CleanPowerSF Sfpuc Commission
January 24, 2023

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
City and County of San Francisco

London N. Breed
Mayor

REGULAR MEETING DRAFT MINUTES
Tuesday, January 10, 2023
1:30 PM

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
City Hall, Room 400
San Francisco, CA 94102

Commissioners
Newsha Ajami, President
Sophie Maxwell, Vice President
Tim Paulson
Tony Rivera
Kate Stacy

Dennis J. Herrera
General Manager

Donna Hood
Secretary

SFPUC MINUTES – JANUARY 10, 2023 2

1. Call to Order
President Ajami called the meeting to order at 1:31 pm.

2. Roll Call

Present: Ajami, Maxwell, Paulson, Rivera, and Stacy

3. Adopt renewed findings under State Urgency Legislation to allow hybrid in-person meetings during the COVID-19 Emergency and direct the Commission Secretary to agendize a similar resolution at a Commission Meeting within the next 30 days. (Resolution 23-0001)

No public comment.

On Motion to Adopt State Findings Under State Urgency Legislation Ayes: Ajami, Maxwell, Paulson, Rivera, and Stacy

4. Approval of the Minutes of December 13, 2022

Public Comment
• Dave Warner suggested edits to the minutes related to item 9.

The following individuals were directed to item # 13 - General Public Comment because their comments were not applicable to the Minutes of December 13, 2022. o Eileen Boken
o Bob Stanley
o Mary Butterwick
o John Rosapepe
o Cindy

President Ajami stated the change to the timing of general public comment per the revised Rules of Order was made to prioritize business items that are on the agenda and for the public who wish to make comments on those agendized items. She stated that the Commission is interested in hearing from the public and that the change of order was not to shut down public comment or different perspectives.

On Motion to Approve the Minutes of December 13, 2022
Ayes: Ajami, Maxwell, Paulson, Rivera, and Stacy

5. Report of the General Manager (GM)
a) Drought Conditions Update (as of January 3, 3023)
Steve Ritchie, Assistant General Manager, Water, discussed the recent storms and reviewed (1) January 3, 2023 Reservoir Storage: Hetch Hetchy is at 66.6% of maximum storage, Water Bank is at 98.7% of maximum storage, and total system storage is at

79.6%. He stated water is being released from Cherry and is going into water bank. He stated Calaveras is full. (2) Other California Reservoirs: Shasta, Oroville and Don Pedro Reservoirs are at 38%, 28%, and 61% of capacity, respectively; (3) California Drought Monitor: Exceptional drought is gone, and extreme drought is lessening. He emphasized the drought is not over; (4) Hetch Hetchy Precipitation: Precipitation is above the 2022

SFPUC MINUTES – JANUARY 10, 2023 3

level and nearing the 1983 level, which was the wettest year on record; (5) Upcountry 6- Station Precipitation Index (as of January 2, 2023) year-to-date (YTD) total is at 21.48 inches; (6) Bay Area 7-Station Precipitation Index (as of January 1, 2023) YTD total is at

17.20 inches: (7) Upcountry Snowpack: Is above 2017 level and nearing 100% of typical April level; (8) Water Available to the City: Is at 250,000 acre feet after the recent storms; (9) National Precipitation Forecast: Additional precipitation is forecast; and (10) Total Deliveries: 133 mgd.

Public Comment
• Unidentified caller asked how many storms are needed to get out of drought. She suggested that the city install a rain harvest systems to capture rainwater. • Peter Drekmeier, Tuolumne River Trust, discussed system storage levels and indicated that 226,000-acre feet were captured since the last report. He stated there is storage to last five years.
• Heinrich Albert, Sierra Club Water Committee, stated that the SFPUC is risk adverse to change and needs to balance risk
• (Inaudible) expressed gratitude for the rain and asked that the lawsuit against the State Water Board be dropped. He requested that one year be eliminated from the Design Drought.
• John Rosapepe stated that one year should be eliminated from the Design Drought.

He asked that the lawsuit be dropped.
• Lawrence, retired wildlife biologist and ecologist, asked that the Tuolumne River not be killed, and that water be released.
• Mary Butterwick discussed the ecological state of the Tuolumne River. She stated the update should include a salmon count. She asked that the lawsuit be dropped.

b) Hetch Hetchy Capital Improvement Program (HCIP) Quarterly Report Katie Miller, Director Water Capital Programs, reviewed the HCIP status as of September 2022, noting expenditures of $196 million, with the HCIP 26% complete. Director Miller reviewed (1) HCIP cost summary, noting no cost variance for the overall HCIP for the quarter.

Director Miller provided project status updates for the following (1) Mountain Tunnel Improvements (Priest Audit Tunnel, Flow Control Facility Shaft, Bypass Tunnels, and preparation for Shutdown No. 2); (2) Moccasin Powerhouse and Generator Step-Up Transformer Rehabilitation (Step-up Transformers, Generators Rewind, and Powerhouse System Upgrade); and (3) San Joaquin Pipelines Valve and Safety Improvements.

Director Miller responded to a question from Vice President (VP) Maxwell as to whether the same contractor that was used for rewind would be used for the San Joaquin Pipeline Valve and Safe Entry Improvement, and if there would be any compensation for delays. Director Miller indicated the same contractor would be used and discussed the contractor’s procurement challenges and delays, and staffing challenges due to COVID. Algy Collymore, Project Manager, indicated any compensation issues as a result of delays are being addressed with the contractor. Commissioner Paulson noted the main issues of concern were with procurement and staffing and not any “red flags” and asked that the Commission continue to be updated. Director Miller indicated staff are working with the contractor and

SFPUC MINUTES – JANUARY 10, 2023 4

will be closely monitoring.

President Ajami discussed the fact sheets and stated the variances need to be included.

No public comment.

c) Wastewater Enterprise Quarterly Report including Southeast Area Major Projects Update (1) Biosolids, (2) Headworks, and (3) 1550 Evans Southeast Community Center Stephen Robinson, AGM Infrastructure, began with construction updates for the Mariposa Dry-Weather Pump Station and Force Main Improvements, Wawona Area Stormwater Improvement Project, and Westside Pump Station Reliability Improvements.

AGM Robinson reviewed the Sewer System Improvement Program (SSIP) Phase I status stating as of September 2022, indicating the project count by phase is 51% complete with $3,646 million expended. He reviewed the SSIP status cost summary, the facilities and infrastructure cost summary, and cost variance.

AGM Robinson discussed capi
tal program milestones, noting those projects that have completed design, that have awarded construction contract, and have completed conceptual engineering. He provided the following progress and status updates for the following (1) Southeast Plant Digester Facilities Project: Project cost increased from $1,681 million to $2,373 million; (2) Southeast Plant New Headworks Facilities Project:

Project cost increased from $619 million to $679 million; and (3) Southeast Community Center 1550 Evans: Project cost increased from $114 million to $115 million.

