7 SUMMARY AND KEY FINDINGS .......................................................................................................... 8 NEAR TO MID-TERM SOURCES ....................................................................................................... 11 Regional Sales Tax ............................................................................................................................ 11 Corporate Head Tax .......................................................................................................................... 14 Parcel Tax .......................................................................................................................................... 22 Personal Income Tax ......................................................................................................................... 24 Business Parking Levy .....................................................................................................................
  • 10 the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail

    10 the San Francisco Bay Area Water Trail

    SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA WATER TRAIL 2016 HIGHLIGHTS THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA WATER TRAIL A growing network of launching and landing sites for human-powered boats and beachable sail craft (kayak, SUP, kiteboards, etc.) encouraging the exploration of the historic, scenic, cultural and environmental richness of the 450-square-mile San Francisco Bay estuary. Major funding is provided by the State Coastal Conservancy. 30 $596,900 14 TOTAL WATER TRAIL GRANT FUNDS AWARDED TO DATE SITES DESIGNATED SITES DESIGNATED IN 2016 $490,400 $1,153,480 GRANT FUNDS AWARDED 2016 $’S LEVERAGED THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL A planned 500-mile shoreline path around the entire San Francisco Bay running through all nine Bay Area counties and 47 cities, connecting schools, neighborhoods, jobs, and parks to the shoreline and to each other. Major funding is provided by the State Coastal Conservancy. MILES CONNECTED BY NEW 2016 350 10 47 SEGMENTS MILES COMPLETED MILES CONSTRUCTED IN 2016 $18,788,326 144 GRANT FUNDS AWARDED TO DATE TOTAL MILES PLANNED/ DESIGNED 64 $113,682,562 TOTAL MILES $’S LEVERAGED CONSTRUCTED TRAIL BAY 2016 SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL HIGHLIGHTS 2.5 miles of new Bay Trail Bay Bridge East Span Pathway Completion of new trail along Silicon Valley Trail Loop Study adjacent to Sears Point Wetland connects to Yerba Buena Island Christie Avenue between Powell released in partnership with Ridge Restoration Area opens linking and Shellmound streets closes Trail and the City of San Jose to 2.5 miles of existing shoreline a small but significant gap to demonstrate GHG emissions Bay Trail at Sonoma Baylands in Emeryville reductions along the South Bay Trails network Bay Trail Design Guidelines Google completes resurfacing of First 2016 episode of Open Road Explore the Coast grant awarded and Toolkit released four miles of Bay Trail linking with Doug McConnell features for five additional Bay Trail smart Sunnyvale and Mountain View.
  • Grants and Partnerships to Restore Wildlife Habitat (As of August 2017)

    Grants and Partnerships to Restore Wildlife Habitat (As of August 2017)

    Project Status D3 - Grants and Partnerships to Restore Wildlife Habitat (As of August 2017) Grantee/Community Amount Project Name+E3:J7J3E3:J20 Description of Project Year & Type Status Measurable Outcomes Partner Awarded Resource Conservation Improve in-stream habitat in multiple locations along a 3.7 mile reach 1 District of Santa Cruz Uvas Creek Steelhead Spawning Habitat $446,755 FY 14 Grant Open below Uvas Dam. County • 3 years of vegetation survey data showing a decrease in invasive plant population, including Italian thistle. • Close to 12,000 native plants installed covering more than 1 acre of the meadow. Grassroots Ecology A collaborative volunteer-based project to remove invasive plants and McClellan Ranch Preserve Meadow • Increased habitat value and diversity as result of planting over 30 different types of (Formerly Acterra establish “island” of native plants within a riparian meadow adjacent to $164,200 FY 14 Grant Complete June 30, 2017 Enhancement Project native plants. This has led to increased native wildlife (more native insects, birds, and Stewardship) Stevens Creek. pollinators have been seen). • More than 3,500 community members engaged through 352 volunteer events; contributing 7,427 volunteer hours. To restore the hydrologic function and habitat value to an 8.5 acre seasonal wet meadow and riparian complex by restoring more than 800 Santa Clara County Open Coyote Valley Open Preserve South Valley yards of altered drainages, reseeding approximately 4.5 acres with a $256,576 FY 14 Grant Complete June 30, 2017 Final report awaited Space Authority Meadow Restoration Project climate‐smart native plant palette, and providing an extension of connected lowland California Tiger Salamander habitat into Coyote Valley.
  • Regional Oral History Off Ice University of California the Bancroft Library Berkeley, California

