OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Correspondence Log
September 9, 2022 through September 19, 2022
Date Received From Subject
September 9, 2022 Peter Drekmeier Follow-Up to Design Drought Workshop
September 12, 2022 Dave Warner The Reasonable Person
Standard and the Design
Drought Discussion
Ed Hillard Aftermath of the Drought Design
Workshop, August 23, 2022
Kirk Essenmacher Design Drought Follow-Up:
Environmental Considerations
Carol Fields Voluntary Agreement on
Tuolumne River
Carol Ruth Proposal for VA for Tuolumne
River
John Buckley Input for consideration on the
topic of Voluntary Agreements
David Schrom Bay Delta Plan
Denise Louie Public Comment for September
13th PUC meeting
Gail Sredanovic Please stick to the Bay Delta
Water Quality Control Plan
September 13, 2022 Josephine Coffey Public Comment for September 13th PUC meeting
Stand Up Freedom EEO
September 14, 2022 Carol DiBenedetto
David Ballinger
Urgent: please drop the lawsuit
and the VA that will delay
progress
September 15, 2022 Brian Browne DATA REQUEST 2nd Sending Eileen Boken Pacific Coastal and Marine
Center Study "New Model Shows
Sea - Level Rise Can Cause
Increases in Groundwater Levels
Along California's Coasts"
September 16, 2022 Sheila McGovern Plan to Clear-Cut Heritage Oaks along Hetch Hetchy Trail
EEO Complaint file no.4061
Nancy Arbuckle Tuolumne River Flow Rates
September 19, 2022 Hannah Quirk SFPUC Environmental Justice Liana Warren Appoint a Champion of
Environmental Justice to SFPUC
Morgan Pink Protect the Bay Delta
OFFICES
San Francisco
Modesto
Sonora
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 3727
Sonora, CA 95370
Phone
(415) 882-7252
Website
www.tuolumne.org
BOARD MEMBERS
John Kreiter, Chair
Harrison “Hap” Dunning,
Vice Chair
Cindy Charles, Treasurer
Kerstyn Crumb, Secretary
Eric Heitz,
Chair Emeritus
Jose Borroel
Eddie Corwin
Bob Hackamack
Camille King
Marty McDonnell
Homero Mejia
John Nimmons
Eric Riemer
Marek Robinson
Bart Westcott
September 9, 2022
President Anson Moran and Commissioners
SFPUC
525 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Via Email
Re: Follow Up to Design Drought Workshop.
Dear President Moran and Commissioners:
I write to express my deep disappointment in the Design Drought workshop held on August 23. Our coalition of environmental and fishing groups put a lot of time and effort into preparing our presentation. We included numerous facts and evidence from the Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment (LTVA) to support our contention that the Design Drought is beyond conservative and needlessly harms the Tuolumne River and Bay-Delta. Your staff presented no legitimate evidence that the Design Drought is a prudent planning tool, yet you appeared to embrace their position.
Please ask yourself, what was the benefit of investing $743,000 of ratepayer money in the LTVA if the report will only sit on a shelf? Evidence that the Design Drought is legitimate did not materialize, so staff has downplayed or outright ignored the report.
It is clear to me that the series of seven SFPUC workshops that took place over a period of almost two years was just for show. To date, the SFPUC has made no policy changes in response to what you learned. The goodwill we put into the process was not met by SFPUC staff nor the Commission.
Earlier this year, your staff expressed concern that Hetch Hetchy might not fill, as if that would lead to dire consequences. In reality, Hetch Hetchy makes up just one quarter of SFPUC storage, and can hold enough water to last 1.5 years.
Hetch Hetchy ended up filling, so at the workshop staff shifted their gloom and doom scenario to focus on the Water Bank getting low. Never mind that this is the whole purpose of the Water Bank – when we experience a series of dry years, the Water Bank allows the SFPUC to keep useable reservoirs relatively full.
What was noticeably absent from the August 23 agenda was the Drought Conditions Update. I can only recall one other time when there was no such report in the agenda packet, and it was when a similar issue was being discussed.
2 I believe the Drought Conditions Update was intentionally omitted to prevent people from seeing how much water the SFPUC has in storage, despite the past three dry years.
According to a recent SFPUC document, the preliminary figure for systemwide water demand in FY 2021/22 was below 190 mgd. In the past, the final figure has been lower than the preliminary figure. 190 mgd equals 213 thousand acre feet (TAF).
Following is a slide from the current Drought Conditions Update.
You see that the SFPUC currently has more than four years-worth of water in storage. Even without the Water Bank, the SFPUC has more than three years-worth of water stored in its accessible reservoirs. This is hardly a crisis situation.
Your staff’s workshop presentation depended heavily on the following busy and confusing graph, which only provides part of a much bigger picture. In my opinion, it was a desperate attempt to manufacture a case where one does not exist.
3 It would have been much more helpful if staff had produced a graph similar to the one below, but with the inclusion of the SFPUC’s Bay Area reservoirs. (Bay Area storage is often intentionally overlooked, likely in attempt to make the SFPUC’s water supply conditions look more dire.)
Source: SFPUC, 2016
4 We have requested that the SFPUC produce a graph similar to the one above, but with the inclusion of Bay Area storage. Using the SFPUC’s sophisticated model, staff could easily produce a similar graph showing what storage would have looked like under historic conditions, but at current demand. A third graph could take into consideration what storage would have looked like had the Bay Delta Plan’s unimpaired flow requirement been in place.