In response to a question from VP Maxwell regarding the increase from $619 million to $679 million for the Southeast Plant New Headworks Facility Project, AGM Robinson indicated it was due to project redesign, value engineering, and changing market conditions; and the increase from $114 million to $115 million for the Southeast Community Center was due to PG&E’s delay in the facility energization.

AGM Robinson responded to a question from VP Maxwell regarding maintenance funding and stated maintenance funding has been allocated and facilities have resources and contracts in place for maintenance and operation.

AGM Robinson responded to a question from President Ajami regarding opportunities for changes to projects that are in design, noting that the earlier changes can be made, the better, and emphasized that procedures, processes, and criteria need to be consistent.

Brief discussion ensued.

Public Comment
• Peter Drekmeier, Tuolumne River Trust, stated cost for the projects come from rate payers and that wastewater isn’t measured and that customers will use less water to reduce bills. He requested a deep dive during the budget process to understand debt service and water consumption.

SFPUC MINUTES – JANUARY 10, 2023 5

d) Report on Recent San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Activities, Events and Announcements
GM Herrera discussed the atmospheric rivers that have occurred since New Year’s Eve, noting they have posed a challenge for SFPUC staff and have triggered several emergency response activations. He indicated the Wastewater Enterprise activated their emergency response structure in coordination with Public Works, mitigating urban flooding by resourcing all available assets to maximize functionality of the City’s collection system, and he noted specific efforts being taken. He stated the Water Supply and Treatment Division, and the Natural Resources Division activated their emergency response structure to ensure safe operation of reservoirs and noted increasing creek levels posed challenges. He stated Hetch Hetchy also activated their emergency response structure to maintain critical operations. All emergency response structures were supported and coordinated through the SFPUC’s Department Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in coordination with the San Francisco EOC. He thanked all staff for their tireless work.

GM Herrera responded to a question from Commissioner Paulson regarding which departments are responsible for the flooding at the Marina Green.

The Commissioners thanked staff or their work during the storm events.

No public comment.

6. CONSENT CALENDAR
a) Approve the terms and conditions of and authorize the General Manager to execute a no-fee, month-to-month revocable license to the Girl Scouts of Northern California, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, to use approximately 4.1 acres of land under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission in San Francisco, California.

The License Area constitutes a portion of the SFPUC’s Parcel No. 55 located at 1100 Lake Merced Boulevard near Lake Merced. The Girl Scouts will use the License Area for Girl Scout troop outings, camps, events, trainings, and the maintenance and repair of the existing camp improvements. (Resolution 23-0002)

b) Approve Modification No. 1 to Job Order Contract, JOC-83R, General Building (B License) Construction, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Alameda Counties, with Rubecon Builders, Inc., to complete ongoing facility and asset improvements, increasing the contract by $2,500,000, for a total not-to-exceed contract amount of $7,500,000, in accordance with San Francisco Administrative Code section 6.62. (Resolution 23-0003)

c) Approve Amendment No. 1 to Agreement Nos. PRO.0097.A-C , Hetchy Capital Improvement Projects, As- Needed Construction Management Services, with AECOM and Effective Management Services LLC. Joint Venture (PRO.0097.A), Mott MacDonald and Dabri, Inc. Joint Venture (PRO.0097.B), and Avila and Associates Consulting Engineers, Inc. (PRO.0097.C), to provide as- needed Construction Management service to augment City Construction Management staff as necessary, to increase each contract by $2,000,000 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $6,000,000, with no change to the duration of each agreement. (Resolution 23-0004)

SFPUC MINUTES – JANUARY 10, 2023 6

d) Approve Amendment No. 1 to Agreement No. PUC.PRO.0113, Electric Billing Software as a Services (SaaS) Agreement, with Enterprise Solutions Consulting LLC to provide additional as-needed professional services to facilitate ongoing customizations to the Oracle C2M (Customer to Meter) electric billing system, to increase the contract by $1,250,000 and increase the contract duration by six months, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $5,624,527 and for a total duration of seven and one-half years. (Resolution 23-0005)

e) Award Contract Nos. PRO.0216.A, PRO.0216.B, PRO.0216.C, and PRO.0216.D, As- Needed Environmental Review Services, to provide as-needed environmental analyses, studies, and reports; resource agency documents/permits; environmental compliance support during construction; and specialized natural resource and other environmental expertise in support of the Sewer System Improvement Program and other Water, Wastewater, and Power Enterprise operating and capital projects, to AECOM Technical Services Inc., (PRO.0216.A), Environmental Science Associates Inc., (PRO.0216.B), Panorama Environmental, Inc.. (PRO.0216.C), and Woodard & Curran and ATS Consultants Joint Venture, (PRO.0216.D), each for an amount not-to-exceed $7,000,000, and each with a duration of seven years. (Resolution 23-0006)

f) Accept work performed by Ranger Pipelines, Inc., for Contract No. WD-2668, Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery, for a total contract amount of $62,168,845, and for a total contract duration of 2,707 consecutive calendar days (approximately seven years and six months); and authorize final payment to the contractor. (Resolution 23-0007)

g) Approve an increase of $300,000 to the contract cost contingency and an increase of 300 calendar days to the contract duration contingency for Contract No. WD-2852R, San Francisco Westside Recycled Water Irrigation System Retrofits, with Fontenoy Engineering, Inc. to address on-going schedule and cost impacts due to COVID-related delays in material deliveries, delayed and modified work related to a tree conflict and associated public hearing process, additional work due to differing field conditions, and to provide sufficient contingency to address unanticipated changes through the remainder of the construction effort; and authorize the General Manager to approve future modifications to the contract for a total contract amount not to exceed $3,031,877 and a total contract duration of up to 920 consecutive calendar days. (Resolution 23-0008)

h) Accept work performed by Kone, Inc., under Contract No. WW-6 72, Wastewater Enterprise Elevator Maintenance, Repair and Modernization 2018-2021; approve Modification No. 2 (Final), decreasing the contract amount by $1,057,390, for a total contract amount of $258,910, and decreasing the contract duration by 40 consecutive calendar days, for a total contract duration of 1,194 consecutive calendar days; and authorize final payment to the Contractor. This reduction in total contract amount relates to SFPUC staff’s decision not to utilize an as-needed bid item to modernize the elevator. The reduction in duration is because this contract was due to expire and SFPUC awarded another elevator contract (WW-718R) that was anticipated to start during this period, overlapping the existing contract. (Resolution 23-0009)

i) Approve an increase of 250 calendar days to the contract duration contingency for Contract No. WW-685R, North Shore Pump Station Wet Weather Improvements, with Western Water

SFPUC MINUTES – JANUARY 10, 2023 7

Constructors, Inc., to address COVID supply chain delays related to the procurement of dry weather liquid pumps; and authorize the General Manager to approve future modifications to the contract for a total contract duration of up to 1,075 consecutive calendar days, with no change to contract amount. (Resolution 23-0010)

j) Award Contract No. WW-737, Baker St. Combined Sewer Discharge Baffle Improvements & Backflow Valve Repair, in the amount of $566,000, and with a duration of 240 consecutive calendar days, to the responsible bidder that submitted the lowest responsive bid, Trinet Construction, Inc., to construct a new baffle wall and repair the existing baffle inside the Baker Street Combined Sewer Discharge including leak repair in the existing backflow valve. (Resolution 23-0011)

Public Comment
• Eileen Boken provided comment on item 6b, stating the dollar increase is 50%. She noted the same contractor was used for the AWSS Pump Station 2 project; and commented on item 6c, noting the dollar increase of 50%.