    Regional Oral History Off Ice University of California the Bancroft Library Berkeley, California

    Regional Oral History Off ice University of California The Bancroft Library Berkeley, California California Land-Use Planning Series SAVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION, 1961-1986 with an Introduction by Harold Gilliam and an Afterword by Me1 Scott Interviews with Barry Bunshoft Esther Gulick Catherine Kerr Sylvia McLaughlin Interviews conducted by Malca Chall 1985 and 1986 Copyright @ 1987 by The Regents of the University of California This manuscript is made available for research purposes. No part of the manuscript may be quoted for publication without the written permission of the Director of The Bancroft Library of the Univer- sity of California at Berkeley. Requests for permission to quote for publication should be addressed to the Regional Oral History Office, 486 Library, and should include identification of the specific passages to be quoted, anticipated use of the passages, and identification of the user. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: To cite the volume: Save San Francisco Bay Association, 1961-1986, an oral history conducted in 1985 and 1986 by Malca Chall, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft ~ibrar~, University bf calif ornia, Berkeley, 1987. To cite individual interview: Barry Bunshoft, "Save San Francisco Bay Association and the Courts," an oral history conducted in 1986 by Malca.Chal1, Regional Oral History Office, The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley, 1987. Copy No. DEDICATION THE SAVE SAN FRANCISCO BAY ASSOCIATION DEDICATES THIS ORAL HISTORY TO THE MEMORY OF DOROTHY
  • Restoring the Estuary

    Restoring the Estuary

    1 AA FrameworkFramework forfor CollaborativeCollaborative ActionAction onon WetlandsWetlands US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE etlands in the San Francisco Bay Area are range of interests—including resource and regulato- Wamong the most important coastal wintering ry agencies, environmental organizations, business, and migratory stopover areas for millions of water- and agriculture—convened the San Francisco Bay fowl and shorebirds traveling along the Pacific Fly- Joint Venture (SFBJV) in June of 1995. In September way, which stretches from Alaska to South America. 1996, 20 parties representing this diverse wetlands These wetlands also provide economic benefits, constituency signed a working agreement that iden- offer a range of recreational opportunities, and con- tified the goals and objectives of the SFBJV, and the tribute to a higher quality of life for residents in the responsibilities of its board and working commit- densely populated San Francisco Bay Area. They are tees. The agreement also stated that the Implemen- essential aspects of the Bay region’s unique charac- tation Strategy would be developed to guide its par- ter and, along with the creeks that flow into the Bay, ties toward the long-term vision of the restored Bay help to define the vibrant and distinctive identities Estuary. The signatory partners recognized and of communities around the Bay. However, despite endorsed the goals of the North American Waterfowl their value, destruction of these precious natural Management Plan. However, they enlarged the goals assets continues. Today’s wetlands are only a rem- and objectives of the Plan to include benefits not nant, perhaps 20 percent of the vast wetlands seen only for waterfowl, but also for the other wildlife by the first European settlers.
  • Be Part of the Sollution to Creek Pollution. Visit Or Call (408) 630-2739 PRESENTED BY: Creek Connections Action Group DONORS

    Be Part of the Sollution to Creek Pollution. Visit Or Call (408) 630-2739 PRESENTED BY: Creek Connections Action Group DONORS