Staff ignores our information requests when the outcomes are unlikely to support their narrative. They still delay responses to you, but we’re starting to see greater accountability.
Please request the three graphs we have proposed. The public deserves transparency.
The 2012 to 2015 drought was very dry, and was followed by average precipitation in 2016.
You’ll see from the following slide that on July 31 total system storage was at 1,200 TAF, enough water to last five years. This demonstrates just how good the SFPUC’s water rights are.
5 The SFPUC is rapidly losing credibility. The workshops provided some transparency, but the obvious conclusions have been ignored. We need your leadership!
Sincerely,
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
September 12, 2022
Re: The Reasonable Person Standard and the Design Drought Discussion
Dear President Moran and Commissioners,
Thank you for your design drought discussion on August 23rd. Thank you also for expressing your perspectives—they are immensely helpful for learning and for understanding the basis for policy decisions. The conclusions I heard were i) that the design drought was a judgement based on experience and how we operate the system; and ii) that return periods are a false promise and don’t deliver on the ability to do better and can’t predict what’s going to happen next year.
The trouble is, the data does do better than a decision to add two years to the 1987-92 drought based on experience. Please consider the reasonable person standard. It’s a standard used by courts to determine negligence. Of 100 years of observed data, 1100 years of tree ring data, and 25,000 years of stochastic data, none of it found a drought using the design drought’s amount of storage at a demand level of 265 mgd. In 26,000 years of data there was never a drought that used 1,350 TAF of storage to supply the regional water system with 265 mgd of supply. If the Tuolumne salmon could be the plaintiffs in the case, it seems like there is an argument for negligence, a reasonable person would conclude that the SFPUC can do better than the design drought model in meeting the needs of all stakeholders.
It also appears that there was bias by at least part of the commission not to have an interest in finding a drought model/stress test better than the design drought. If there had been an interest in finding a better model, I would have expected more questions. One question that comes to mind: Can climate scientists and or climate models tell us if the probability of the next year being a drought declines as the number of sequential drought years increases? If the answer is yes, that would be exciting news for drought planning. Given that the 25,000 years of stochastic data didn’t find a drought as severe as the design drought, I would guess that there is such a relationship.
If part of the commission has a bias not to improve upon the design drought model, it would be incumbent on other commissioners to counteract that bias.
The design drought model is a consequential policy tool.
Best regards,
Dave Warner
cc: Dennis Herrera, Steve Ritchie
To: President Anson Moran and SFPUC Commissioners
From: Ed Hillard
Re: Aftermath of the Drought Design Workshop, August 23, 2022 Date: September 11, 2022
A famous economist is reported to have said, When events change, I change my mind, what do you do?
Over the last two years of witnessing the presentations before this Commission and the Commissioners’ responses to those presentations I have to conclude that the Commissioners’ response to the question, When events change, what you do is Nothing. Hold more hearings. Evaluate some more. Spend more money on consultants. But do Nothing.
The Commission has learned that its customers’ usage has changed, reduced significantly through conservation and other efficiencies. The Commission has learned that other agencies have been creative, often on short notice, in changing their stewardship of the water in their charge, shifting to alternative sources. The Commission has learned that its assumptions of the water needed to keep the rivers healthy is dead wrong and that its bandaid approach to enhancing riverine environments does not work, and that the rivers and their fisheries over which it has charge are steadily dying. The Commission has learned that even the looming threats from climate change, with predicted earlier snowfalls in the Sierra, can have a beneficial result for our water supply, based on the timing of the SFPUC’s water rights.
The Commission has learned very publicly that its assumptions about the water in its reservoirs after several years of drought conditions are no longer tied to the reality of the supply. After several years of drought and drought-like conditions there are still four years of water supply in the SFPUC’s reservoirs.
Some members of the Commission learned decades ago that drought can be sudden and even threaten one’s job. Despite thousands of hours and hundreds of thousands of dollars and endless presentations that this learning was possibly wrong or unique in its circumstances, the Commission has not changed its collective mind.
Various people have been credited with the quotation I cited above, from John Maynard Keynes, to Paul Samuelson, even to Churchill, among others. Each ended their version of the statement with the question, what would you do. Well, what are you Commissioners going to do?
Ed Hillard
Palo Alto
From: Kirk Essenmacher
To: Commission
Subject: Design Drought Follow-Up: Environmental Considerations Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 9:33:13 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear President Moran, Vice President Ajami, and other Commissioners of the SFPUC, During the recent August 23, 2022 SFPUC Design Drought Workshop meeting, Steve Ritchie stated, the "consequences of being wrong and running out of water for water supply
and/or the
environment are enormous."
A similar rule in business is "don't run out of cash."
However,
the SFPUC seems paralized by fear, choosing to rely on extremely conservative, beyond worst case assumptions to acquire an "insurance policy" to ensure their jobs and reputations remain intact in the event of an apocalyptic drought.
I want to remind the SFPUC that you bear a responsibility
not only to your covered residents
& businesses for an adequate water supply, but also a moral responsibility
to the almost 40
million current California residents, future generations, and non-human species, to preserve and maintain the ecological & environmental
diversity, survival, & robustness of the
Tuolumne River ecosystem into the future.
