Preview
MOO
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
Document Scanning Lead Sheet
Aug-20-2012 3:31 pm
Case Number: CPF-12-512411
Filing Date: Aug-20-2012 3:31
Filed by: CAROL BALISTRERI
Juke Box: 001 Image: 03731632
GENERIC CIVIL FILING (NO FEE)
ROGER WILLIAMS VS. JOHN ARNTZ
001003731632
Instructions:
Please place this sheet on top of the document to be scanned.OLSON HAGEL & FISHBURN LLP
555 Caprrot MALL, Suite 1425, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
Lance H. Olson [SBN 077634]
Deborah B. Caplan [SBN 196606]
Matthew R. Cody [SBN 267191] F
Joshua R. Daniels [SBN 259676} Superior Coun of Gait, D
OLSON HAGEL & FISHBURN LLP otSan Francisege
555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1425 AUG
Sacramento, CA 95814 20 2012
Telephone: (916) 442-2952
Facsimile: (916) 442-1280
Cc
oy CK OF THE Court
Deputy Siar e>
Attorneys for Petitioner
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
ROGER WILLIAMS, CASE NO.: CPF-12-512411
Petitioner, PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF VERIFIED
v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
JOHN ARN'Z in his official capacity as the [Elec. Code §§ 9295; 13314]
Director of the Department of Elections in San
Francisco, CITY ELECTION MATTER:
IMMED! E ACTIO: QUESTED
Respondent,
[PROPOSITION F]
|
| STATUTORY DEADLINE:
| AUGUST 24, 2012 @ 12:00 NOON
1
DENNIS J. HERRERA in his official capacity as
the City Attorney of San Francisco, !
| DATE: August 28, 2012
Real Party In Interest. | TIME: 9:30 am.
DEPT: 302
— JUDGE: Hon. Ernest Goldsmith
SAVE HETCH HETCITY, NO ON F,
Intervenor. BY FAX
1
~~ PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE iso VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATEOLSON HAGEL & FISHBURN LLP
555 CaPiTOL MALL, SuiTe 1425, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
eC em IN Aw
TO THE HONORABLE ERNEST GOLDSMITH, JUDGE OF THE ABOVE ENTITLED COURT:
Pursuant to Evidence Code sections 451, 452, and 453, Petitioner hereby requests that this Court
take judicial notice of the below-enumerated documents. This request is based on the Memorandum of
Points and Authorities and the Declaration of Matthew R. Cody set forth below.
The documents that are the subject of this motion are:
DESCRIPTION EXH
Legal Text of Propo: tior Oo oe A
Cireulating Title and Summary for Proposition | F by the City at Aitomey | — B
Ballot t Question by the City Attorney oe : c
San Francisco Municipal Elections Code (Articles \ Vand tv) D
| Webpage fort the ‘Department of Flections : ~ E
Draft Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee : F
Department analysis-San Francisco Public Utilities Commission - G
| Draft digest suggestions from SFPUC- Water and Favironment — HH |
Letter to BSC-! Henegan a oe I
Letter to BSC-Rosekrans , J
‘Draft-Controller Statement on Water and Environment Plan K
Approved Digest by the Ballot Simplifi ication Commitee
Re quest for Reconsideration
M
! 1. etter reparding Request for reconsideration~-Heneghan N
Final Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee — , °
Webpage published by the National Park Service P
Water Supply Sustainability by San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Q
Webpage published by the City Attorney’s Office R
FAQ’s webpage published by San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Ss
Exhibits A through C, and excerpts of Exhibit D, were attached as exhibits to the Verified
2
= iso VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
“PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOT!OLSON HAGEL & FISHBURN LLP
555 Capitol MALL, SUITE 1425, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
Petition for Writ of Mandate. Petitioner hereby incorporates those documents into this request for
judicial notice and requests that the Court take judicial notice of Exhibits A through S.
Mt
Dated: August 20, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
OLSON HAGEL & FISHBURN LLP
Lance H. Olson
Deborah B. Caplan
Matthew R. Cody
Joshua R. Daniels
By: LEMHER. Cte,
MATTHEW R. CODY
Attorneys for Petitioner
3
PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE iso VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATEOLSON HAGEL & FISHBURN LLP
655 CAPITOL MALL, Suite 1425, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
oO me Ia DA HW FF WN =
NR NR NN Ne Be se se se se ese Se Se
BNR RP BER YS FEB RaAESR CS
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Evidence Code! sections 451-453 provide authority for the Court to take judicial notice of
documents under certain circumstances. The documents enumerated in Petitioner’s Request for Judicial
Notice are proper subjects for judicial notice and are relevant to the Court’s inquiry. Section 451
requires this Court to take notice of the laws of California. Section 452 grants this Court discretion to
take judicial notice of “[o]fficial acts of the legislative, executive, and judicial departments ofthe United
States and of any state of the United States.” ( Ev. Code, § 452, subd. (c).) Section 452 also authorizes
judicial notice of “[flacts and propositions that are not reasonably subject to dispute and are capable of
immediate and accurate determination by resort to sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.” (Id.,
subd. (h)). Under section 453, the Court “shall” take judicial notice of any matter specified in section
452 where notice of the request is provided to the adverse party and where the Court is provided
sufficient information to verify the matters subject to the request.