    1 San Francisco Bay Alviso Milpitas olunteers are encouraged to wear CREEK ty 2 STEVENS si r CR e iv Palo SAN FRANCISQUITO long pants, sturdy shoes, gloves n E 13 U T N Alto 3 N E V A P l N Mountain View i m A e d a M G R U m E A and sunscreen and bring their own C P 7 D O s o MATADERO CREEK A Y era n L O T av t Car U E al Shoreline i L‘Avenida bb C ean P K E EE R a C d C SA l R S pick-up sticks. All youth under 18 need i E R RY I V BER h t E E r R a E o F 6 K o t M s K o F EE t g CR h i IA i n r C supervision and transportation to get l s N l e 5 t E Ce T R t n 9 S I t tra 10 t N e l E ADOBE CREEK P 22 o Great America Great C M a to cleanup sites. p i to Central l e Exp Ke Mc W e h s c s i r t a n e e e k m r El C w c a o 15 4 o o m w in T R B o a K L n in SI a Santa Clara g um LV S Al ER C Sunnyvale R 12 16 E E K 11 ry Homestead 17 Sto S y T a l H n e i 18 O F K M e Stevens Creek li 19 P p S e O O y yll N N ll I u uT l C U T l i R Q h A t R 23 26 C S o Cupertino 33 20 A S o ga O o M T F t Hamilton A a O a G rba z r Ye B T u 14 S e 8 a n n d n O a R S L a 24 A N i A 32 e S d CLEANUP 34 i D r M S SI e L K e V o n E E R E Campbell C n t M R R 31 e E E C t K e r STEVENS CREEK LOCATIONS r S Campbell e y RESERVOIR A Z W I m San L e D v K A CA A E o S E T r TE R e V C B c ly ENS el A s Jose H PALO ALTO L C A a B C a HELLYER 28 m y 30 xp w 1 San Francisquito Creek d Capitol E PARK o r e t e n Saratoga Saratoga i t Sign up online today! u s e Q h 21 C YO c O T 2 Matadero Creek E n i C W R E ARATOGA CR E S 29 K 3 Adobe Creek VASONA RESERVOIR
  • Bay Area Climate & Energy Resilience Project Stakeholder Interview

    Bay Area Climate & Energy Resilience Project Stakeholder Interview

    Bay Area Climate & Energy Resilience Project Stakeholder Interview Summary Key Findings & Selected Projects FINAL Report — March 2013 Bruce Riordan Climate Consultant Bay Area Joint Policy Committee 1 Executive Summary This paper summarizes input received through interviews and group discussions conducted by the Joint Policy Committee’s Climate Consultant with more than 100 Bay Area climate adaptation stakeholders in late 2012 and early 2013. The stakeholder input centers around three topics: (a) current adaptation projects underway in the region, (b) what an organization needs to move forward on climate adaptation in 2013 and (c) what we need to do together on Bay Area climate impacts – including sea level rise, extreme storms, heat waves, energy/water shortages, price increases on food/energy and ocean acidification. The findings point to actions that will support the Regional Sea Level Rise Strategy (building resilient shorelines), advance projects that are underway on a range of topics, assist individual agencies/organizations in their planning efforts, and create a much stronger, coordinated regional approach to climate adaptation. The interview summary is presented in three sections. First, we present four near- universal needs that were expressed, in some form, by nearly every stakeholder or group. Second, we group the hundreds of good suggestions for action into twelve basic strategies. Third, we spotlight (Appendix A) nearly 100 adaptation projects, programs and initiatives already underway in the Bay Area. Finally, we offer 5 recommended next steps to move from this stakeholder input to developing a strong and action-oriented Bay Area adaptation program. 1 DISCLAIMER: THE RECOMMENDATIONS, OPINIONS AND FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT SOLELY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED AS RECORDED AND EDITED BY THE JOINT POLICY COMMITTEE’S CLIMATE CONSULTANT.
  • The Natural Scene in the San Francisco Bay Area