On Motion to Approve Consent Calendar Items 6a through 6j:

Ayes: Ajami, Maxwell, Paulson, Rivera, and Stacy

7. Authorize the General Manager to execute, on behalf of the City and County of San Francisco, a First Amendment to the Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regarding the construction, operation, and maintenance of a permanent water recirculation system at the CDFW-owned and operated Moccasin Fish Hatchery that will allow for reduction in San Francisco Public Utilities Commission water deliveries to the Hatchery during shutdowns of the Hetch Hetchy Water and Power system and during droughts, to extend the Agreement duration by up to 12 months, to December 1, 2023, for a total duration of up to 36 months, with no change to the Agreement amount. (Resolution 23-0012) AGM Ritchie introduced the item and requested Commission approval. He responded to a question from President Ajami regarding recirculation and treatment, noting it is a “flow- through” system. He stated the CDFW will be responsible for operation and maintenance, with technical support from the SFPUC.

In response to a question from VP Maxwell regarding the safe use of recycled water for fish, AGM Ritchie stated that the use of recycled water is common in other hatcheries and is prudent.

No public comment.

On Motion to Approve Item 7:

Ayes: Ajami, Maxwell, Paulson, Rivera, and Stacy

8. Award Contract No. PRO.0264, New City Distribution Division (CDD) Campus at 2000 Marin Design Services, to provide architectural, engineering, and consulting services to design new facilities for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Enterprise CDD at 2000 Marin Street, San Francisco, to Mark Cavagnero Associates, for an amount not-to-exceed $27,800,000 and with a duration of five years, subject to Board of Supervisors’ approval under San Francisco Charter Section 9.118. (Resolution 23-0013)

SFPUC MINUTES – JANUARY 10, 2023 8

Shelby Campbell, Project Manager, reviewed the proposed contract award and provided a brief background of the CDD Yard, touched on the existing conditions at the CDD campus, and presented the new CDD campus site plan. Project Manager Campbell reviewed the Request-for- Proposals (RFP), which she indicated has been opened three times, on March 31, 2021, September 17, 2021, and September 14, 2022, stating issues included the number of responsible proposals, overhead and profit schedule, and conflict of interest. She indicated the RFP was revised to address issues and was readvertised September 14, 2022 and included robust outreach. She reviewed the proposers and scores.

President Ajami requested that location maps be put into a larger location context.

No public comment.

On Motion to Approve Item 8:

Ayes: Ajami, Maxwell, Paulson, Rivera, and Stacy

9. Award sole source Contract No. PUC-0004(I), 525 Golden Gate Elevator Maintenance and Repair Services, in an amount not-to-exceed $950,000, and with a duration of 2,920 consecutive calendar days, to Otis Elevator Company, which is the only elevator contractor authorized to maintain and support proprietary components in the elevators at the SFPUC headquarters building, in accordance with San Francisco Administrative Code section 6.73(a). (Resolution 23- 0014)
Ivy Fine, Manger, Program Administration Bureau, introduced the item and stated Otis installed the elevators which contain proprietary components and is the only licensed contractor able to provide legally required maintenance services for their proprietary elevator components.

Manager Fine responded to a question from VP Maxwell regarding the proprietary elevators and questioned if other vendors should be considered. Discussion ensued on the contract and contract renewal amount and process. Commissioner Paulson noted Otis is a well-known and trusted elevator company.

Public Comment
• Eileen Boken questioned the need for a sole source contract.

On Motion to Approve Item 9:

Ayes: Ajami, Maxwell, Paulson, Rivera, and Stacy

10. Authorize the General Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission (SF LAFCo) for an amount not-to-exceed $800,000 and with a duration of three years and five months to perform work for CleanPowerSF.

Mike Hyams, Deputy AGM, Power Enterprise, introduced the item and provided a brief background of the SFPUC’s work with the SF LAFCo. He noted the first MOU was in 2009 and was extended several times before its 2021 expiration. He stated the proposed MOU will reimburse LAFCo for work performed during fiscal year 2022-23 through fiscal year 2025-26 and will use approximately $130,000 which remains appropriated from the 2009 MOU and will be supplemented by CleanPowerSF ratepayer funds for approximately $225,000 per year for fiscal years 2023-24 through fiscal years 2025-26.

SFPUC MINUTES – JANUARY 10, 2023 9

He stated the term of the MOU can be extended by mutual agreement between the SFPUC and LAFCo and he discussed the details of work to be performed by LAFCo staff under the MOU. He indicated the LAFCo Commission approved the draft MOU on December 9, 2021. Mr. Hyams recognized LAFCo Executive Officer Jeremy Pollock.

President Ajami noted that CleanPowerSF is an established utility and questioned the need for or the value of the work to be performed by LAFCo staff and wondered why that work can’t be conducted by SFPUC staff. She stated that CleanPowerSF needs to be careful to manage costs and maintain its competitive edge and adding things like this will begin to erode our operational efficiency. She expressed that the SFPUC should use its own staff and consultants to conduct studies related to its operations.

Mr. Hyams noted there is a new direction with LAFCo since the launch of the CleanPowerSF program. There is a new commission and executive director who are interested in LAFCO’s role in advising the SFPUC and the Board of Supervisors on CleanPowerSF and issues related to meeting the City’s Climate Action Plan goals.

GM Herrera acknowledged President Ajami’s comments and stated since the formation of LAFCo in 2007 there has been a transition with the CleanPowerSF program being mature, and that the SFPUC is interested in seeing what the LAFCo can contribute to supplement the SFPUC’s administration of CleanPowerSF.

President Ajami reiterated the SFPUC’s efforts to remain competitive, efficient, and to keep costs down. She stated the proposed MOU needs to be considered within that context and that in her view, SFUPC staff can perform the proposed work under the MOU.

Commissioner Paulson discussed the LAFCo’s development in the various counties. He concurred with comments made by President Ajami.

Commissioner Stacy discussed the original intent with LAFCo’s formation and stated that the Commission must look at how ratepayer money is being spent and agreed with comments made by other Commissioners.