I believe the SFPUC should also commission & consider a "stress test" model of the true environmental impact of your proposed 8.5 year drought insurance policy on the Tuolumne River.
This is not the same as just checking a box on your current environmental obligations as stipulated.
Current and future generations will grade you on your judgement as to whether you optimized both water considerations and environmental considerations including
protecting the Tuolumne River ecosystem from the potential irreparable damage that could occur from implementing your draconian drought proposals.
The path on which you seem to be heading is similar to a business in which management is overly conservative and does not deploy capital efficiently & responsibly to grow and maintain the business, but instead lets an improbable risk of going bankrupt dominate their strategy.
I urge the Commissioners of the SFPUC to create a new path forward in which true leadership & good judgement is applied to the balance of ensuring both adequate water supply and environmental health of the Tuolumne for generations to come.
Sincerely,
Kirk Essenmacher, M.D.
Palo Alto, CA
From: Carol Fields
To: Commission
Subject: Voluntary Agreement on Tuolumne River
Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 12:46:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Commission--hopefully we will not repeat over and over our mistakes of the past, such as the past voluntary agreement on fish in the Tuolumne.
As Peter Drekmeier has pointed out: A VA would supplant the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan with a far inferior alternative. The VA would simply be a series of check boxes without much of a backup plan if environmental conditions don’t improve.
The last attempt at a VA stalled implementation of the Bay Delta Plan for four years.
We can’t allow this to happen again.
If we are careful
(following scientific advice) and innovative (considering long-term water possibilities, such as far offshore wind-powered desalination which also utilizes the latest proven technical innovations---San Francisco will be a leader in solving climate challenges, instead of making them worse.
Carol Fields,
Berkeley, CA
From: Carol Ruth
To: Commission
Subject: Proposal for VA for Tuolumne River
Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 1:08:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Commissioners,
We are writing to urge the SFPUC to drop the proposal to implement a Voluntary Agreement for the Tuolumne RIver .The SFPUC claims a VA would produce more fish with less water.
However,
a review by
the
National
Marine Fisheries Service found that the fish models upon which the last VA was based were extremely flawed.
The new proposed VA looks to be even worse.
If adopted, a VA would supplant the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan with a far inferior alternative. The VA would not have much of a backup plan if environmental conditions did not improve.
The last attempt at a VA
stalled implementation of the Bay Delta Plan for four years!
This cannotI happen again.
We ask you to cease negotiations on this VA plan, which will further harm our already endangered fish populations.
Sincerely,
Carol Ruth
Dr. Ron Ruth, Emeriti
Stanford, CA
From: John Buckley
To: Commission
Subject: Input for consideration on the topic of Voluntary Agreements Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 2:39:42 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
September 12, 2022
From John Buckley, Executive Director
Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center
Twain Harte, CA 95383
[email protected]
To SFPUC Commissioners:
For 17 of the last 23 years our non-profit conservation organization has been highly engaged in FERC relicensing processes related to either the Tuolumne River or Stanislaus River, and in some years, in planning processes for both
rivers. Our Center engaged in years of meetings
for the La Grange and Don Pedro FERC planning processes, and our biologists and I have participated for years in various meetings with State agencies discussing the Bay Delta Plan.
Simply put - for many years our Center has followed the debates over river management, salmon, water temperatures, salinity, and all the associated topics.
Like most participants in
those debates, our staff holds strong views that reflect the priorities and values that we represent.
Accordingly, I very briefly provide the following input for your consideration .
Voluntary Agreements for the Stanislaus, Tuolumne, and Merced Rivers sound fine and achievable to those who are not fully aware of how entrenched the positions are of the water agencies who are pivotal to any agreement.
The diversity of NGO, state agency, and federal
agency stakeholders in the La Grange and Don Pedro FERC processes were strongly motivated to work with the water agencies to identify a middle ground, scientifically credible plan for managing the Tuolumne River.
Neither MID, TID, nor SFPUC were ever sincerely
interested in negotiating meaningful concessions to raise minimum flows in the Tuolumne River to even 30% of unimpaired, let alone to 40%.
Instead, being hard in opposing any
changes became the strategy.
In initial voluntary agreement discussions at the Capitol in which our Center participated in at Sacramento some years ago, those representing the water agencies were open in acknowledging that any plan they did not favor would simply be delayed by years of litigation.
They were blunt.
What they did not share as openly is that stretching out Voluntary Agreement discussions was just as effective as a tactic to delay giving up current levels of water controlled by the water agencies.
The bottom line is that a Voluntary Agreement for the Tuolumne River as promoted by the water agencies will NOT produce more fish with less water, and that insisting upon a Voluntary Agreement instead of accepting the increased minimum flow plans from the State appears primarily to be a further stalling tactic.
Conservation and fish organizations as well as State and Federal agencies can accept the fact that attempting with good intentions to find middle ground compromise with water agencies through a Voluntary Agreement process was worth trying in years past.
But it is unreasonable for those same organizations and agencies to be fooled a second time by believing that there is now any true willingness by the water interests to significantly give up more water to raise minimum flows or to truly make concessions that are needed for fish and water quality.
Instead, no one should be fooled again by the water districts’
theme that "we
can do other things to help salmon and that more water, cooler temperatures, more habitat, etc. are not needed."