As discussed below, Exhibits A through S are proper subjects of judicial notice. With the
exception of Exhibit P, each exhibit is either an official document published by the City and County of
San Francisco, or a document that is made available through the website of a public official in San
Francisco. Moreover, the documents are not reasonably subject to dispute and they are capable of
immediate verification by sources of reasonably indisputable accuracy.
Exhibits A, B, E, F, G, HI, I, J, K, L, M, N and O are all documents made available through the
website of Respondent’s office, the Department of Elections for the City and County of San Francisco
(http://sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=599, last visited August 19, 2012). Specifically, the documents are
made available through a website dedicated for materials of the Ballot Simplification Committee
(http://sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=3550, last visited August 20, 2012), described as follows:
o Exhibit A is the “Legal text-—Water and Environment Plan,” (i.¢., Proposition F), as submitted
to the Department of Elections on February 29, 2012.
o Exhibit B is the circulating title and summary prepared by the City Attorney for Proposition F,
labeled as “Title and Summary—Water and Environment Plan.”
' Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to the Evidence Code.
4
PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE iso VERIFID PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATEOLSON HAGEL & FISHBURN LLP
555 CAPITOL MALL, SUITE 1425, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
Exhibit E is the webpage of the Department of Elections, which lists materials used by the
Ballot Simplification Committee for purposes of preparing the ballot digests for the November 6,
2012 election.
Exhibit F is the draft digest published by the Ballot Simplification Committee published for the
August 2, 2012 meeting, labeled as the “Draft digest—Water and Environment Plan.”
Exhibit G is an analysis of Proposition F submitted by the San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission, labeled as the “Department analysis—San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.”
Exhibit H is a proposed digest as suggested by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
for Proposition F, labeled as “Draft digest suggestions from SFPUC-Water and Environment.”
Exhibit J is a letter from counsel for “Save Hetch Hetchy,” a political committee that opposes
Proposition F, submitted to the Ballot Simplification Committee for consideration at the August
2, 2012 meeting regarding the digest for Proposition F, labeled as “Letter to BSC-Henegan
[sic].”
Exhibit J is a letter from the drafters of Proposition F submitted to the Ballot Simplification
Committee for consideration at the August 2, 2012 meeting regarding the digest for Proposition
F, labeled as “Letter to BSC-Rosekrans.”
Exhibit K is a draft of the fiscal analysis of Proposition F provided by the Controller for the City
and County of San Francisco, labeled as “Draft-Controller Statement on Water and Environment
Plan.”
Exhibit L is the approved digest published by the Ballot Simplification Committee after the
August 2 2012, labeled as the “Approved digest-Water and Environment Plan.”
Exhibit M is a request for reconsideration filed by the drafters of Proposition F submitted to the
Ballot Simplification Committee after the August 2, 2012 meeting, labeled as “Request for
reconsideration w/attachments A&B—Olson and Rosekrans.”
Exhibit N is a {etter from the Save Hetch Hetchy committee that opposed the request for
reconsideration, labeled as “Letter regarding Request for reconsideration—Heneghan.”
Exhibit O is the final digest approved by the Ballot Simplification Committee, labeled as
“FINAL digest-Water and Environment Plan.”
5
PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE iso VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATEOLSON HAGEL & FISHBURN LLP
555 Capito! MAIi, SuTE 1425, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
N
SC Oo wen aA wn FF Ww
BP B® N
15
Exhibit C is a list of the ballot questions prepared by the City Attorney’s office for the
November 6, 2012 election. On or about August 13, 212, undersigned counsel received a copy of the
ballot questions from the proponent of Proposition F. (Cody Decl., J 3.)
Exhibit D consists of Articles V and VI of the San Francisco Municipal Elections Code. This
version of the code is available at
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/elections/municipalelectionscode?f=templates$fn=d
efault.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca$syno=1 (last visited Aug. 19, 2012).
Exhibit Q is a study published by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, exclusive of
the appendices. The study is included in the list of studies provided in Attachment B of the
departmental analysis included in this Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit G. Attachment B provides
a link to this study under the heading “Water Supply and Demand Planning, and is entitled “2009 Water
Supply Availability Study for City and County of San Francisco,” which is available directly at
https://infrastructure.sfwater.org/fds/fds. aspx? lib=SFPUC &doc=473771 &data=] 82401835 (last visited
Aug. 19, 2012).
Exhibit R is a webpage printout from the City Attorney’s office
(http://www.sfcityattorney.orp/index.aspx?page=34, last visisted Aug. 19, 2012). This webpage states
that it is an August 2005 article that was published in the San Francisco Bay Guardian by the City
Attorney and Real Party in Interest Dennis J. Herrera.
Exhibit S is a webpage published by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (available at
hutp://sfwater.org/index.aspx ?page=518, last visited Aug. 20, 2012).
The foregoing exhibits are documents published or made available by websites of the City and
County of San Francisco. The documents are subject to judicial! notice because they are immediately
verifiable and not reasonably subject to dispute. (See Union Oil Co. of Cal. v. City of Los Angeles (2000)
79 Cal.App.4th 383, 387, n. 5 [taking judicial notice of report to city council based on section 452,
subdivision (h)]; Mobilepark West Homeowners Assn. v. Escondido Mobilepark West (2005) 35
Cal.App.4th 32, 43, n. 6 [taking judicial notice of ballot materials of local ballot measure].) This is
“sufficient information to enable [the Court] to take judicial notice of’ these exhibits under subdivision
(b) of section 453.