VP Maxwell noted that the requested $800,000 is not a small amount of money and expressed concerns with the MOU.

GM Herrera indicated that the Commission may pull the item if they are not comfortable with moving forward.

Public Comment
• Francisco DaCosta stated a hearing needs to be held to see how proactive and progressive the SFPUC has been.
• John Rosapepe stated that $800,000 is not a small sum. • Jeremy Pollock, Executive Officer LAFCo, acknowledged concerns expressed and discussed the scope of work and study topics to be addressed regarding CleanPowerSF’s future and related issues that are outside of the SFPUC’s core functions. He highlighted the financing through green bank initiative.

SFPUC MINUTES – JANUARY 10, 2023 10

• Written comment submitted are attached.

President Ajami stated there was not intent to minimize the amount of money requested and noted the significance of the funding request. She again expressed the need to spend taxpayer money wisely and thoughtfully. The item was continued.

11. Public Hearing: Discussion and possible action to approve the Electric Home (E-ELEC) rate schedule for customers of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s CleanPowerSF Community Choice Aggregation Program. This action constitutes the Approval Action for the Project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 31.04(h) of the San Francisco Administrative Code. The Planning Department has determined that this action is exempt from the CEQA. If the item is approved, the Commission will rely on that determination to make its decision. (Resolution 23-0015) Ma Yee, Principal Revenue/Rates Analyst, presented the item and discussed (1) CleanPowerSF Rates Landscape: San Francisco City Charter requirement for rate study every five years by independent consultant, 2022 Power Rates Study – completed and adopted FY 2022-23 cost-of- service rates in May 2022, and Key outcomes of rate study – to ensure financial stability, prioritize customer needs, and support the City’s climate action goals; (2) CleanPowerSF Rate Schedules: CleanPowerSF customers receive power supply (generation service) from CleanPowerSF and distribution services from PG&E, and are billed by PG&E. CleanPowerSF’s suite of rate schedules matches PG&E offerings and provides alternative option of cleaner energy for customers; (3) Electric Home (E-ELEC)Rate Schedule: California Public Utilities Commission Decision 21-11-016 ordered new electric home rates for qualifying residential customers, with final E-ELEC rates on December 1, 2022. Supports residential electrification; (4) CleanPowerSF E-ELEC Generation Rates Methodology; (5) E-EEC Bill Comparison: High usage (assumes 650 kWh monthly usage) and low usage (assumes 249 kWh monthly usage) for PG&E and CleanPowerSF Customers; and (6) Recommendation: staff recommends approval of the 2022-23 CleanPowerSF E-ELEC Rate Schedule, applied to bills of CleanPowerSF customers who voluntarily sign-up for E-ELEC rate schedule since PG&E’s offering on December 1, 2022.

Mi
ke Hyams, Deputy AGM, Power Enterprise, responded to a question from VP Maxwell as to what “net metering” is, stating net metering is a program that provides bill credits to customers with rooftop solar for the energy they produce; and to a question regarding “volumetric” stating it is determined per kilowatt-hour. He noted that the E-ELEC distribution rate design is a form of “decoupling”, by recovering more utility distribution revenue from fixed fees rather than from volumetric rates that increase with increasing electricity usage. Brief discussion ensued on rates, rates schedules, and methodology.

No public comment.

President Ajami noted that the rate schedule doesn’t apply to customers with rooftop solar and asked if there are proactive efforts to add them as customers. Deputy AGM Hyams stated there are rates that net energy metering customers may use but that it may not be advantageous to solar customers, but other rates structures could be considered in the future. He anticipates that PG&E will offer this rate for rooftop solar customers once it is able to make necessary changes to the billing system.

SFPUC MINUTES – JANUARY 10, 2023 11

On Motion to Approve Item 11:

Ayes: Ajami, Maxwell, Paulson, Rivera, and Stacy

12. Communications
a) Advance Calendar
b) Contract Advertisement Report
c) Correspondence Log
d) CleanPowerSF Quarterly Update
e) Quarterly Report on Contracts Awarded by the General Manager Pursuant to Delegated Authority
f) O’Shaughnessy Dam Reservation Quarterly Report 4th Quarter: October – December 2022
g) Sewer Inspection and Replacement Program Update

13. General Public Comment
President Ajami reiterated comments she made earlier in the meeting regarding concerns expressed with the placement of general public comment on the agenda. She stated there are many people involved with all aspects of the agenda and there is a fairness in the process to give priority to those who have taken the time to work on and speak to items on the agenda. She stated members of the public are welcomed to speak on items beyond those listed on the agenda, but that opportunity will come later in the meeting so business on the agenda can be accomplished .

• Francisco DaCosta stated there is a difference between freedom and license and that the public has the right to make statements and be respected. • Eileen Boken stated that January 22 begins the new Lunar Year of the Rabbit and that it is expected to bring prosperity, hope and calm. She discussed Alice and Wonderland and movement of general public comment to the end of the agenda. • Dave Warner stated moving general public to the end of the agenda is a burden and he questioned the benefit of doing so. He discussed practices of other water organizations. He suggested time certain placement of general public comment. • Peter Drekmeier, Tuolumne River Trust, discussed the reduction of time allocated and questioned the move of general public comment to the end of the agenda. He discussed general comment practices of other water and governmental organizations. He discussed his public records request for information and denial under attorney-client privilege. • Molly Colton, Sierra Club California, stated movement of general public comment to the end of the agenda is counter to what other agencies do and requested it be moved back to the beginning of the meeting.
• John McManus, Golden State Salmon Association, commented on movement of general public comment to end of the meeting. He recommended that general public comment be placed on the agenda time certain.
• Lawrence, retired biologist and ecologist, expressed concern with moving general public comment to the end of the agenda.
• Elizabeth Dougherty, Executive Director, Wholly H20, concurred with other speakers and expressed concern with moving general public comment to the end of the agenda and asked that it be moved back to the beginning.
• Alita Dupree discussed the need to have clean and electric power. She suggested the

SFPUC MINUTES – JANUARY 10, 2023 12

municipalization of the grid and decarbonization.
• Mark (inaudible) asked how the SFPUC will comply with the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan.
• John Rosapepe expressed thoughts on moving general public comment to the end of the agenda.
• Written comment submitted are attached.

Commissioner Stacy stated how important public comment is on each action items as well as during general public comment. She noted the change for general public comment means that individuals are going to need to watch the full meeting and that timing of general public comment will be less predictable. She indicated the number of individuals who want to provide general public comment is unknown and that the Commission must be sensitive the needs of all, including those who are waiting to comment on agendized action items and reports. She discussed the Brown Act and Sunshine Ordinance and noted the Commission can’t act on items under general public comment and that issues present during general public comment may be considered for future discussion. She stated that callers have noted the difficulty with no time certain for general public comment and stated that commenters on agendized items have the same issue, and the Commission needs to be cognizant of them as well. She asked that the change on the new order be given a change. She reemphasized the importance and value of public comment.