I urge the SFPUC not to accept or support a strategy of embracing further efforts to ram through a Voluntary Agreement for the Tuolumne River.
Instead, own up to the responsibility
of water interests to accept some needed reductions in water diversions and to accept that meaningfully-higher minimum flows need to be left in the river.
John Buckley, Executive Director
Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center
[email protected]
From: Magic
To: Commission
Subject: Bay Delta Plan
Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 2:41:56 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Commissioners,
I am a San Francisco Water District customer and I ask that you please respect my interests in an adequate supply of water both for me and other customers and for the ecosystem integrity and functionality on which all of us depend.
You've all seen the signs at freeway off-ramps, "WRONG WAY." The so-called "voluntary agreements" are actually INvoluntary agreements. Millions of people whose lives are substantially and irreversibly adversely affected by current Tuolumne River mismanagement and by the mismanagement the INvoluntary agreements propose are refused seats at the table when the INvoluntary agreements are made. Giving INvoluntary agreements further consideration is going the wrong way, just as surely as is trying to enter a freeway from an off- ramp.
The first round of INvoluntary agreement dissembling delayed for precious years implementation of the Bay Delta Plan. The cost of this delay has been borne by vast numbers of the general public through degradation of the river ecosystem while the benefits from it have flowed to a handful given privileged access to a common resource.
Now you're looking at a second INvoluntary agreement. The so-called "science" supporting the first was a miserable excuse for honest analysis, as review by competent National Fisheries experts revealed. The dissembling supporting this more recent attempt is destined to prove equally flawed when subjected to rigorous examination. INvoluntary agreements are, like the freeway signs say, the "WRONG WAY."
The Bay Delta Plan is grounded in sound science and aimed at furthering public good, rather than private privilege at public expense. Please support it and stop entertaining recipes for destruction cloaked in Orwellian misnomer.
Thank you for considering these views and requests.
With appreciation,
David Schrom
From: certifiedhypnotist
To: Commission
Subject: please stick to the Bay Delta Water Control Plan Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 8:17:34 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Gentlemen
-The Delta is in serious trouble with fish stocks crashing and toxic algae blooming.Dwindling water supplies are over-subscibed and voluntary agreements have been shown to be an inadequate response.
The Delta Plan provides for a moderate but stlil more robust response. Californians care deeply about the environment and have shown this when allowed a vote.
Please stick to the Bay Delta Water Control Plan.
Gail Sredanovic
Menlo Park CA 94025
From: Denise Louie
To: Commission
Subject: Public Comment for September 13th PUC meeting
Date: Monday, September 12, 2022 8:37:55 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi,
Please forward my email to the SFPUC commissioners.
Thanks,
Denise
*****************
Hi PUC President Moran and Commissioners Ajami, Maxwell and Paulson, September 7th was California Biodiversity Day.
I urge you to consider the habitat
value and the biodiversity crises in the San Francisco Bay, Delta and headwaters.
The SF Bay-Delta is named in the federal Clean Water Act as one of 28 "estuaries of national significance". For over 20 years, the SF Estuary Partnership has worked together with local communities and state and federal agencies to improve the health of California's most urbanized estuary.
I urge you to stop working unproductively and
against the Partnership; simply telling us you will withdraw the PUC’s lawsuits against the State Water Resources Control Board’s Bay Delta
Water Quality Control Plan.
You must have read about or seen photos of dead fish and the related algal bloom caused by humans.
Our human impacts on biodiversity are devastating. I urge you to do your part and allow for greater freshwater flows. Get on board with federal, state, regional and local goals for saving the Bay, Delta and headwaters. Pay attention to pleas from scientists, fish and Nature enthusiasts, and individual ratepayers. Meet your moral and ethical obligations to be good stewards of our natural resources.
The PUC's Voluntary Agreements have been rejected. Please put a stop to the years- long dithering with the Design Drought's nonsensical manipulations of numbers. The only thing left to do is to withdraw the PUC's lawsuits.
I will be unable to attend tomorrow's meeting. So please accept this email as my public comment.
Thank you,
Denise Louie
Member, Center for Biological Diversity
SF Customer, SFPUC
All species lives matter
From: Jo Coffey
To: Commission
Subject: For public comment at SFPUC Commissioners meeting of Sept. 13, 2022 Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 9:21:33 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable SFPUC Commissioners,
I am a resident of San Francisco, and am concerned about the increasing disappearance of salmon and other species because of human use of water from California’s rivers. I have been following the SFPUC’s recent workshops, and planned to speak at the Aug 23, 2022 meeting. Like others, I gave up that opportunity as a courtesy to your Chairperson. I am attending a funeral today, and so am not able to make this comment during your meeting.
I am deeply disappointed in the direction the SFPUC is taking.
I would like to feel proud of the scientific and engineering expertise that enables water to be brought into our homes and farms.
But it shames me, as it should shame all of us, to see how we have responded to this gift of water. Instead of seeing ourselves as just one species among the many that need that water to survive, we think it wise to take as much water as we can. Such a policy doesn’t even benefit most people.
I urge you to reconsider the course you are taking.
Josephine Coffey
San Francisco, CA 94112
From: Stand up Freedom
To: Ho, Michael C; [email protected]; Commission; Sandy Cuellar; Carlin, Michael (PUC) Subject: EEO
Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 3:09:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Just confirming that you did receive my religious exemption directly through email.