    The Natural Scene in the San Francisco Bay Area

    Permaculture Education Eco Agriculture 32) Green Gulch Farm Renewable Technology 61) San Joaquin River Conservancy 74) Blake Garden 110) Coyote Hills Regional Park 145) Leslie Shao-ming Sun Field Station Green Schools 213) Grizzly Island Wildlife Area GreatViews &Vistas 17171771 1) Humboldt State Campus Center 16) Arcata Educational Farm www.sfzc.org/ggfindex.htm 49) Schatz Solar Hydrogen www. riverparkway.org www-laep.ced.berkeley.edu/laep/ ebparks.org/parks/coyote.htm www.jr-solar.stanford.edu 179) HSU Environmental Engineering www.suisunwildlife.org 250) Mt. Vision, Point Reyes Peninsula 1 for Appropriate Technology www.humboldt.edu/~farm 33) Slide Ranch www.slideranch.org Energy Research Center 62) Monterey Bay Coastal Trail blakegarden/garden.html 111) Hayward Shoreline Interpretive Ctr. 146) Hewlett Foundation Building* www.humboldt.edu/~ere_dep 214) Audubon Canyon Ranch 251) Mt. Tamalpais 222131311 Arcata166 15959 17) Sustainable Agriculture Farm, 34) M.L. King Edible Schoolyard 75) UC Botanical Garden 147) San Mateo Green Buildings 180) Mendocino Ecological Learning Ctr. 252) Angel Island Eureka www.humboldt.edu/~ccat www.humboldt.edu/~serc www.evansmonterey.com/bobTours www.haywardrec.org/hayshore.html www.egret.org 2) Island Mountain Institute Redwood College www.edibleschoolyard.org 50) Arcata City Hall PV Solar System Special Gardens www.botanicalgarden.berkeley.edu 112) Edwards SF Bay Wildlife Refuge *www.recycleworks.org/ www.melc.us 215) Las Gallinas Wildlife Area & 253) Berkeley, Cesar Chavez Park 49,50500 www.imisa.org www.newfarm.org 35) People’s Grocery 51) Solar Living Center 63) Mendocino Botanical Gardens 76) Berkeley’s 30 Community Gardens www.desfbayfws.gov greenbuilding/localgbldgs.html 181) Emerald Earth China Camp State Park 11 Spinnaker Way 222322 2202 20517979 113) Newark Slough Learning Center 148) San Jose West Valley Solar Library 22299 3) Mendocino Ecological Learning Ctr.
  • Infill Or Bay Fill?

    Infill Or Bay Fill?

    FROM THE DIRECTOR PROJECT TO PARTNERSHIP When is a project no longer a project but recognized as a large-scale collaborative effort expected to continue for years to come? That is S the question we asked ourselves a few months back. After discussions among the staff and the Implementation Committee, we have W become the San Francisco Estuary Partnership, to better reflect the real nature of our work. We are pleased to unveil our new name, logo, NE and newsletter look, and to recommit ourselves ESTUARYBay-Delta News and Views from the San Francisco Estuary Partnership | Volume 17, No.3 | June 2009 to protecting, restoring, and enhancing the resources of our beloved Estuary. INFILL OR BAY FILL? epending on whom you ask, the reincarnation of 1,433 acres of South Bay crystallizer ponds along the shores of Redwood City as a residential/recreational development with a wetland restoration component is either a spectacular example of new urbanist infill or poorly-timed Bay fill—and one Dof the largest Bay fills proposed in years. The proposal—known as the “Redwood City Saltworks”— by Cargill Salt and DMB Associates to build housing, along with soccer, baseball, football fields, and some One of our new collaborations is with River restored wetlands, has spawned two local ballot measures (both of which failed), and a raging debate over of Words (www.riverofwords.org), in which we the best use of these salt crystallizer ponds still owned and used by Cargill. The property was not included in sponsored a K-12 environmental art and poetry the public acquisition of the South Bay Salt Ponds in 2003.
  • San Francisco Estuary Partnership

