DOCSLIB.ORG

Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline Land Use Plan Amendment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline Land Use Plan Amendment East Bay Regional Park District Planning & GIS Services Department 2950 Peralta Oaks Court Oakland, California 94605 www.ebparks.org December 17, 2013 Public Review and Comment Period: October 14 – November 15, 2013 Adopted by the East Bay Regional Park District Board of Directors Resolution No. 2013-12-301 on December 17, 2013 EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO.: 2013 - 12 - 30 I December 17, 2013 ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE OYSTER BAY REGIONAL SHORELINE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT WHEREAS, the East Bay Regional Park District issued a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline Land Use Plan -Afiienament on October 14, 2013; and WHEREAS, during the 30-day public review period, no individual or agency provided substantial evidence that a significant adverse environmental impact would occur; and WHEREAS, the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment of the East Bay Regional Park District; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District hereby adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline Land Use Plan Amendment, with revisions as shown in Attachment A; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the General Manager is hereby authorized and directed, on behalf of the District and in its name, to execute and deliver such documents and to do such acts as may be deemed necessary or appropriate to accomplish the intentions of this resolution. Moved by Director Siden, seconded by Director Dotson, and approved this I r h day of - E>ecemoer, 2013, by the following vote: FOR: Whitney Dotson, Beverly Lane, Ted Radke, Carol Severin, Doug Sid en, John Sutter, Ayn Wieskamp. AGAINST: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. CERnFICAno~ I. Allen Pulido, Clerk of the Board of Directors of the East Bay Regional Park District, do hereby certift .... the above and foregoin, is a full. true and correct copy of Resolution No. ;:J02 ... 12 - jp/ adopted d ~L!r­ onby tht 'L- Iof 7 ~recto". ttol] at. :~- 1l2J C~~j~~~n Sutter Board President ~ f - --- ........ PROJECT INFORMATION 1. Project Title: Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline Land Use Plan Amendment 2. Lead Agency & Address: East Bay Regional Park District 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, P.O. Box 5381 Oakland, CA 94605 3. Contact Person & Phone Number: Michelle Julene, Park Planner (510) 544-2351 4. Project Location: Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline North end of Neptune Drive, San Leandro, CA 5. Project Sponsor Name & Address: East Bay Regional Park District 6. General Plan Designation: Resource Conservation City of San Leandro General Plan 7. Zoning: CR: Commercial Recreation District City of San Leandro Zoning Code 8. Description of Project: Implementation of the Land Use Plan Amendment for Oyster Bay Regional Shoreline including: The Davis Street Access Improvement Project; Parking to accommodate a maximum of 700 vehicles; Internal vehicular connection between new park roadway and Neptune Drive; Formalization of existing trails; Recreational elements including picnic areas, irrigated turf and landscaped areas, view points and vistas, public art, unleashed dog area, bicycle skills park, disc golf course, special events area, and interpretive programming. Natural Resource Management including tidal marsh enhancement, integrated pest management, and control of non-native wildlife pest species, and vegetation management. Operations and Maintenance activities including on-going grading, on-going landfill monitoring, development of a service yard, and utilities. 9. Surrounding Land Uses & Setting: Oakland International Airport, 0.5 mile north. Industrial, adjacent to east. San Francisco Bay and intertidal sloughs adjacent on north, east, south, and west. Residential, 0.5 mile south. 10. Approval Required from Other Agencies: Regulatory permits from: California Department of Fish and Wildlife San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board United States Army Corps of Engineers Construction and Planning Permits: City of San Leandro Alameda County Land Use Commission East Bay Municipal Utility District i TABLE OF CONTENTS PROJECT INFORMATION Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Project Location and Surrounding Land Uses ............................................................................ 1 Project Purpose, Master Plan Consistency, and Documents Incorporated by Reference ..... 1 Project Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Master Plan Consistency ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 Documents Incorporated by Reference ................................................................................................................................... 3 Background and Existing Conditions........................................................................................... 3 Park History ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Environmental Setting .................................................................................................................. 3 Tidal Marsh ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Upland Plan Communities and Associated Wildlife ............................................................................................................... 4 Wildlife Pest Species ...................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Existing Access and Parking ......................................................................................................... 4 Existing Utilities ............................................................................................................................ 4 Existing Recreation and Other Facilities .................................................................................... 5 Trails .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 5 Picnic Areas ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 View Points and Vistas................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Public Art .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Unleashed Dog Use........................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Bicycle Use ....................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Interpretive Programming ............................................................................................................................................................ 5 Existing Operations and Maintenance Activities ....................................................................... 6 Service Yard ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 On-going Grading ........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 On-going Landfill Monitoring, Operations, and Maintenance .............................................................................................. 6 TOC - 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Specific Element – Davis Street Access Improvements .................................. 7 Davis Street Access Improvements ........................................................................................................................................... 7 Gun Range Parking Area Reconfiguration ................................................................................................................................ 7 New Park Entry Roadway and Trail........................................................................................................................................... 8 New Park Staging Area ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Schedule ...........................................................................................................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Sediment Transport in the San Francisco Bay Coastal System: an Overview