You stated on the recorded hearing that you saw the exemption.
EEO says that you should have filed it and your responsible because you said you saw the paperwork thru email.
I have the email still for records..
We know that many we’re bullied and pushed due to fear..
Let’s settle this or I can start sending more information about the negligent supervisors who have no taken the vaccine also I have video of and how manages the in the video it shows how unsafe we are under
Will you allow the fraud and manipulation and racism keep going? The water department is already under fire for it’s behavior.
Now I’m exposing the waste water plant…
HR has been neglecting correcting horrible behavior.
Sent from my iPad
Cheers and best,
Brian Browne
From: Sheila McGovern
To: Commission
Subject: Plan to Clear-Cut Heritage Oaks along Hetch Hetchy Trail Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 9:50:17 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Tim,
I’m a member of the community using the bike/walking path along the Hetch Hetchy Trail in Los Altos. It has been brought to our attention that the SFPUC, HHWP Division plans to clear-cut the beautiful, old oak trees that we all enjoy along this trail.
I’m sure there must be some mistake. After all, this is part of San Francisco, and the Bay Area. We all live more outdoors than indoors. Thousands of people use this trail every day, walking and biking; some several times a day, walking their dogs. We have owls appearing nightly, hunting rats — and we’d love that to continue.
Please check into this plan for us, come visit us and walk the trail with us. Please give the clear-cutting of these beautiful trees careful consideration.
Thank you,
Sheila McGovern
Resident, Los Altos
Sent from my iPad
From:
To: Burke, Jennifer (HRD); Martinez, Amalia (HRD); Kwan, Alison (HRD); Lavina, Eric (HRD); Commission; Norby, Greg; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: EEO Complaint file no.4061
Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 8:48:59 AM
Attachments: image001.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To whom it may concern,
This has been one of the most eye opening experience I have been through in my life. Justice, even in New York, can be experienced. I filed an EEO complaint with HR nearly a year ago. I have attempted several times over several months to discover the status of my complaint. I am not sure if it is the strategy of the City and it 's representatives to run out the time allowed to file a lawsuit for religious discrimination, but as you can see by the link of the article from the New York Post, when challenged in court, the employee discriminated against wins.
Throughout this travesty not once has any
representative of the City explained how my religious believes were disqualified from exemption. It seems as though the EEO process used by the City and all of its staff are not there to protect the employees that have been discriminated against in reference to their religious beliefs.
My experience is
that I have been continuously discriminated against by all those City representatives that have touched my case.
I am sure that none of you have any information regarding the complaint I filed last October.
If you do, I
would love to hear it.
NYPD cop can't be fired for refusing COVID vaccine: judge (nypost.com) Thank you,
-----Original Message-----
From: Burke, Jennifer (HRD) <[email protected]>
To: Sent: Wed, Jul 13, 2022 11:34 am
Subject: RE: EEO Complaint file no.4061
the
Hi :
Thank you for the email. I am the manager for your matter and am the contact person. The update for your matter is that it is still under review by my management and they are carefully reviewing each matter. I, again, apologize for the delay.
Thanks,
Jennifer L. Burke, EEO Programs Manager
Department of Human Resources
One South Van Ness Ave., 4th Floor
Website: www.sfdhr.org
From:
Sent: Wednesday, July 6, 2022 5:11 PM
To: Burke, Jennifer (HRD) <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: EEO Complaint file no.4061
Jennifer Burke,
As you can see on the email below sent to me on May 23, 2022 by you, you stated, "I believe you should have your determination within a week or two, which will be emailed to you at the email we have on file."
Though I seem to get many emails including the one you sent on May 26, 2022 as shown below, I have not yet received any indication of the results of the investigation for my complaint, (file no. 4061). I am
not sure if this is because your beliefs were misguided or somehow the email just never reached me.
Can you give me the status of my complaint?
Thank you for your time in this matter,
-----Original Message-----
From: Burke, Jennifer (HRD) <[email protected]
>
To:
Sent: Thu, May 26, 2022 1:47 pm
Subject: RE: EEO Complaint file no.4061
Hi :
The City takes all allegations of harassment, retaliation, and discrimination seriously. The investigation of your religious discrimination complaint is comprehensive of the information you provided to your Department and any subsequent information you provided to DHR EEO for your complaint.
The process
by which DHR was soliciting your reasons and explanations for your religious accommodation request was codified in that process, including the Intake Questionnaire. DHR EEO received your intake questionnaire response on December 3, 2021.
Thanks,
Jennifer L. Burke, EEO Programs Manager
Department of Human Resources
One South Van Ness Ave., 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone: (415) 557-4851
Thank you for the email. I apologize for the delay.
Your case file has been reviewed by a DHR EEO investigator and is now being reviewed by DHR management for a determination. I believe you should have your determination within a week or two, which will be emailed to you at the email we have on file.
Thanks,
Jennifer L. Burke, EEO Programs Manager
Department of Human Resources
One South Van Ness Ave., 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone: (415) 557-4851
Website: www.sfdhr.org
From:
Sent: Sunday, May 22, 2022 12:36 PM
To: Burke, Jennifer (HRD) <[email protected]>
Subject: EEO Complaint file no.4061
Jennifer Burke,
As I hope you are aware, I have filled a Religious and Medical Discrimination complaint against the city and the DHR back in October 14, 2021.