VP Maxwell stated d that it is a good idea to see if it works and revisit if necessary.

President Ajami noted that equity, democracy, and fairness apply to all items on the agenda. She stated that the agenda as a whole and commenters on all items need to be considered. She expressed the value of public comment and asked that it be given a fair try.

14. Items Initiated by Commissioners
None.

15. Public comment on the matter to be addressed during Closed Session. • Peter Drekmeier, Tuolumne River Trust, encouraged the Commission to discuss public records exempt from disclosure based on privilege. Caller was asked if he had any comments specific to the agendized closed session item and he responded in the negative.

Commissioner Rivera recusal from Closed Session due to a previous professional relationship.

On Motion to approve Commissioner Rivera’s recusal from Closed Session:

Ayes: Ajami, Maxwell, Paulson, Rivera and Stacy

Commissioner Rivera was excused from the meeting at 4:37 PM.

16. Motion on whether to assert the attorney-client privilege regarding the matter listed below as Conference with Legal Counsel.

On Motion to assert the attorney-client privilege regarding the matters listed below as Conference with Legal Counsel:

SFPUC MINUTES – JANUARY 10, 2023 13

Ayes: Ajami, Maxwell, Paulson, and Stacy

The Commission entered Closed Session at 4:37 PM.

Present in Closed Session: Commissioners: Ajami, Maxwell, Paulson, and Stacy; Deputy City Attorney Sheryl Bregman; Deputy City Attorney Lauren Wood; Dennis Herrera, General Manager; Steve Ritchie, Assistant General Manager, Water Enterprise; Wendy Macy, Chief People Officer, and Donna Hood, Commission Secretary.

17. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL regarding existing litigation (Government Code §54956.9, Administrative Code §67.10(d)(1)):

Andrea Cervantes v. City & County of San Francisco, et al. (San Francisco Superior Court, Case No. CGC-20-586083), filed August 10, 2020.

Proposed settlement of employment dispute in the amount of $400,000, subject to approval by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. (Resolution 23-0016)

The Commission exited Closed Session at 5:18 PM.

18. Announcement following Closed Session.

President Ajami announced that the Commission recommends the Board of Supervisors approve the settlement under Closed Session item 18.

19. Motion regarding whether to disclose the discussions during Closed Session pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.12(a).

On Motion to assert the attorney-client privilege regarding the matters listed below as Conference with Legal Counsel:

Ayes: Ajami, Maxwell, Paulson, and Stacy

20. Adjournment
President Ajami adjourned the meeting at 5:19 PM.

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 – Item #10 Approve LAFCo MOU
January 6, 2023 through January 9, 2023

Date Received From Subject
January 6, 2023 Dave Fairley Support for MOU
Jeremy Pollock 1/10/23 item #10: authorizing
SFPUC-SF LAFCo MOU
January 8, 2023 Nancy Haber Please approve - 1/10/23 meeting agenda item #10 for the LAFCo-

PUC MOU
Jennifer Heggie 1/10/23 Agenda Item#10: Please
approve five studies per the LAFCo-

PUC MOU
January 9, 2023 Paul Wermer Support: Jan 10 Agenda item #10, LAFCo-SFPUC MOU
Joni Eisen Support: Item #10, LAFCo-PUC
MOU at Jan. 10th meeting
Keane Chukwuneta Public Comment for Item #10
(LAFCo-PUC MOU) 1/10

From: David Fairley
To: Commission
Subject: support for MOU
Date: Friday, January 6, 2023 5:22:09 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:

Our planet is facing a crisis -- something every one of us must help overcome. The MOU is a step in the right direction -- learning how we can move away from fossil fuels and toward a renewable future that doesn't continue to destroy the planet.

Please vote for the MOU.

Sincerely yours,
David Fairley
San Francisco

From: Pollock, Jeremy (BOS)
To: Commission
Cc: Hale, Barbara; Hyams, Michael; Spitz, Jeremy M
Subject: 1/10/23 item #10: authorizing SFPUC-SF LAFCo MOU Date: Friday, January 6, 2023 3:43:48 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.

Hello, Chair Ajami and Commissioners,

I’m the Executive Officer of the San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo), and I’m writing to make myself available if you have any questions about item #10 on your 1/10 agenda, which would authorize a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the SFPUC and LAFCo. The term of the MOU would run through Fiscal Year 2025-26 for an amount not-to-exceed $800,000.

The MOU would fund LAFCo’s oversight of CleanPowerSF along with a series of studies on local energy innovations to support San Francisco’s climate goals that are related to CleanPowerSF’s scope of operations.

After developing a long list of potential study topics, we narrowed it down to focus on areas that our outside of the SFPUC’s core functions, but that impact CleanPowerSF’s ability to meet the City’s energy-related climate goals. The MOU identifies five topics we’ve agreed on LAFCo studying:

1. Natural gas system decommissioning

2. Battery storage

3. Electric vehicle charging

4. Green bank financing

5. Emerging clean energy technologies, with an initial study on hydrogen fuel use

For the last several months, I have negotiated the terms of this MOU with Power Enterprise staff, and I’m particularly grateful to Barbara Hale and Mike Hyams for the time they’ve invested in this process and their support for this MOU. Our commission is excited to begin this new chapter of collaboration between our two agencies. Please feel free to reach out to me if you have any questions either by email or my cellphone is 510-207-9745.

Background on LAFCo
If you’re part of the 99.9% of the City unfamiliar with LAFCo, we’re a commission chartered by state law that consists of members of the Board of Supervisors and members of the public. Every California county has a LAFCo. While the other LAFCos primarily oversee changes to boundaries of cities and special districts, San Francisco doesn’t have such boundary changes because we’re a consolidated city and county, so our work focuses on studies of municipal services. Since SF LAFCo’s formation in 2000, our primary focus has been on studies related to electricity service.

The PUC and LAFCo previously maintained an MOU between 2009 and 2020 for LAFCo to monitor and advise the PUC and Board of Supervisors on the launch and implementation of CleanPowerSF.

Oversight of CleanPowerSF has remained a core part of LAFCo’s work plan. This year, CleanPowerSF presented updates at all of our regular meetings, with a focus on the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP).

In July I prepared a review of LAFCo’s analysis of the 2020 CleanPowerSF IRP. And after participating in most of the public listening sessions on the IRP, I submitted comments on the 2022 IRP that incorporated feedback from our Commissioners.

Best,
Jeremy

Jeremy Pollock
Executive Officer
San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) 415-554-6756
Pronouns: he/him
https://sfgov.org/lafco/

From: Nancy Haber
To: Commission
Cc: Pollock, Jeremy (BOS)
Subject: Please approve - 1/10/23 meeting agenda item #10 for the LAFCo-PUC MOU Date: Sunday, January 8, 2023 1:21:24 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.