6
~~~ PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE iso VERIFIL
‘TION FOR WRIT OF MANDATEOLSON HAGEL & FISHBURN LLP
555 Capiton MALL, Suite 1425, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
Additionally, Exhibit P is a webpage published by the National Forest Service, which is a
division of the U.S, Department of the Interior (available at
http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID= 193337, last
visited Aug. 20, 2012). It is properly subject to judicial notice as a document of the executive branch of
the United States, and as a document that is immediately verifiable and not reasonably subject to
dispute.
Exhibits A through § are relevant to the Court’s inquiry primarily to establish that the
documents exist and the contents of those documents, but not necessarily for the facts stated in the
documents. To the extent that the documents contain factual allegations, it would be improper for the
Court to take judicial notice unless the facts are indisputable or generally recognizable. Thus, Petitioner
requests that the Court take judicial notice of the contents and existence of the documents, but not
necessarily for the truth of the facts stated therein.
Exhibits A through S are all authenticated by the supporting declaration of Matthew R. Cody.
They are provided to the other parties in this case and to the Court with sufficient notice. Petitioner
therefore respectfully requests that judicial notice be taken of Exhibits A through S.
Dated: August 20, 2012
Respectfully submitted,
OLSON HAGEL & FISHBURN LLP
Lance H. Olson
Deborah B, Caplan
Matthew R. Cody
Joshua R. Daniels
py, calle
MATTHEW R. CODY
Attorneys for Petitioner
7
"PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE iso VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATEOLSON HAGEL & FISHBURN LLP
555 Capito. MALL, SuITE 1425, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW R. CODY
I, Matthew R. Cody, hereby declare as follows:
1, Tam an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am employed by the
law firm Olson Hagel & Fishburn LLP, counsel of record in this proceeding for Petitioner. Except where
stated upon information and belief, if called upon to do so, I could testify from my own personal
knowledge as to the matters stated herein.
2. On or about August 20, 2012, I visited the website of the Department of Elections for the
City and County of San Francisco, which lists materials used by the Ballot Simplification Committee
(available at http://sfgov2.org/index.aspx?page=3550, last visited Aug. 20, 2012). I downloaded and
printed the following documents:
e “Legal text-—-Water and Environment Plan.” Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct
copy of the legal text of Proposition F provided on this website.
« “Title and Summary—Water and Environment Plan.” Attached as Exhibit B is a true and
correct copy of the circulating title and summary for Proposition F, as provided on the
website,
« The webpage of the Department of Elections, which lists materials used by the Ballot
Simplification Committee for purposes of preparing the ballot digests for the November 6,
2012 election. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the webpage that provides
materials used by the Committee for the ballot digest.
e “Draft digest—-Water and Environment Plan.” Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct
copy of the draft digest initially published by the Committee, as provided on the website..
« “Department analysis—San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.” Attached as Exhibit G
is a true and correct copy of the department analysis provided by the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission, as provided on the website.
* “Draft digest suggestions from SFPUC-Water and Environment.” Attached Exhibit 1 is a
true and correct copy of the draft digest suggestions, as provided on the website,
° “Letter to BSC-Henegan [sic].” Attached as Exhibit ] is a true and correct copy of the letter
from Save Hetch Hetchy to the Committee, as provided on the website.
8
~ PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE iso VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATEOLSON HAGEL & FISHBURN LLP
555 CAPITOL MALL, Sutre 1425, SACRAMENTO, CA $5814.
e “Letter to BSC-Rosekrans.” Attached as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of the letter
from the drafters of Proposition F to the Committee, as provided on the website.
e “Draft-Controller Statement on Water and Environment Plan.” Attached as Exhibit K is a
true and correct copy of the draft Controller’s statement, as provided on the website.
* “Approved digest-Water and Environment Plan.” Attached as Exhibit L is a true and
correct copy of the digest approved by the Committee after the August 2, 2012 meeting, as
provided on the website.
e “Request for reconsideration w/attachments A&B—Olson and Rosekrans.” Attached as
Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of the request for reconsideration, as provided on the
website.
« “FINAL digest-Water and Environment Plan.” Attached as Exhibit N is a true and correct
copy of the final digest published by the Committee, as provided on the website.
« “Letter regarding Request for reconsideration—Heneghan.” Attached as Exhibit O is a true
and correct copy of this letter, as provided on the website.
3. On or about August 13, 2012, an official from the campaign in support of Proposition F
provided undersigned counsel with a copy of the ballot questions for the measures to appear on the
November 6, 2012 election. Upon information and belief, attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct
copy of the ballot questions prepared by Real Party in Interest, the City Attorney for the City and
County of San Francisco.
4, On or about August 20, 2012, I went online to the website for the “American Legal
Publishing Corporation.” This website provides the municipal charter and ordinances for the City and
County of San Francisco. I printed out a copy of Articles V and VI of the San Francisco Municipal
Elections Code. Attached as Exhibit D are true and correct copies these provisions (available at
http:/Avww.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/elections/municipalelectionscode?f=templatesSfn—d
ofault.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:sanfrancisco_ca$sync=1, last visited Aug. 20, 2012).
5. On or about August 20, 2012, | visited the website of the National Park Service and
downloaded a brief summary of Hetch Hetchy Valley (available at
http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/loader.cfm?csModule~security/getfile&PagelD= 193337, last
9
~~ PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE iso VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE |OLSON HAGEL & FISHBURN LLP
555 CaPiTOL MALL, SUITE 1425, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
Ce IN DA MW FF WN
Roe Be ee eee ew
BSR RRBERE SEEDED EBDE AS
visited Aug. 20, 2012). Attached as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of this document.