    Sediment Transport in the San Francisco Bay Coastal System: an Overview

    Marine Geology 345 (2013) 3–17 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Marine Geology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/margeo Sediment transport in the San Francisco Bay Coastal System: An overview Patrick L. Barnard a,⁎, David H. Schoellhamer b,c, Bruce E. Jaffe a, Lester J. McKee d a U.S. Geological Survey, Pacific Coastal and Marine Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA, USA b U.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, Sacramento, CA, USA c University of California, Davis, USA d San Francisco Estuary Institute, Richmond, CA, USA article info abstract Article history: The papers in this special issue feature state-of-the-art approaches to understanding the physical processes Received 29 March 2012 related to sediment transport and geomorphology of complex coastal–estuarine systems. Here we focus on Received in revised form 9 April 2013 the San Francisco Bay Coastal System, extending from the lower San Joaquin–Sacramento Delta, through the Accepted 13 April 2013 Bay, and along the adjacent outer Pacific Coast. San Francisco Bay is an urbanized estuary that is impacted by Available online 20 April 2013 numerous anthropogenic activities common to many large estuaries, including a mining legacy, channel dredging, aggregate mining, reservoirs, freshwater diversion, watershed modifications, urban run-off, ship traffic, exotic Keywords: sediment transport species introductions, land reclamation, and wetland restoration. The Golden Gate strait is the sole inlet 9 3 estuaries connecting the Bay to the Pacific Ocean, and serves as the conduit for a tidal flow of ~8 × 10 m /day, in addition circulation to the transport of mud, sand, biogenic material, nutrients, and pollutants.
  • Oyster Growers and Oyster Pirates in San Francisco Bay

    Oyster Growers and Oyster Pirates in San Francisco Bay

    04-C3737 1/20/06 9:46 AM Page 63 Oyster Growers and Oyster Pirates in San Francisco Bay MATTHEW MORSE BOOKER The author is a member of the history department at North Carolina State University, Raleigh. In the late nineteenth century San Francisco Bay hosted one of the American West’s most valuable fisheries: Not the bay’s native oysters, but Atlantic oysters, shipped across the country by rail and seeded on privately owned tidelands, created private profits and sparked public resistance. Both oyster growers and oyster pirates depended upon a rapidly changing bay ecosystem. Their struggle to possess the bay’s productivity revealed the inqualities of ownership in the American West. An unstable nature and shifting perceptions of San Francisco Bay combined to remake the bay into a place to dump waste rather than to find food. Both growers and pirates disappeared following the collapse of the oyster fishery in the early twentieth century. In 1902 twenty-two-year-old Oakland writer Jack London published his first book, an adventure story for boys. In the novel, London’s boy hero runs away from a comfortable middle-class home to test his mettle in the rough world of the San Francisco waterfront. Plucky but naïve, Joe Bronson soon finds himself sailing down San Francisco Bay in a rickety sloop called the Dazzler, piloted by hard-drinking French Pete and his tough orphan sidekick, the ’Frisco Kid. The Dazzler joins a small fleet of boats congregating in the tidal flats along the eastern shoreline of San Francisco Bay where French Pete orders Joe and the Kid to drag a triangular piece of steel, an oyster dredge, over the muddy bottom.
  • Planning for Native Oyster Restoration in San Francisco Bay. Final Report to California Coastal Conservancy Agreement

    Planning for Native Oyster Restoration in San Francisco Bay. Final Report to California Coastal Conservancy Agreement