Dear SFPUC Commissioners,
Please vote to approve the MOU between SFPUC and LAFCo as proposed, including all five studies to be undertaken (1/10/23 meeting, agenda item #10). These five studies are all important steps towards the necessary clean energy transition that San Francisco must make to address our climate crisis and achieve our goals for net zero emissions as set out in the SF Climate Action Plan. By addressing opportunities and barriers with input from expert consultants and community stakeholders in each of the 5 areas of concern: Natural gas system decommissioning, Battery storage, Electric vehicle charging, Green bank financing, and Emerging clean energy technologies, LAFCo studies can help guide us forward more equitably, efficiently, and effectively in the course of action we so urgently need to take.

Sincerely,
Nancy Haber
San Francisco, 94112
SF Climate Emergency Coalition; 350 SF/BA
From: Jennifer Heggie
To: Commission
Cc: Pollock, Jeremy (BOS)
Subject: 1/10/23 Agenda Item#10: Please approve five studies per the LAFCo-PUC MOU Date: Sunday, January 8, 2023 10:53:25 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,
At the January 10 meeting, please approve the MOU between the SFPUC and LAFCo, including all five studies, per agenda item #10. These studies will provide an important basis of understanding for San Francisco's transition to clean power and meeting our Climate Action Plan goals.

All five LAFCo studies are needed to help guide us forward effectively and equitably.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Heggie
San Francisco resident
From: Paul Wermer
To: Commission
Cc: Pollock, Jeremy (BOS); Dave Rhody
Subject: Support: Jan 10 Agenda item #10, LAFCo-SFPUC MOU Date: Monday, January 9, 2023 8:07:43 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 SFPUC Commissioners:

As co-leaders of the Climate Reality Project’s San Francisco Policy Action Team, we are writing in support of the Jan 10 Agenda Item 10, the MOU with LAFCo identifying 5 critical study areas: 1. Natural gas system decommissioning; 2. Battery storage; 3. Electric vehicle charging; 4. Green bank financing; 5. Emerging clean energy technologies, with an initial study on hydrogen fuel use.

As San Francisco moves to meet its climate obligations the city faces several challenges. In particular, there are two challenges that are especially difficult to meet, and, perhaps not surprising, both of these involve costs to San Francisco residents; one also involves the health and safety of San Francisco residents.

While not strictly within
SFPUC’s scope, both of these will interact with and impact SFPUC, and especially CleanPower SF, operations.

The first is Natural Gas Decommissioning, which has both technical complexity and cost impacts - with attendant impacts on the safety of an aging gas distribution network as demand for natural gas drops.

As
usage drops, the cost of maintaining the infrastructure falls on fewer and fewer customers - with implications for equity and climate justice.

The problem of rationally phasing out gas usage is widely recognized.

The solutions to this problem are not. PG&E has been assessing this - yet there has been very little public engagement, and PG&E is not known for its sensitivity to customer needs.

There are discussions about how
to "prune" the distribution network - but both engineering strategy and cost management have not yet been adequately addressed in any public/regulatory forum.

Furthermore, how this decommissioning occurs will directly impact CleanPower SF's demand for electrical generating capacity, and perhaps complicate the challenge of time coincident 100% renewable electricity.

Even though CleanPower SF, SFPUC, and LAFCo do not own or manage gas distribution systems, decisions related to decommissioning the system will directly impact the electrical supply that is their responsibility.

The second is the Green Banks proposal.

Green Banks are an innovative
and cost-effective way of financing climate related projects, focused on deployment of demonstrated technologies (and hence lower risk) rather than speculative R&D projects (high risk). Reducing San Francisco's GHG impact requires significant expenditures to transition from a mixed energy system to an all-electric system in SF, requiring large public and private investment. The use of a green bank for financing CleanPower SF as well as other San Francisco climate projects may well offer significant cost savings over conventional commercial financing.

Failing to investigate the opportunities and barriers of a green bank, so that San Francisco can make an informed decision, is a breach of fiduciary responsibility.

The remaining three studies are also important:

A) Battery storage is a critical piece of any renewable energy and energy resilience strategy.

It is important as part of any such study
to assess the trade-offs between behind the meter vs in front of the meter storage.

In front of the meter storage may offer greater benefits - in terms of cost, reliability, and (important as we electrify) material resource efficiency - than the behind the meter storage solutions such as a Tesla Powerwall. Furthermore, viewed through an equity lens, in front of the meter storage may well be the most effective way to serve renters, apartment dwellers and low-income homeowners.

We urge that any study address these issues and would be happy to discuss this in more detail.

B) EV Charging needs for San Francisco’s dense urban environment are very different than the needs in the low density suburbs, In SF, many buildings – especially multiunit buildings – do not have garage space for on-property charging.

At the same time, EV charging strategies
interact with a broader battery storage strategy. The lack of accessible EV charging today is a barrier to broader adoption of EVs in SF. Barriers to EV charging pose significant climate
equity concerns.

Developing a path forward is essential, and this study is essential to develop that path.

C) Emerging Clean Energy Technologies need evaluation.

We cannot
simply assume that a simple substitution of an electric appliance for its fossil fuel equivalent is the best approach. That assumption may lead to more expensive solutions that are less energy efficient and part of less resilient systems, with impacts on energy storage costs (item A, above) and climate equity considerations.

Understanding the potential uses of hydrogen, and their benefits and pitfalls, is an important and timely study as part of understanding clean energy technologies.

We understand that Cordia is proposing to
use hydrogen as a replacement for methane in their San Francisco district heating system.

Yet hydrogen has a very poor round-trip
efficiency (energy generation > energy storage > energy use). While conventional analyses have focused on monetary costs, equally important are resource costs and resource efficiency, as well as AQI impacts. We urge that any study take resource efficiency into account.

Furthermore, existing gas distribution networks may not be compatible with high H2 concentrations, because of the risk of hydrogen embrittlement. At the same time, there may be specific uses where hydrogen makes sense – leveraging industrial demand for H2, with industry’s production and storage requirements, may make sense as part of a long duration energy storage strategy.

Similarly, H2 as a
maritime fuel may make sense, even for SF Bay ferries.

Finally, we would like to thank both LAFCo and CleanPower SF for their quiet, behind the scenes leadership on energy related climate actions, as well as good public engagement.

Sincerely,
Paul Wermer & David Rhody
Climate Reality Project San Francisco Policy Action co-leads. --
Paul Wermer
San Francisco, CA 94115

From: Joni
To: Commission
Cc: Pollock, Jeremy (BOS); SF Climate Emergency
Subject: Support: Item #10, LAFCo-PUC MOU at Jan. 10th meeting Date: Monday, January 9, 2023 12:54:58 PM
Attachments: pastedGraphic.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.