6. On or about August 20, 2012, I opened the department analysis that is included in this
Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit H, and I opened the Internet link for Attachment B, which is a
“Select List of Existing Water and Power Plans” (available at
https://infrastructure.sfwater.org/fds/fds.aspx?lib=SFPUC&doc=8 10003 &data=3 11851155, last visited
Aug. 20, 2012). This document provided a list of several studies. Under the heading “Water Supply and
Demand Planning,” there is a link to a ‘2009 Water Supply Availability Study for City and County of
San Francisco” (available at
https://infrastructure. sfwater.org/fds/fds.aspx?lib=SFPUC&doc=47377 1 &data=182401835, last visited
Aug. 20, 2012), Attached as Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of this report, exclusive of the
appendices, as provided through these Internet links.
7. On or about August 20, 2012, I visited the website for the City Attorney. I located and
printed a copy of an article entitled “Save the Dam” (available at
http://www.sfcityattorney.org/index.aspx?page=34, last visited Aug. 20, 2012.) Attached as Exhibit R
is a true and correct copy of this article as provided on the website.
8. On or about August 20, 2012, I visited a webpage published by the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission that discusses “Frequently Asked Questions” about the Hetch Hetchy Regional
Water System (available at http://sfwater.org/index.aspx?page=518, last visited Aug. 20, 2012).
Attached as Exhibit S is a true and correct printout of this webpage.
9, Pursuant to Evidence Code sections 4541, 452, and 453, Petitioner requests that this
Court take judicial notice of Exhibits A through S.
10. A proposed order is appended hereto.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Dated: 8 2Ofi 2. MARL
MATTHEW R. copy”
10
PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE iso VERIFIFD PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATEOLSON HAGEL & FISHBURN LLP
555 Capirol MALI, SUITF 1425, SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
[PROPOSED] ORDER
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING THEREFOR, pursuant to Evidence Code sections 451, 452, and
453, Petitioner’s request that the Superior Court take Judicial Notice is hereby GRANTED.
This Court takes judicial notice of Exhibits A through S$ in Petitioncr’s Request for Judicial
Notice,
Dated:
Judge of the Superior Court
n
PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE iso VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATEDECLARATION OF SERVICE
CaseName : Williams y. Arntz, etc.
Case No: : CPF-12-512411
Court 3 San Francisco County Superior Court
I declare: I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18, and not a party to the within action.
My business address is 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1425, Sacramento, California, 95814. On August 20,
2012, I served a true and correct copy of the following entitled documents:
PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF VERIFIED
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE
on the parties in said action as follows:
x BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: By transmitting a true copy thereof to said parties at the internet
service address (es) indicated below.
Mollie Lee, Deputy City Attorney Counsel for Respondent JOHN ARNTZ in his
City and County of San Francisco official capacity as the Director of the
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 234 Department of Elections in San Francisco;
San Francisco, CA 94102 and Real Party DENNIS J. HERRERA in his
Tel: 415.554-4705/Fax: 415.554.4745 official capacity as the City Attorney of San
Email: Mollie.Lee@sfgov.org Francisco
Kevin Heneghan Counsel for Intervenor SAVE HETCH
HANSON BRIDGETT LLP HETCHY, NO ON F
425 Market Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Tel: 415.777.3200/Fax: 415.541.9366
Email: kheneghan@hansonbridgett.com
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true
and correct and that this declaration was executed on August 20, 2012 in Sacramento, California.
ANN BARNE!EXHIBIT ASAN FRANCISCO
FILED oo”
Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisofl!? FEB 29 AMIN: 08
BEPARTHENT OF ELECTIONS
Section 1. Title
This Ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the “Water Sustainability and
Environmental Restoration Planning Act of 2042.”
ion 2. Findings & De ions
(a) Water is an essential natural resource that San Francisco depends on for its
health, well-being, and public safety. San Francisco should develop a
sustainable water system that will provide reliable supplies to meet needs
throughout the city in anticipation of the effects of global warming and the
probabilities of droughts and earthquakes, as well as other natural and unnatural
disasters.
(b) The primary source of water for the City of San Francisco is the Tuolumne River.
Many people believe the city’s primary water source is the Hetch Hetchy
Reservoir in Yosemite National Park because the system is called the Hetch
Hetchy system. In fact, Hetch Hetchy Reservoir is just one of nine reservoirs that
store water for San Francisco.
(c) San Francisco's rights to use Tuolumne River water were established in 1890
and exist independent of its storage facilities in the Tuolumne River watershed.
Nothing in this ordinance shall weaken these rights.
(d) San Francisco does not recycle any water; comparatively, the Municipal Water
District of Orange County recycles 92 million gallons a day.
(e) in 1930, San Francisco used 14.5 million gallons a day from its groundwater
welts; today, San Francisco uses only 2.2 million gallons a day as it has falled to
maintain and manage its groundwater basin.
(f) San Francisco receives an average annual rainfall of 20 inches which is the
equivalent of roughly half of San Francisco's annual water consumption.
Currently, virtually ait of the City’s rainfall is directed into the sewage system,
treated with chemicals and discharged into the San Francisco Bay and the
Pacific Ocean.