    Planning for Native Oyster Restoration in San Francisco Bay Final Report to California Coastal Conservancy Agreement # 05-134 Edwin Grosholza, Jim Mooreb, Chela Zabina, Sarikka Attoea and Rena Obernoltea aDepartment of Environmental Science and Policy University of California, Davis bCalifornia Department of Fish and Game Funding provided by the California Ocean Protection Council Introduction Historically, native Olympia oysters Ostreola conchaphila (=Ostrea lurida) (Turgeon et al. 1998) were an abundant and ecologically important part of the fauna in West Coast estuaries and an important fishery (Barnett 1963, Baker 1995). Unfortunately, the popularity of the fishery that began in the 1850s resulted in the complete collapse of native oyster populations along the west coast of the U.S. during the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Barnett 1963, Baker 1995). Not only was the fishery lost, but so were the key ecosystem services provided by native oysters. Studies of oysters in estuaries in the eastern U.S. have shown that native oyster reefs (Crassostrea virginica) act as a “foundation species” by creating a refuge from predators and physical stress as well as a food source resulting in increased local diversity of fishes and invertebrates (Zimmerman 1989, Lenihan 1999, Micheli and Peterson 1999, Lenihan et al. 2001). In the largely unstructured, soft-sediment habitats of West Coast estuaries, aggregations of native oysters were likely to have provided similar functions and have been shown to increase invertebrate species richness (Kimbro and Grosholz 2006). The introduction of exotic Pacific oysters (Crassostrea gigas) from Asia in the early 20th century provided a successful replacement for the native oyster fishery.
  • Plant List for Lawn Removal

    Plant List for Lawn Removal

    VERY LOW WATER USE PLANTS Trees * Aesculus californica California buckeye * Cercis occidentalis western redbud * Fremontodendron spp. flannel bush * Pinus abiniana foothill pine * Quercus agrifolia coast live oak * Quercus wislizeni interior live oak Shrubs * Adenostoma fasciciulatum chamise * Arctostaphylos spp. manzanita * Artemesia californica California sagebrush * Ceanothus spp wild lilac * Cercocarpus betuloides mountain mahogany * Amelanchier alnifolia service berry * Dendromecon spp. bush poppy * Heteromeles arbutifolia toyon * Mahonia nevinii Nevin mahonia Perennials * Artemesia tridentata big sagebrush Ballota pseudodictamnus Grecian horehouond * Monardella villosa coyote mint * Nasella needlegrass Penstemon centranthifolius "Scarlet * scarlet bugler penstemon Bugler" * Romneay coulteri Matilija poppy * Salvia apiana white sage * Sisyrinchium bellum blue-eyed grass * Trichostema lanatum woolly blue curls Edibles Olea europaea olive Opunita spp. prickly pear/cholla Cactus and Succulents Cephalocereus spp. old man cactus Echinocactus barrel cactus Graptopetalum spp graptopetalum Bunch Grasses * Bouteloua curtipendula sideoats gramma * Festuca idahoensis Idaho fescue * Leymus condensatus 'Canyon Prince' giant wild rye Bulbs Amaryllis belladona naked lady * Brodiaea spp. brodiaea Colchicum agrippium autumn crocus Muscari macrocarpum grape hyacinth Narcissus spp. daffodil Scilla hughii bluebell Scilla peruviana Peruvian lily Annuals Dimorphotheca spp. African daisy * Eschscholzia californica California poppy Mirabilis jalapa four
  • A Geographic History of San Lorenzo Creek Watershed

    A Geographic History of San Lorenzo Creek Watershed

    A GEOGRAPHIC HISTORY OF SAN LORENZO CREEK WATERSHED LANDSCAPE PATTERNS UNDERLYING HUMAN ACTIVITIES IN THE LANDS OF THE YRGIN MISSION SAN JOSE RANCHO, 1796-1834 SAN LEANDRO, SAN LORENZO, AND SAN RAMON RANCHOS, 1830s-1849 TOWNS OF HAYWARD’S, SQUATTERSVILLE, AND MT EDEN, 1850s CITIES OF HAYWARD, SAN LORENZO, AND CASTRO VALLEY Robin Grossinger and Elise Brewster San Francisco Estuary Institute Regional Watershed Program Prepared for the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Clean Water Program SFEI Contribution 85 December 2003 Some agents of change in the San Lorenzo Creek watershed, 1769-2003. Rainfall data (July-June year) compiled by Lester McKee from Hayward data, using correlation to early San Francisco rainfall records that were developed by Jan Null (ggweather.com). Local flooding data from FEMA 1986 and Modrell (pers. comm.). Mission livestock data from Jackson 1994. Population data from Eden Writers 1975. San Francisco Estuary Institute 2 San Lorenzo Creek Landscape Patterns in the San Lorenzo Creek Watershed and Surrounding Areas Table of Contents San Lorenzo Creek Watershed ……………………………………………………………………………. 2 San Lorenzo Creek …………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Alluvial Plain …………………………………………………………………………………….……………. 5 The Bay - Tidal Marshland ………………………………………………………….……………………. 6 Salt Ponds ………………………………………………………….………………………………………….. 7 Landings ……………………………………………………………………………………………….………. 7 Mission San Jose Rangeland ………………………………………………………………….……….. 9 Diramaderos - Sausals - Indian Grant - San Lorenzo Grove …………………….……………
  • San Francisco Bay Mercury TMDL Report Mercury TMDL and Evaluate New Card Is in Preparation by the Water and Relevant Information from Board