Dear Commissioners,
We are writing in strong support of the proposed MOU between the SFPUC and LAFCo to study a number of important issues on which the City must do forward-looking planning to achieve its climate goals:

Natural gas system decommissioning involves huge complex issues around public safety, health, timing, cost and economic fairness as well as climate; the sooner we can figure out how and when to tackle the various aspects of this essential transition in a just manner, the better.

Battery storage - including front-of-meter storage to protect renters, low-income home owners and others - is critical as renewable energy increasingly replaces fossil fuels.

Electric vehicle charging must be increasingly available and affordable.

Green bank financing for San Francisco climate projects could offer significant cost savings over conventional commercial financing; reducing SF's GHG impact will be expensive, requiring large public and private investment.

Emerging clean energy technologies initial study on hydrogen fuel use must take into account both cost and efficiency of such a resource, as well as the possibility of hydrogen as a long-term energy storage strategy.

We applaud these efforts and hope that they herald a deep understanding of how the City must move forward with urgency to avert irreparable climate catastrophe. Please vote to authorize the MOU. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Joni Eisen, Elene Engel, Sue Green, Sara Greenwald, Nancy Haber, Adam Klaus, Eric Morrill, Paul Wermer et al.

San Francisco Climate Emergency Coalition

[email protected]
From: Keane Chukwuneta
To: Commission
Subject: Public Comment for Item #10 (LAFCo-PUC MOU) 1/10 Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 1:50:46 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.

Hello,
My name is Keane Chukwuneta, I work as a campaign coordinator with Jobs with Justice San Francisco.

I wanted to speak in support of the proposed MOU between the PUC and LAFCo. Jobs with Justice is supportive of the proposed research agenda with the specific caveat that the Natural Gas Decommissioning not be limited specifically to the decommissioning of natural gas.

It is our opinion that this area should also include the impacts of said decommissioning, including but not limited to questions concerning the development of an electrical grid to replace the power provided by the natural gas system.

Thank you for your time.
--
Best,
Keane Chukwuneta (He/Him)
SF Jobs with Justice | Campaign Coordinator
(916) 806-5027

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 – General Public Comment
January 5, 2023 through January 9, 2023

Date Received From Subject
January 5, 2023 Jacob Sigg Public participation at SFPUC meetings
John Pomeroy SFPUC Public Commentary
Diana Hall Disappointing Change
Judy Irving Why are you making it more
difficult for the public to participate?
Martin Gothberg Rule of Change Order
Norma Jean Wallace SFPUC anti democracy agenda
change
Virginia Smedberg Withholding public documents and
making it difficult for public to
participate in meetings of a PUBLIC
commission
Tom Battle Public participation at SFPUC
meetings
Mary McVey General Public Comment
Elizabeth Dougherty Change in public comments timing
Susan Ford Sunshine laws need implementation
at PUC
Nicole Kemney General Public Comment
Bill Collins Public Comment
Paul Garder New Rule
Cheryl Weiden Order of "General Public Comment"
at SFPUC meetings
Sherman Lewis Don't dis the public
January 6, 2023 Peter Broadwell Agenda for public comment Virginia VanKuran Move public comments back to near
the start of the meeting
Kathy Howard Please change General Public
Comment back to the beginning of
your meetings
Dan Silver Anti-public participation procedures
Lauren Weston Public commenting re: SFPUC
meetings
Susan Hinton Unwarranted SFPUC Rules of Order
revision, December 13, 2022

Ana Bertero SFPUC is dissing public!!!
Amy Adams SFPUC public comment
Thomas Schwertscharf Public Comment
Thomas Crumpton The SFPUC Dissed Us
Diana Scott PLEASE RESTORE GENERAL

PUBLIC COMMENT TO
BEGINNING OF MEETING!
Leslie Murdock Moving the SFPUC public comment
peiod to end of meeting - a blow to
Democracy and public discourse
Julie McKee Public meetings
Pat McGuire Public Comment Should be THE
CENTRAL ELEMENT...

Lorna Fear ** You made it harder for the people
to engage by ...

January 7, 2023 Keith Howell Public input
Erica Stanojevic Please move public comment back
to the beginning of the meetings
January 8, 2023 Jean Barish SFPUC Meetings
January 9, 2023 Janet Lorraine Paul Moving Public Comment Charlene Woodcock SFPUC needs to serve the Public!
Libby Higgs Moving Public Comments to End of
Meeting
Jeff Brown Comment on SFPUC Decision to
Move GENERAL PUBLIC
COMMENTS to the End of
Meetings
Laura Stec General Public Comment should be
at the START of the meeting
San Francisco Land
Use Commission
General Public Comment at SFPUC
Julianne Adams
Frizzell
SFPUC Meeting 11-10-2023
John Cordes The SFPUC should not reduce
public participation
January 11, 2023 David Schrom Public Comment Rules Change

From: Jacob Sigg
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public participation at SFPUC meetings
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 1:04:38 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.

Re: Change in Rules of Order
You have changed your Rules of Order so that items that are not on the day’s agenda, which used to be early in the meeting, has been changed to the end of the meeting. As one who has attended many meetings of public agencies over the last 50 years, I view this as a backward step and one taken to discourage participation.

We should be encouraging public
participation.

Go back; you are going the wrong way.

Jake Sigg
San Francisco 9422

From: John S. Pomeroy, Jr.

To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: SFPUC Public Commentary
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 1:30:56 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.

SFPUC and Mayor Breed -
I am extremely upset that the SFPUC is making it more difficult for the public to engage with the change of moving “public comment period” to the end of the meeting, forcing the public to sit through an entire meeting before being able to comment. This is the opposite direction we should be going and I highly recommend reverting to the previous structure for the agenda.

Best,
John Pomeroy, Jr.

From: Diana Hall
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Disappointing change
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 1:38:33 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.

A disappointing thing happened at the last SFPUC meeting on December 13. They voted to revise their Rules of Order and quietly moved "General Public Comment" to the end of their agendas. This means that to speak on an item that is not on the agenda, you will have to sit through most of the meeting. (There will still be an opportunity to comment on posted agenda items when they are being considered.)
This change was obviously aimed at making it more difficult for the public to participate.

Withholding public documents has become more common since Dennis Herrera transitioned from City Attorney to GM of the SFPUC.

Diana Hall
From: Judy Irving
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Why are you making it more difficult for the public to participate? Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 1:58:44 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.

General public comment is normally at the beginning of city commission meetings.

Who came up with the idea of moving general public comment to the end of your agenda, and how many of you agreed?
Democracy is served when people participate.

Are you interested in discouraging general public comment by making people wait through hours of agenda items? From: Martin Gothberg
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Rules of Order Change
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 2:24:26 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 noticed in the email/agenda received from Ms. Hood today that the SFPUC revised their Rules of Order quietly placing the General Public Comment to the very end of the agenda.

This is disappointing to say the least. This change appears to have been made to make it more difficult for the public to participate.