    San Francisco Estuary Partnership

    An Introduction to the San Francisco Estuary by Andrew Cohen with drawings by Jack Laws Save The Bay San Francisco Estuary Project San Francisco Estuary Institute San Francisco Bay enters most of our lives as an obstacle to pass over as quickly as traffic-choked bridges allow. Although this beats earlier attitudes—when we saw the Bay mainly as a dump- ing ground, a dam site, or a pit to fill in and pave over—we remain largely oblivious to one of the most remarkable wild resources in urban North America. Beneath our wheels lies a world of interest- ing and outlandish life, with much that puzzles even the scientists who regularly plumb its depths. Farther upstream, the organisms of the Delta have also suffered from our inattention. A world of marsh and slough has been whittled down to little more than a few straightened channels jacketed in rock. The simplified ecosystem that remains is viewed as a flood threat by Delta farmers, a faulty piece of plumbing by southern water consumers, and a political nightmare by the agencies charged with managing it. But here too, life survives, though buffeted by virtually everything that California can throw at it. And what lives here? A small fish, known from nowhere else, that smells like cucumbers. A song sparrow weaving its nest inches above the threatening tides. Tiny Dungeness crab and starry flounder, newly-spawned in the ocean, ride bottom currents upstream into the Bay where they develop into tasty adults. Marsh plants sweat salt. Salmon still run, barely. On the mudflats at low tide, coils of sediment spew from the surface like toothpaste squeezed from a tube, the work of unseen worms below.
  • Propositions 26 and 218 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE | MAY 2019

    Propositions 26 and 218 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE | MAY 2019

    Propositions 26 and 218 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE | MAY 2019 Copyright ©2019 League of California Cities® All rights reserved. This publication, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without the permission of the League of California Cities®. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The League of California Cities gratefully acknowledges the contributions of Propositions 26 and 218 Implementation Guide Committee for their hard work and dedication in drafting this guide: Impletmentation Guide Committee City Attorneys’ Department Officer Liaison Michael G. Colantuono, Chair Damien Brower, 2nd Vice President Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC City Attorney, City of Brentwood City Attorney, Auburn and Grass Valley John Bakker League of California Cities’ Staff Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson City Attorney, City of Dublin Patrick Whitnell, General Counsel Buck Delventhal Corrie Manning, Senior Deputy General Counsel Deputy City Attorney, City and County of San Francisco Alison Leary, Deputy General Counsel Ryan Thomas Dunn Colantuono, Highsmith & Whatley, PC Janet Leonard, Legal Services Manager Ben Fay Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson, LLP Daniel S. Hentschke Attorney at Law This publication is provided for general information only and is not offered or intended as legal advice. Adam W. Hoffman Hanson Bridgett, LLP Readers should seek the advice of an attorney when confronted with legal issues and attorneys should Mark E. Mandell Mandell Municipal Consulting perform an independent evaluation of the issues raised in these materials. Gabriel McWhirter Jarvis, Fay, Doporto & Gibson, LLP Trisha Ortiz Richards, Watson & Gershon Kelly J. Salt Best, Best & Krieger, LLP Kevin D. Siegel Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP Betsy Strauss Special Counsel, League of California Cities Sky Woodruff Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson City Attorney, El Cerrito and Larkspur Copyright © 2019 by the League of California Cities®, Sacramento, California All rights reserved.
  • Proposition 218 Implementation Guide

    Proposition 218 Implementation Guide

    3 PROPOSITION 218 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE SEPTEMBER 2007 EDITION 3 This publication is provided for general information only and is not offered or intended as legal advice. Readers should seek the advice of an attorney when confronted with legal issues and attorneys should perform an independent evaluation of the issues raised in these materials. Copyright © 2000, 2007 by the League of California Cities, Sacramento, California All rights reserved. This publication, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without the League’s permission. For information, contact the League of California Cities, 1400 K Street, 4th Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 658-8200. 3 The League of California Cities gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the Proposition 218 Implementation Guide Update Committee for their hard work and dedication in drafting the 2007 update: Michael Colantuono, Chair Colantuono & Levin, LLP City Attorney, Auburn & Calabasas Manuela Albuquerque City Attorney, Berkeley John D. Bakker Meyers, Nave, Riback, Silver & Wilson City Attorney, Greenfield Daniel S. Hentschke General Counsel, San Diego County Water Authority Kelly Salt Best, Best & Krieger, LLP Kevin D. Siegel Deputy City Attorney, Oakland Betsy Strauss Special Counsel to the League of California Cities City Attorneys’ Department Liaison Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, 2nd Vice President McDonough Holland & Allen City Attorney, Calistoga, Moraga, & Rohnert Park League Staff Patrick Whitnell, General Counsel Rhonda Boglin, Legal Assistant 3 Table of Contents Preface