    San Francisco Bay Mercury TMDL Report Mercury TMDL and Evaluate New Card Is in Preparation by the Water and Relevant Information from Board

    Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Summary Waterbody – The San Francisco Bay is located on the Central Coast of California. It is a broad and shallow natural embayment. The northern part of the Bay has more flushing than the southern portion because the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers discharge into the northern segment, while smaller, local watersheds provide freshwater to the southern part. Water Quality The northern and southern portions of the Bay are linked by the Central Bay, which provides the connection to the Pacific Ocean. Progress All segments of San Francisco Bay are included in this TMDL, including marine and estuarine waters adjacent to the Bay (Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta within San Francisco Bay region, Suisun Bay, Report Carquinez Strait, San Pablo Bay, Richardson Bay, Central San Francisco Bay, Lower San Francisco Bay, and South San Francisco Bay including the Lower South Bay) (see map below). Three additional mercury- impaired waterbodies that are specific areas within these larger segments are also included in this TMDL (Castro Cove, Oakland Inner Harbor, and San Leandro Bay). San Francisco Bay – Mercury (Approved 2008) WATER QUALITY STATUS ○ TMDL targets achieved ○ Conditions improving ● Improvement needed ○ Data inconclusive Contacts EPA: Luisa Valiela at (415) 972-3400 or [email protected] San Francisco Bay Water Board: Carrie Austin at (510) 622-1015 or [email protected] Segments of San Francisco Bay Last Updated 6/15/2015 Progress Report: Mercury in the San Francisco Bay Water Quality Goals Mercury water quality objectives were identified to protect both people who consume Bay fish and aquatic organisms and wildlife: To protect human health: Not to exceed 0.2 mg mercury per kg (mg/kg) (average wet weight of the edible portion) in trophic level1 (TL) 3 and 4 fish.
  • 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.
  • General Management Plan 1980 Volume 2

    General Management Plan 1980 Volume 2

    general management plan volume 2 natural / cultural resource management september 1980 . ---·-- -- --- -------,---·--·-----···--- - - -· ·_~_ •·.• .. -•,·· ''( ... ::: ' .. _:.;~~!5'~ ' ' ,,' / .... - ., .:._ :_::.~.":_~~:~_~;~ I i...r.. / f·i' 1: CHANN L I ' -'rt~:;! '·'.l\tJACAPA'.'SANTAJl!i~,;~~,- NATIONAL PARK / CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDED: Kenneth Raithel, Assistant Manager August 1980 Denver Service Center William Ehorn, Superintendent August 1980 Channel Islands Natfonal Park APPROVED: Howard H. Chapman, Regional Director September 1980 Western Region GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN ANACAPA-SANTA BARBARA-SAN MIGUEL ISLANDS CHANNEL ISLANDS NATIONAL PARK i _J _.... --- ABSTRACT The resource management plan for Channel Islands National Park discusses cultural and natural resources and deals primarily with currently identified problems as well as proposed solutions for the three islands currently managed by the National Park Service. Initial sections provi•de background information regarding the park and influences on its resources and discuss the role of research within the park. Separate sections deal with each resource type. Specific resource problems that require management action are identified, and actions are recommended to either obtain additional information or to solve the identified problem. Impacts likely· to result from the recommended actions are noted. Few alternatives are discussed for an identified problem because few alternatives were identified as feasible. Further study is required before actions with the potential for significant
  • Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, Circa 1852-1904

    Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, Circa 1852-1904

    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/hb109nb422 Online items available Finding Aid to the Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, circa 1852-1904 Finding Aid written by Michelle Morton and Marie Salta, with assistance from Dean C. Rowan and Randal Brandt The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California, 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ © 2008, 2013 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Finding Aid to the Documents BANC MSS Land Case Files 1852-1892BANC MSS C-A 300 FILM 1 Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in Cali... Finding Aid to the Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, circa 1852-1904 Collection Number: BANC MSS Land Case Files The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California Finding Aid Written By: Michelle Morton and Marie Salta, with assistance from Dean C. Rowan and Randal Brandt. Date Completed: March 2008 © 2008, 2013 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Collection Summary Collection Title: Documents pertaining to the adjudication of private land claims in California Date (inclusive): circa 1852-1904 Collection Number: BANC MSS Land Case Files 1852-1892 Microfilm: BANC MSS C-A 300 FILM Creators : United States. District Court (California) Extent: Number of containers: 857 Cases. 876 Portfolios. 6 volumes (linear feet: Approximately 75)Microfilm: 200 reels10 digital objects (1494 images) Repository: The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California, 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ Abstract: In 1851 the U.S.
  • California Fish and Game “Conservation of Wildlife Through Education”