(g) Increased development of water resources within San Francisco and the Bay
Area would diversify San Francisco's regional water system, and improve system
Teliability in the event of drought or outages caused by earthquake or other
events,(h) San Francisco does not currently filter most of its drinking water supply. The San
Francisco Department of Public Health warns consumers with compromised
immune systems such as HIV to consult a doctor prior to drinking tap water.
(i) In 2010, the incident rate of giardia, a pathogen commonly found in rivers and
reservoirs, among residents of San Francisco was 370% higher than the state
average. The incident rate of giardia in San Mateo County, where almost all
water service is provided by San Francisco, was 65% higher than the state
average.
() Federal law requires San Francisco to develop and utllize all local water
resources before importing water from its existing facilities that store its
Tuolumne River supplies.
(k) The San Francisco water system as it is currently configured requires significant,
on-going habitat destruction within Yosemite National Park.
(l) The Hetch Hetchy Valley, which is currently used as a water storage facility by
the City of San Francisco, is located in Yosemite National Park at the entry point
to the Grand Canyon of the Tuolumne River. It is a glacier-carved granite canyon
with large waterfalls cascading down the canyon walls. John Muir referred to
Hetch Hetchy Vailey as an exact counterpart to Yosemite Valley.
(m)San Francisco is the only city in the country which has been allowed to construct
a reservoir within an existing National Park. Restoration of Hetch Hetchy Valley
will create jobs, draw tourists from around the world and allow school children to
experience a unique environmental restoration project of awe-inspiring scale.
(n) The San Francisco water system was conceived in the 19" century and
constructed in the early 20" century. Generations of Native American cultural
artifacts lie at the bottom of the reservoir.
(0) The San Francisco water system can be changed to improve public health, *
ensure reliability of essential water supplies, and restore the environmental
damage caused by the existing water system, and these changes can take place
without adversely affecting ratepayers, water rights, or energy supply.
Section 2. Purpose & Intent
(a) Devetop a long-term plan for creating a more sustainable water system that
improves water quality through filtration of all supplies and improve reliability
through increased adoption of efficiency practices and development of local
water resources. The plan must provide for 21" Century best practices
including water recycling, water reclamation, conservation, improved storm
water capture and increased development, including recharge capabllity, of
groundwater sources. The plan will also include opportunities for developingadditional supplies and/or storage beyond the Bay Area. In addition, the plan
will provide for reducing the amount of carbon released into the atmosphere by
offsetting any increased energy use or reduction in hydropower resulting from
modifications to the water system with power generated from renewable
sources such as wind and solar energy.
(b) Develop a long-term plan for reversing the environmental damage caused by
the San Francisco water system in the 20" century that could be undertaken
subsequent to the increased development of local water resources and/or
development of alternative water supplies and storage locations. The plan
must provide for sufficient water resource to increase salmon populations on
the lower Tuolumne River, decrease polluted storm water runoff Into the San
Francisco Bay and allow for the Hetch Hetchy Valley to be returned to the
National Park Service and restored as part of Yosemite National Park.
(c) Consider a wide variety of potential mechanisms for financing plan
implementation, including funds provided by State, Federal and private
sources.
(a) Complete the planning process by November 2015 In time for the San
Francisco Board of Supervisors or a group of citizens to propose a charter
amendment to be voted on at the November 2016 election, which if passed
would authorize implementation of the plan.
Section 3. The Water Sustainability and Environmental Restoration Plan
The San Francisco Municipal Code, Part | (Administrative Code) is hereby amended by
adding Chapter 116 to read as follows:
Section 116.1. The Water Sustainability and Environmental Restoration Plan
(a) A Water Sustainability and Environmental Restoration Plan shall be developed
for the purpose of providing a comprehensive plan for improving San
Francisco’s water system and restoring the environmental damage caused by
the current water system,
(b) The plan shall provide for two phases.
(1) The first phase shall be a Water Sustainability Plan that provides for the
creation and maintenance of a sustainable water system that increases
system reliability by developing local and more diversified water sources.
(2) The second phase shall be an Environmental Restoration Plan that
provides for reversing the environmental damage caused by the Hetch
Hetchy water system since 1913.(c) The Water Sustainability and Environmental Restoration Plan, and each phase
therein, shail provide sufficient detail to initiate programmatic and project
review under the California Environmental Quality Act and the National
Environmental Protection Act if the voters of San Francisco choose to
implement the plan.
(d) Upon completion of the Water Sustainability and Environmental Restoration
Plan, the San Francisco voters shall have the opportunity to adopt a charter
amendment that would authorize implementation of the plan,
Section 116.2. Requirements of the Plan
(a) The first phase of the Water Sustainability and Environmental Restoration Plan
shall be the Water Sustalnability Plan, which shall provide for the Increased
development of local and regional water supplies that will ensure reliability of
water resources through implementation and completion of phase 2 of the
plan. The Water Sustainability Plan will, at minimum:
(1) Identify and prioritize measures that will enable San Francisco to create a
sustainable water system within city limits that uses additional local water
resources as a supplement to water currently diverted from the Tuolumne
River. These measures will be designed, at minimum, to:
i. Increase groundwater recharge and groundwater use to pre-1930
levels;
ii, Develop water recycling capacity to one half of the current per
person production available in Orange County, California;
ii. Expand and improve storm water harvesting capacity;
iv. Expand the reuse of water through gray water systems;
v. Reduce per person water use through cost-effective conservation
and efficiency; and
vi. Improve water quality by expanding water treatment capacity to
accommodate filtration of all potable supplies.