It would appear as though my complaint was
not being considered important by the City and it's representatives as I had requested the status of my complaint several times over several months with out any information provided back to me by those representatives.
Can you tell me what is the status of my complaint? If not can you provide me with the individual that I should be contacting?
Thank you,
-----Original Message-----
From: Martinez, Amalia (HRD) <[email protected] >
To: >; DHR-EEO <[email protected]>; Kwan, Alison (HRD)
<[email protected]>; Lavina, Eric (HRD) <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Norby, Gregory (PUC) <[email protected]>; Soluk, Andy (HRD) <[email protected]>
Cc: Burke, Jennifer (HRD) <[email protected]>
Sent: Mon, May 2, 2022 2:21 pm
Subject: RE: EEO Complaint file no.4061
Dear –
Hope you and your family are doing well.
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Please be advised that your complaint has been assigned to Investigator Heather Kittel for review. I have cc Investigator Kittel’s manager on the thread.
EEO will reach out to you with an update as soon as the review has been concluded.
Thank you for your continued patience and understanding in this matter,
Amalia
Amalia Martinez
Equal Employment Opportunity Director
Department of Human Resources
One South Van Ness Avenue, 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94103
Phone: (415) 557-4932
Website: www.sfdhr.orgConnecting People with Purpose
From:
Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 9:16 AM
To: DHR-EEO <[email protected]>; Kwan, Alison (HRD) <[email protected]>; Lavina, Eric (HRD) <[email protected]>; Martinez, Amalia (HRD) <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Norby, Gregory (PUC) <[email protected]>; Soluk, Andy (HRD) <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: EEO Complaint file no.4061
Is it now policy that you ghost those that have filed a complaint of religious and medical discrimination instead of investigating those charges? Perhaps you are still understaffed. I sent the email below a week ago and have not had a response to the status of my complaint.
-----Original Message-----
From:
To: [email protected]
<[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Sun, Apr 17, 2022 10:12 am
Subject: EEO Complaint file no.4061
To whom it may concern,
I am not checking in. I am asking what is the status of my discrimination complaint that I filed on October 14, 2021?
If I did not have my faith, the lack of the City and it’s representatives following the policies, standards and laws would have been devastating to the quality of my life.
The City and it’s representatives claim the importance of inclusion, tolerance and the principles on non- discrimination on the basis of race, religion and other factors.
Yet the City and it’s representatives have
not adhered to those claimed principles, policies and laws.
I am simply wondering why the City and its representatives are not acting on my discrimination complaint I filed 185 days ago.
The City has designed a process to protect and enforce the City and it’s representatives from discriminating, intolerance and non-inclusion targeted at it’s employees, yet none in this organization seem to follow these processes, policies or standards.
I can’t help sense an abundance of hypocrisy.
You either defend these principles, policies and laws or you don’t. Where is my due process?
I think this is an excellent example of why I have no faith in worldly institutions and hold my faith in my creator.
Thank you,
From: Sheila McGovern
To: Commission
Subject: SFPUC HHWP Division’s Plan to Clear Cut Heritage Oaks in Los Altos Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 11:38:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Attn: Newsha Ajami
Dear Newsha,
It has come to the attention of local residents that there’s a plan to clear-cut all the trees that have been growing along the bike/walking path that the community here has been enjoying for decades.
We are being told that this land
belongs to SFPUC, and they can clear-cut all the trees if they so wish.
This bike/walking path, which runs along the Hetch Hetchy Trail, through Gunn High School in Palo Alto, extends southward through a residential area of Los Altos. Residents of Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Mountain View use this trail daily to walk their dogs, bike, run, walk. Bridgepoint Nursing home residents are out there with their walkers.
It’s enormously popular.
Many of the trees growing along this path are old, Heritage Oak trees that provide shade to the residents who enjoy this path, not to mention providing habitat for the owls that visit each evening, and other wildlife that live nearby, along Adobe Creek.
We are also being told that the City of Los Altos has no right to argue with your plan to clear-cut these beautiful trees, and that if they don’t comply with your plan and sign some outdated agreement, that SFPUC will fence off the area, and the residents won’t be able to use it at all.
Residents have not seen this agreement in question. We don’t understand all the issues, but we want to do anything we can to preserve this path. It seems clear that we need a fresh perspective on this project.
Would you please find out what is really going on with this plan, and let us know what we can do to help maintain this trail that we love and prevent the old oaks from being removed along this beautiful path that connects Mountain View, Los Altos and Palo Alto.
Please come visit us, walk the trail with us, and help us work together.
Thank you,
Sheila McGovern
Resident, Los Altos
Sent from my iPad
From: Nancy Arbuckle
To: Commission
Subject: Tuolumne River Flow Rates
Date: Friday, September 16, 2022 5:47:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear SFPUC Commissioners,
I understand that you are once again seeking Voluntary Agreements for the Tuolumne River rather than actual science-based fish models. I fear you are losing credibility as you attempt to pull the wool over the public’s eyes.
We deserve transparency. The Tuolumne’s salmon population is at less than 1% of historic numbers. This fact is directly related to flow rates in the Lower Tuolumne River. Between 2012 and 2016 unimpaired flow on the Lower Tuolumne averaged just 12% but the SFPUC never had less than 3 years of water in storage. I would like to know what storage would have looked like had the Bay Delta Plan’s unimpaired flow requirements been in place.