    California Fish and Game “Conservation of Wildlife Through Education”

    Spring 2015 81 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME “Conservation of Wildlife Through Education” Volume 101 Spring 2015 Number 2 CDFW Photo by Terry Maas Published Quarterly by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 82 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME Vol. 101, No. 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Jerry Brown, Governor CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY John Laird, Secretary for Natural Resources FISH AND GAME COMMISSION Jack Baylis, President Jim Kellogg, Vice President Richard B. Rogers, Member Jacque Hostler-Carmesin, Member Michael Sutton, Member Sonke Mastrup, Executive Director DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE Charlton “Chuck” Bonham, Director CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME EDITORIAL STAFF Vern Bleich ........................................................................................Editor-in-Chief Debra Hamilton ............ Office of Communication, Education and Outreach - AVU Jeff Villepique, Steve Parmenter ........................................... Inland Deserts Region Scott Osborn, Laura Patterson, Joel Trumbo ................................... Wildlife Branch Dave Lentz, Kevin Shaffer ............................................................. Fisheries Branch Peter Kalvass, Nina Kogut .................................................................Marine Region James Harrington .......................................Office of Spill Prevention and Response Cherilyn Burton ...................................................................... Native Plant Program Spring 2015 83 VOLUME 101 SPRING 2015 NUMBER 2 Published Quarterly by STATE OF
  • How California Was Won: Race, Citizenship, and the Colonial Roots of California, 1846 – 1879

    How California Was Won: Race, Citizenship, and the Colonial Roots of California, 1846 – 1879

    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations 2019 How California Was Won: Race, Citizenship, And The Colonial Roots Of California, 1846 – 1879 Camille Alexandrite Suárez University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Suárez, Camille Alexandrite, "How California Was Won: Race, Citizenship, And The Colonial Roots Of California, 1846 – 1879" (2019). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 3491. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/3491 This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/3491 For more information, please contact [email protected]. How California Was Won: Race, Citizenship, And The Colonial Roots Of California, 1846 – 1879 Abstract The construction of California as an American state was a colonial project premised upon Indigenous removal, state-supported land dispossession, the perpetuation of unfree labor systems and legal, race- based discrimination alongside successful Anglo-American settlement. This dissertation, entitled “How the West was Won: Race, Citizenship, and the Colonial Roots of California, 1849 - 1879” argues that the incorporation of California and its diverse peoples into the U.S. depended on processes of colonization that produced and justified an adaptable acialr hierarchy that protected white privilege and supported a racially-exclusive conception of citizenship. In the first section, I trace how the California Constitution and federal and state legislation violated the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. This legal system empowered Anglo-American migrants seeking territorial, political, and economic control of the region by allowing for the dispossession of Californio and Indigenous communities and legal discrimination against Californio, Indigenous, Black, and Chinese persons.
  • Getting to Know the County of Alameda

    Getting to Know the County of Alameda

    Presented by Carol S Orth, CPA Division Chief, Tax Analysis Unit Tax Manager’s Subcommittee Meeting February, 2016 Seventh most populous county in California Fourth most racially diverse county in the United States Land area of 739 square miles and population of 2,043 per square mile Water area is 84 square miles Total area is 823 square miles 2015-16 Total assessed value net other exemptions - $237,563 million Total parcel count - 498,559 Total initial tax charge for 2015-16 - $3.4 billion (includes AV and fixed charges) Budget of over $2.7 billion 2015-16 Top Ten Taxpayers by Assessed Value 1. Pacific Gas and Electric 2. Tesla Motors, Inc 3. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals 4. Digital 720, 2nd LLC 5. Russell City Energy Company 6. AT&T 7. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, INC 8. 5616 Bay Street Investors LLC 9. PSB Northern California Industrial Portfolio LLC 10. Bayer Healthcare LLC Borders the San Francisco Bay on the west with San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, crest of the Berkeley Hills forms northeastern border with Contra Costa County, southern border with Santa Clara County, eastern border with San Joaquin County and southeastern border with Stanislaus County Hayward Fault, a major branch of the San Andreas Fault to the west, runs through the most populated areas of Alameda County and the Calaveras Fault runs through the southeastern part of the county. On March 25, 1853, an Act of Incorporation was created and Alameda County was "born". Created from parts of Contra Costa and Santa Clara Counties, the act was signed into law by Governor Bigler on April 6, 1853.