(2) Identify and prioritize additional water supply options for all retail and
wholesale customers of San Francisco's regional water system, including
but not limited to:
i, The increased development of local resources identified in Section
116.2(a)(1);li. Additional storage opportunities, above or below ground;
iii. Potential long-term purchase agreements;
iv. Additional conservation opportunities; and
v. Cooperative agreements to develop supply and/or storage with
other water suppliers.
(3) Develop sufficient renewable energy sources, as defined by the State of
California, such as wind, solar or energy efficlency measures, to offset any
reduction In hydropower resulting from the consolidation of water storage
facilities, At a minimum, this section of the plan shail identify:
i. Potential sites for additional wind, solar, and other energy efficiency
infrastructure;
ii. Technologies to achlave improved wind, solar, and other energy
efficiency measures; and
iii. Investment opportunities to secure additional renewable energy
sources.
(4) Provide a timeline that allows for San Francisco to complete
implementation of this phase of the plan no later than 2025. .
(b) The second phase of the Water Sustainability and Environmental Restoration
Plan shall be the Environmental Restoration Plan. The Environmental
Restoration Plan will, at minimum, evaluate how to:
(1) Improve flows on the lower Tuolumne River in support of efforts to
increase the salmon and steelhead trout populations;
(2) Decrease polluted storm water discharge into the San Francisco Bay and
Pacific Ocean; and
(3) Consolidate the nine reservoirs on which San Francisco relies for water
storage into eight and return the Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National
Park to the National Park Service so it may be restored,
(4) Provide a timeline that allows for San Francisco to complete
implementation of this phase of the plan no later than 2035
(c) In addition to the requirements set forth above, the Water Sustainability and
Environmental Restoration Plan shall include:{1) Separately identified costs for implementing both phases of the plan.
{2) Separately identified revenues sources for implementing both phases of
the plan, including but not limited to federal, state and private funds.
Section 116.3, Guiding Principles
The process for developing the Water Sustainability and Environmental Restoration
Plan must be guided by the following principles:
(a) Establish the most effective, environmentally responsible, and economically
feasible strategies that will increase local water supply resources and protect
the San Francisco ratepayer.
(b) Achieve maximum public input. All aspects of each plan shall be developed in
an open and transparent way.
(c) Obtain total cooperation of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and
its staff, the San Francisco Department of Environment and its staff, the Office
of the Controller and his or her staff, and the Office of the Mayor and his or her
staff.
(d) Provide maximum outreach to key state and federal stakeholders, including
but not limited to the Modesto Irrigation District, the Turlock Irrigation District,
the United States Department of Interior, the California Natural Resources
Agency, the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, and Native
American tribes that could be affected by water system reform efforts.
(e) Determine accurate and comprehensive cost projections for both phases
separately.
Section 116.4. Implementation & Oversight
(a) The development of the Water Sustainability and Environmental Restoration
Plan shall be overseen by a task force consisting of five (5) members, serving
without compensation, comprised of the following:
(1) The General Manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, or
his or her designated representative;
(2) The General Manager of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation
Agency, or his or her designated representative;
(3) An Individual appointed by the Board of Supervisors from a university or
college in the San Francisco water system service area and who Isrecognized as an expert in water sustainability, recycling, storage, and
conservation.
(4) An individual appointed by the Board of Supervisors from a local non-profit
environmental organization who is an expert in water sustainability,
recycling, storage, and conservation and has a broad knowledge of the
Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System.
(5) An individual appointed by the Board of Supervisors from a national non-
profit environmental organization who is an expert in habitat restoration in
the Sierra Nevada.
(b) The members of the task force shall be appointed no later than January 31,
2013 and shall convene its first meeting before February 28, 2013.
(c) The task force shall conduct regular meetings that are open and available to
the public in accordance with local and state laws.
(d) Until such time as the task force has independent resources, the San
Francisco Department of Environment shall provide a full-time staff person to
perform administrative duties for the task force. The San Francisco
Department of Environment shall provide that staff person with whatever
facilities and equipment are necessary to perform said duties.
(e) The task force shall no later than June 30, 2013 contract with and manage one
or more independent and qualified consultants to develop the Water
Sustainability and Environmental Restoration Plan. Contracts shall be entered
into in accordance with San Francisco's public contracting laws, as provided in
Chapter 6 of the Administrative Code. The task force shall have the authority
to appoint the staff person in sub-paragraph (dq) of this section, or another
qualified individual, to fulfill the department head duties for purposes of
complying with the public contracting requirements of Chapter 6 of the
Administrative Code.
(f) All contract provisions shall be publicly available and consistent with all
applicable laws.
(g) The Water Sustainability and Environmental Restoration Plan shall be
completed, approved and submitted by the task force to the City Attorney by
November 1, 2015.
(h) The City Attorney shall prepare and make available to the public a Charter
Amendment that proposes implementation of the Water Sustainability and
Environmental Restoration Plan no later than December 15, 2015. The Board
of Supervisors shall conduct a public hearing at which it shall consider whether
to place the Charter Amendment before the voters at the next statewidegeneral election. Such hearing shall be conducted no later than January 31,
2016.
Section 116.5. Costs of Plan Development
(a) The City and County of San Francisco hereby appropriates from any legally
available funds an amount sufficient to pay for the development of the Water
Sustainability and Environmental Restoration Plan, but in no case shail total
appropriations exceed 0.5% of funds previously authorized by the voters of
San Francisco for the Water System Improvement Program.