SFPUC’s remit requires that you value science and become environmental stewards of the Tuolumne River. We as citizens demand it. Please drop your lawsuits against the State Water Board. Use science and actual evidence and increase Tuolumne River flows.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Nancy Arbuckle
SF
From: Hannah Quirk
To: Commission
Subject: SFPUC Environmental Justice
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 7:37:40 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear SFPUC Commissioners,
I care deeply about the environment and those who rely upon it, and encourage you to do everything in your power to protect and restore the San Francisco Bay-Delta and the rivers that feed it.
One area of concern is the lack of environmental justice expertise in the SFPUC commission. Many Indiegnous tribes, underserved communities, and communities of color are impacted by decisions made by the commission. It is important that the commission take environmental justice seriously, by having a commissioner who has a background in and deep understanding of this critical topic.
Many rely on a healthy
ecosystem throughout the Tuolumne River watershed and the Delta into which it flows.
The SFPUC needs to prioritize environmental justice and to improve the City’s environmental stewardship of the Tuolumne River and the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary.
Sincerely,
Hannah Quirk
--
Hannah Quirk
(she/her/hers)
Yale University '22
B.A. Global Affairs
From: Morgan Pink
To: [email protected]; Commission
Subject: Protect the Bay-Delta
Date: Monday, September 19, 2022 7:54:24 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Good Evening Mayor Breed
My name is Morgan Pink and I am a resident of San Francisco. I care deeply about the environment and those who rely upon it, and encourage you to do everything in your power to protect and restore the San Francisco Bay-Delta and the rivers that feed it.
One area of concern is the lack of environmental justice expertise in the SFPUC commission. Many Indigenous tribes, underserved communities, and communities of color are impacted by decisions made by the commission. It is important that the commission take environmental justice seriously, by having a commissioner who has a background in and deep understanding of this critical topic.
Many rely on a healthy ecosystem throughout the Tuolumne River watershed and the Delta into which it flows.
Mayor Breed, please appoint candidates with the strongest possible environmental justice credentials. The SFPUC needs to prioritize environmental justice and
to improve the City’s
environmental stewardship of the Tuolumne River and the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary.
Sincerely,
Morgan Pink
OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Form Email Correspondence Log
Tell San Francisco to do it’s Part of Save the Salmon and Heal the Environment September 11, 2022 through September 14, 2022
Date Received From City
September 11, 2022 Charles Hammerstad San Jose
Tamara Wilson Mountain View
Nancy Havassy Oakland
Bern Shen San Francisco
Anthony Barreiro San Francisco
Linda Walls Berkeley
Allyson Bishop San Francisco
Jane Varalli San Francisco
Michael Adams San Francisco
September 13, 2022 Tab Buckner San Francisco
September 14, 2022 Helen Archer-Duste San Francisco
From: Charles Hammerstad
To: Commission
Subject: Tell San Francisco to do its part to save salmon and heal the environment Date: Sunday, September 11, 2022 9:06:57 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear San Francisco Water,
Dear Mayor London Breed,
I am writing to urge you to appoint a strong environmentalist to the open seat on the SFPUC.
The SFPUC must change its position and embrace science-based environmental protections for the Tuolumne River, the San Francisco Bay-Delta, and our declining salmon runs. This is urgent because SFPUC staff is fighting efforts to heal the river and the Bay and Delta it flows into. Because of water diversions by the SFPUC and other diverters, salmon have fared more poorly on the Tuolumne than on any other salmon river in the Central Valley. Those same diversions are causing great damage to the Bay-Delta ecosystem and San Francisco’s salmon fishing industry.
I addition, the SFPUC is far behind communities like Orange County when it comes to reducing reliance on water diversions by investing in modern water management tools like water recycling.