(b) Funds from other governmental or private sources, if available, may be used to
supplement funds appropriated by this section.
Section 116.5. Severability
If any provision of this Ordinance, or the application thereof, Is found to be
unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, it may be severed and the balance
of the Ordinance will remain in effect. Each section, subsection, sentence, phrase, part,
or portion of this Ordinance would have been adopted and passed Irrespective of the
fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, phrases, parts or portions
be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 116.6. Amendments
This Ordinance shall not be amended except by a vote of the board of supervisors that
furthers the purpose and intent of the Ordinance, or by a vote of the electorate.EXHIBIT BCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO. * OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
DENNIS J. HERRERA SAN ERA Ep’ Moule Lee
City Attorney ue Depufy City Attorney
2012 HAR | 5 PA hk 07 DIRECT DIAL: (415) 554-4705
DEPARTHENT OF ELECTIONS EMAL molte.tee@sfgov.org
March 15, 2012
TO'ALL INTERESTED PARTIES:
Attached is the City Attomey's title and summary for the proposed local initiative
measure designated by the Department of Elections as 12-01. In preparing this title, the City
Attorney makes no representation regarding the merits or legality of the proposed legislation,
Nor does the City Attorney verify or confirm any factual or Jegal assertion made in the proposal.
The title is presented as a “true and impartial statement of the purpose of the proposed measure,”
Elections Code § 9203.
Very truly yours,
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attomey
illo gae
Mollie Lee
Deputy City Attorney
“Cay Hau. 1 Da. Carton B, Goonuent PLACE, ROOM 234 + SAN FRANCISCO, CCAUFORNIA 94102
RecePnon; (416) 554-4700 Facsimite: (415) 554-4745,
n:\ethics\as2012\0700468\0076 1332.docxWater and Environment Plan
San Francisco owns the Hetch Hetchy Water System (“Water System"), which provides water to
about 2,5 million people in San Francisco and neighboring areas, Water System reservoirs
collect snowmelt and rainfall from the Tuolumne River and Bay Area watersheds for use
throughout the year. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ("PUC") manages the.
Water System.
San Francisco's largest reservoir is in Hetch Hetchy Valley, located in Yosemite National Park,
‘The federal government authorized San Francisco to create the reservoir by building adam on
the Tuolumne River in 1923. Approximately 85% of San Francisco's water comes from the
Hetch Hetchy Reservoir, which also generates hydroelectric power for City agencies, The
xenpaining water comes from reservoirs in Alameda County and Peninsula watersheds. San
Francisco does not filter Hetch Hetchy water but treats it and tests it over 100,000 times
annually, :
San Francisco is currently undertaking a $4.6 billion project to improve the Water System and
develop additional groundwater, conservation, and reclaimed water supplies. Voters specifically
authorized water revenue bonds of up to $1.6 billion for these improvements,
San Francisco discharges treated stormwater to the Bay and Ocean under a federal permit.
The proposed ordinance would require the City to prepare a two-phase plan that would identify
alternative water sources and evaluate how to end using the Hetch Hetch: 'y Reservoir.
The first phase of theplan would identify:
* additional local water sources, including increased groundwater, water recycling, storm
” water harvesting, gray water systems, conservation measures, and expanded water
treatment capacity to accommodate filtration pf all drinking water;
¢ additional water supply options, including storage, purchase, and conservation; and
¢ alternative renewable energy sources.
‘The second phase of the plan would evaluate how to:
* improve flows on the lower Tuolumne River; :
* decrease stormwater discharge into the Bay and the Ocean; and
* ‘end using Hetch Hetchy Valley as a reservoir so it could be restored as part of Yosemite
National Park,
The plan would include timelines to implement the first phase by 2025 and the second PRase,by
2035, . . » S
> o
. . » DE p
‘The measure would create a task force to oversee development of the plan ("Task Poicel\. i a
Task Force would have five members: the PUC General Manager, the General Managesof mm
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency, and three experts appointed by the Rbardof EP
Supervisors. The Task Force would select and manage consultants to develop the plan.” -> Oz
Poo
The measure would require the Task Force to complete the plan by November 1, 2015, qnd-— 3
require the Board of Supervisors to hold a hearing by January 31, 2016, to consider Proposing ac
Charter Amendment to implement the plan. &
The measure would appropriate any available City funds to pay for the Plan, with a maximum
appropriation of 0.5% of funds voters previously authorized for the current Water System
improvement project (approximately $8 million).
miethics\as2012\0700468\00760814.docxEXHIBIT CCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
DENNIS J. HERRERA Moiie Lee
City Attorney . Deputy Clty Attorney
DIRECT DIAL: (415) 554-4705
E-MAIL: mollia. lee@sfgov.org
August 13, 2012
John Arntz
Department of Elections
City Hall, Room 48
1 Dr; Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
Re: November 2012 Ballot Questions
Dear Director Arntz:
O1L0373 40 IMAL YY AIO
Lash Kd €1 ONY 7182
1
y
Zz
Please find below the ballot questions prepared by the City Attorney for the N&vember
2012 election.
Proposition A: To provide City College of San Francisco with funds the State cannot take
away, offset budget cuts; prevent layoffs; provide an affordable, quality education for students;
maintain essential courses including, but not limited to, writing, math, science, and other general
education; prepare students for four-year universities; provide workforce training including, but
not limited to nursing, engineering, technology, and business; and keep college libraries, student
support services, and other instructional support open and up-to-date; shall the San Francisco
Community College District levy 79 dollars per parcel annually for eight years requiring
independent audits and citizen oversight?
Proposition B: SAN FRANCISCO CLEAN AND SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS
BOND, To improve the safety and quality of neighborhood parks across the city and waterfront
Open spaces, enhance water quality and clean up environmental contamination along the Bay,
replace unsafe playgrounds, fix restrooms, improve access for the disabled, and ensure the
seismic safety of park and recreation facilities, shall the City and County of San Francisco issue
$195 million dollars in General Obligation bonds, subject to independent oversight and regular
audits?
Proposition C: Shall the City amend its Charter to: create a Housing Trust Fund that
supports affordable housing for low-income and moderate-income households; and change the
affordable housing requirements imposed on some private residential developments?
Proposition D: Shall the City amend its‘Charter to change the election cycle for City
Attorney and Treasurer so that these officers would be elected at the same time as the Mayor,
Sheriff and District Attorney?
Proposition B: Shall the City: create a gross reccipts tax designed to eliminate or reduce
the tax on payroll costs; and increase business registration fees?
' As authorized by law, City: College wrote the ballot question for Proposition A and the Board
of Supervisors wrote the ballot question for Proposition B.
City HALL: 1 Dr, CARLTON B, GOODLET: PLACE, ROON. 234 - SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
Recertion: (415) 554-4790 FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4745
N:\ethics\.as2012\9699377 1007906 16.docx
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEYCITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE City ATTORNEY
Letier to John Arntz
Page 2
August 13, 2012
Proposition F: Shall the City prepare a two-phase plan that evaluates how to drain the
Hetch Hetchy Reservoir so that it can be restored by the National Park Service and identifies
replacement water and power sources?
Proposition G: Shall it be City policy that corporations should not have the same
constitutional rights as human beings and should be subject to political spending limits?
Very truly yours,
DENNIS J. HERRERA
City Attorney
Mle zac
Mollie Lee
Deputy City AttorneyEXHIBIT De e Page 1 of 17
San Francisco Municipal Elections Code
ARTICLE V:
ELECTION MATERIAL MAILED TO THE VOTERS
Sec. 500, Voter Information Pamphlet; Contents; Format.
Sec, 501, Format of Proposed Measures.
Sec. 502. Mailing the Voter Information Pamphlet.
See. 505. Title and Letter Designation of Measures.
Sec. 510. City Attorney Statement or Question.
Sec. 515. Digest of Measures; Format; Readability Level.
Sec. 520. Controller's Financial Analysis.
Sec. 521. Controller's Statement on Set-Asides.
Sec. 525. Ballot Arguments; Notice of Submission and Review of Ballot Arguments.
Sec, 530, Ballot Arguments; Procedures.
Sec. 535, Ballot Arguments; Deadlines for Submission, Correction, and Withdrawal.
Sec. 540. Proponent and Opponent Arguments.
Sec. 545. Proponent and Opponent Arguments; Selection if More Than One Submitted.
Sec. 550, Proponent and Opponent Arguments; Rebuttals; Assignment of Arguments.
Sec. 555, Proponent and Opponent Arguments; Submission as Paid Arguments.
Sec. 560. Paid Arguments; Fees; Disclosure of True Source of Funds.
Sec. 565. Paid Arguments; Signatures in Lieu of Fee.
Sec. 570. Signatures Submitted in Lieu of Ballot Argument Fee; Procedures.
Sec, 575. Arguments; Length; Signature.
Sec. 580. Arguments; Review By Director of Elections.
http://www.amlegal.com/alpscripts/get-content.aspx 8/20/2012e@ e Page 2 of 17
Sec, 585, Publication of Arguments In Voter Information Pamphlet; Publication of True Source
of Funds.
Sec. 590. Voter Information Pamphlet; Public Examination,
Sec. 595. Voter Information Pamphlet To Contain Information on English Language Classes.
SEC. 500. VOTER INFORMATION 1 PAMPHLET; CONTENTS;
FORMAT.
With respect to any election to be held in the City and County, the Director of Elections shall prepare
a voter information pamphlet. The voter information pamphlet shall contain, in addition to any other
material required by the Charter or by general law, the following materials:
(a) General contents:
(1) A table of contents;
(2) An index of candidates and measures;
(3) _ A brief explanation of the purpose and use of the pamphlet;
(4) Asummary of voters’ rights, including a description of the right provided to every elector by
California Elections Code sections 9295 and 13314 to seek a writ of mandate or an injunction prior to
the publication of the Voter Information Pamphlet, requiring any or all of the materials submitted for
publication in the Pamphlet to be amended or deleted;
(5) A brief description of the rules and procedures that govern the submission, selection and
publication of ballot arguments in the pamphlet, including a statement explaining that each person
entitled to submit a "Proponent's" or "Opponent's" argument is chosen pursuant to the priority list stated
in Section 545 of this Code;
(6) A disclaimer that neither the Director of Elections nor any other City agency, official or
employee verifies the accuracy of information contained in the ballot arguments or candidate
qualification statements appearing in the pamphlet, and an explanation that any person submitting a
ballot argument or qualifications statement bears the sole responsibility for claims made therein;
(7) Artwork, graphics and other material which the Director of Elections determines will make
the pamphlet casier to understand or more useful to the vote