The SFPUC’s position needs to change to reflect the strong commitment San Franciscans have to protecting the environment. That must start by ensuring that the Commission itself reflects those values.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Charles Hammerstad
San Jose, CA 95120
OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Form Email Correspondence Log
Please Invest in Solutions to Prevent Harmful Algae Blooms & Fish Kills September 9, 2022 through September 19, 2022
Date Received From City
September 9, 2022 Morgan Cantell Fairfax
September 10, 2022 Helen Londe Richmond
Stephanie Smith San Francisco
Ruth Graves San Francisco
Noel Park Rancho Palos Verdes
Peter Standish-Lee Granite Bay
Isaac Castillo Orange
September 11, 2022 Allen Aronson Wilmington
Sylvia Seymour Grass Valley
Jim Bearden Arnold
Benjamin Clark San Francisco
Nader Rafjy Palo Alto
Blaise Cullen San Francisco
Andrew Carothers-Liske Oakland
September 12, 2022 Jean Allan San Francisco
September 13, 2022 Kate Poole San Francisco
Judy Irving San Francisco
John McManus San Francisco
Katja Irvin San Jose
William Martin San Francisco
Paige Bierma San Francisco
John Holtzclaw San Francisco
Heidi Pickman Oakland
Steven Tiell San Francisco
September 14, 2022 Alex Piper San Francisco
Audrey Daniel San Francisco
Joan Kruckewitt San Francisco
Seffanie Malla Oakland
Kris Negulescu San Francisco
Camilla Lombard Moss Beach
Jon Rosenfield Berkeley
Jasmine Markovich Oakland
Sage Bachman Oakland
Elizabeth Stampe San Francisco
Leah Redwood Berkeley
September 15, 2022 Cynthia Cooper Oakland
Judie Guerriero San Francisco
JP Stephenson Emeryville
Maria Moreno San Francisco
Sharon Hagen Pacifica
Lynn Locher Fremont
Reina Lester Mullins, SC
Gina Ness Eureka
Greg Thompson Sausalito
Thomas Newmeyer San Francisco
Glen Deardorff Castro Valley
Nora Privitera Oakland
Susan Vance Pleasanton
Laura Herndon Burbank
Taylor Hogan San Francisco
Evan Jane Kriss Sausalito
Cynthia Alderson Santa Clara
I a San Francisco
Aundi Mevoli Alameda
Carol Schaffer San Pablo
Mark Barath Sacramento
David Mazariegos Folsom
Laura Shifley Oakland
Reetta Raag Orinda
Evan Elias San Francisco
Margaret Mischner San Francisco
Robert Reed Laguna Beach
Alan Schenck Aptos
Lindsay Mugglestone Berkeley
Bonnie Pannell Crockett
Monica DuClaud San Francisco
Jennifer Van Dyke Pleasant Hill
L B Nelson Moran Hill
Jules Weiss Berkeley
Linda Policarpio Pleasant Hill
Alice Polesky San Francisco
September 16, 2022 Jennifer Devine Milpitas
David Burtis Calistoga
Helen Londe Richmond
Debra Leow San Francisco
Irene Moosen San Francisco
Loren Fraser San Francisco
Oscar Mace Foster City
Paloma Garcia San Francisco
Eliza Lamson Berkeley
David Potovsky San Anselmo
A. D. Burbank
Mary Moycik San Francisco
Naomi O’Connor Richmond
September 17, 2022 Tamara Voyles Sebastopol
Susan King Concord
Ralph Szur Richmond
September 18, 2022 Anthony Lindsey San Francisco
Bob Skinner Novato
Quinne Fokes San Anselmo
Nancy Berman Kensington
Pamela Brigg McKown El Cerrito
September 19, 2022 Rachel Heron Oakland
Layne Friedrich Glen Ellen
Deborah Corsiglia Burlingame
Cindy Jarrett Santa Rosa
Nina Atkind San Francisco
Peter Belden San Francisco
Vaughn Korbin San Francisco
Anne Hamersky San Francisco
Joshua Nederhood Oakland
From: [email protected] on behalf of Morgan via San Francisco Baykeeper To: Commission
Subject: Please Invest in Solutions to Prevent Harmful Algae Blooms & Fish Kills Date: Friday, September 9, 2022 3:42:22 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To: Mayor London Breed
CC: SFPUC General Manager Dennis Herrera, SFPUC Commission, and the San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Dear Mayor Breed,
I urge you to direct San Francisco’s Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to aggressively increase the city’s investment in water recycling today.
Over the past month, a large harmful algal bloom has spread across the Bay, leaving unimaginable numbers of dead fish in its wake. We’re still learning about this particular bloom, but what we do know is that San Francisco’s sewage effluent contributes to excessive levels of nutrients in San Francisco Bay that make the Bay fertile territory for the spread of harmful algae blooms.
I have been finding dead sturgeon and striped bass on the shores of Marin and Sonoma.
Water recycling and other wastewater management technologies can help by reducing the volume of polluted discharges into the Bay. In addition, by producing potable supplies, water recycling will reduce San Francisco’s reliance on water diverted from the Tuolumne River, increasing the city’s resilience to climate change effects on water supply.
Other cities have learned the lessons of California’s unpredictable climate and are quickly adopting water recycling to reduce their burden on the ecosystem, while increasing the reliability of their supply. Orange County gets more than 75 percent of its water through its water reuse program. Las Vegas recycles nearly all of its water used indoors. And Los Angeles is on the path to reusing 100 percent of its wastewater by 2035.
But, as San Francisco’s draft Urban Water Management Plan recently revealed, the city
currently has no plans to make recycled water widely
available in the next 25 years. Instead, the city is pursuing multiple expensive and misguided lawsuits so that it can continue to rely, almost exclusively, on the Tuolumne River—one of the state’s most overtapped rivers—for the next several decades. San Francisco and large agribusiness water districts divert four out of every five gallons of water that flow in the Tuolumne River during a typical year.
This overuse has caused the river’s once mighty Chinook Salmon populations to crash. Meanwhile, low freshwater flows contribute to deteriorating water quality—including harmful algae blooms—in the Delta and San Francisco Bay.
I agree with Supervisor Aaron Peskin that “it is time for San Francisco and our sister cities in the nine Bay Area counties to start looking at what kinds of infrastructure investments will need to be made as this becomes, sadly, the new normal.” It’s unacceptable for the city with the nation’s greenest reputation to shirk its responsibilities to conserve California’s precious and unpredictable water supply.
I support increasing river flows to protect San Francisco Bay’s fisheries, water quality, and recreation. The city should do its part to protect the Bay and its rivers—water recycling is a common-sense way to limit the city’s water use, increase the reliability of its supply, and protect the Bay from harmful wastewater treatment plant effluent.
Thank you,
Morgan Cantrell
Fairfax, CA