Over the years, the time to comment has been reduced from three minutes down to two.

Those of us who participate have respected the change in the length of time. Now we must
wait until the very end of the meeting to even speak for two minutes.

Do you welcome public participation in the activities of a PUBLIC utilities commission or not? I believe it is the latter as I have noticed a corrupting influence slowly creeping into SFPUC operations and oversight. It seems to have started with the SFPUC legal challenge of the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan which led to arbitrarily lengthening the design drought to circumvent increased flow provisions of the Bay Delta Plan.

The public has the right to comment when it is most effective, which typically is at the beginning of a meeting rather than the end when the public and commissioners have essentially checked out or left the session.

Who initiated this change? Was it SFPUC staff or a commissioner? I suspect given that Mr.

Dennis Herrera, an attorney who is now the GM, had something to do with this change. If knowing who initiated the change is client-attorney protected, why?

What is it that you are trying to hide?
Making it as inconvenient as possible for the public to participate is antithetical to transparency in government. Please reconsider how best to allow for public engagement.

Sincerely,
Martin J Gothberg
Santa Clara, CA
From: California Norma
To: Commission
Cc: Peter Drekmeier; Ramona; Yvonne McClung; [email protected] Subject: SFPUC anti democracy agenda change
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 2:42:18 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 The Commissioners:

I challenge the short sighted, anti democracy measure of putting off public comment until meeting end. Stunned but not quite speechless.
'ek suyyakma rootekne yelamu kaphan suyyakma
kaanak rootekne huichin 'uyakiš 'uyakiš 'uyakiš
I am third generation San Franciscan, and also Ohlone, here forever.

The BEST method of ensuring community engagement is to create listening space.

This change ensures the opposite.

At least, reveal the reason. I am your taxpayer. I have a right to know what nonelected officials are doing. I am informed the information is privileged.

Between what parties, and for what cause? Lawyers should not be driving this bus!! As Mom said, to get respect, give it. As guests on stolen land, it seems a minimum standard. 'O
Norma Wallace
Of the Marine lineage of the Verona Band
Survivors of the Mission System
--
Norma Jean Wallace
Be the Change
From: Virginia Smedberg
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]; Peter Drekmeier
Subject: Withholding public documents and making it difficult for public to participate in meetings of a PUBLIC commission Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 3:06:48 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.

Dear Commissioners,
I am very concerned to hear from Peter Drekmeier about both your revision of the rules of order (done at the 13 Dec meeting) putting "General Public Comment" to the end of your agendas, which makes it more difficult for public to speak on an item that is not on the agenda, and the denial of Peter's request for a document via the Public Records Act, based on "attorney-client communications" (which makes no sense to me - what's an attorney got to do with the agenda of a public meeting? and who is the "client"?).

Both of those actions are contrary to your being a PUBLIC commission. We public all use the utilities, and we pay for them. We are entitled to have a say in decisions about them. You need to make that EASIER, not more difficult.

Sincerely,
Virginia Smedberg
Palo Alto 94301 (we drink Tuolumne water too)

From: Tom Battle
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public participation at SFPUC meetings
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 3:07:17 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.

President Ajami and Commissioners,
At the last SFPUC meeting on December 13 the commission voted to revise the Rules of Order. The time allotment for "General Public Comment" was moved to the end of the meeting agendas.

I feel this change makes it considerably more difficult for the public to participate and to share their opinions. It will also cause confusion as the context of conversation meanders at the end of the meeting.

Please reverse this change, in the interest of better representing the citizens of the Bay Area.

Thank you,
Thomas Battle
VP Peninsula Fly Fishers

From: Mary McVey Gill
To: Commission
Subject: General Public Comment
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 4:11:44 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.

Question for the commission: Why was the General Public Comment agenda item moved to the end? Obviously it makes it harder for the public to participate. Please reconsider this change in rules.

Thank you,
Mary Gill
Stanford CA 94305

From: Elizabeth Dougherty
To: Commission; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Change in public comments timing
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 3:56:03 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 Team SFPUC leadership:

I have periodically come to speak on Tuolumne River issues over the years and was in the Bay Area Water Stewards group that used to meet regularly with the SFPUC in a kind of watchdog capacity. That groups has not met with the SFPUC leadership since the pandemic began.

I recently learned from a cadre of fellow Tuolumne River advocates that the opportunity to make public comments was just moved from the beginning of the meeting to the end. I’m hoping it wasn’t intentional, but this will obviously quell public inout. Is there a reasoning behind this change that will better serve that public?
A Moving Body of Water,
Elizabeth
"We’re probably known around the universe as that really noisy blue planet where everyone pees in their water.” Will Durst
___________________________
Elizabeth Dougherty, Ph.D.

Executive Director, Wholly H2O
(I don’t do email on my phone.)
whollyh2o.org
facebook.com/whollyh2o
twitter.com/WhollyH2o
Wholly H2O
2700 Barbers Point Road
Alameda, CA 94501
415-323-5966 (Google Voicemail)

From: Susan Ford
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Sunshine laws need implementation at PUC
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 5:28:57 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 Members of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Concerning agenda items for your public meetings:

Recently agendas for your public hearings were adjusted to have public comments made at the very end of the meetings.

That seems appropriate
for new items that were just reviewed. However, for comments on past actions, reports and meeting topics, this move seems to short change important views from the public.

This action seems to smell of
bureaucratic obstruction.

It appears useful to have comments at the top of the agenda, so that members can
respond during the meeting. Later comments may get short attention when everyone is spent,
tired, and maybe even bored. In the alternative, written comments being read into the record at the beginning would allow members can take time to address them. This would be a successful way to make the open comments time shorter as well.

I suggest you reconsider this agenda order. In addition, it would be good to know who requested this change. Perhaps General Manager Herrera should review public access rules for the committee; these were very important in his last position but may have fallen off his awareness of late.

Sincerely,
Susan Ford
San Francisco

From: Nicole Kemeny
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: General Public Comment
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 6:37:06 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 noticed General Public Comment has been moved to the end of the agenda. This is very inconsiderate of the public, who will now have to sit through or monitor long meetings to make their comments. This is inimical to the idea of a public commission holding public
meetings.

How and why was this decided?
Nicole

--
Methane, the main component of natural gas used to heat homes and power factories, is responsible for one-quarter of human-caused global warming, largely from oil and gas facilities, according to Canada’s environment ministry.

So much for your transitional fuel.

From: Bill C
To: Commission
Subject: Public comment
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 7:14:09 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.

No agency has public comment at the end.

The PUC is too insular
Bill collins
Sent from my iPhone
From: Paul Gardner
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: New rule
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 7:14:29 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.

We have to wait to the end of the meeting to make comments now ? That is shameful. Why don't we make it as difficult as possible to make input? Oh that's right you've already done that. Nice work.

From: Cheryl Weiden
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Order of "General Public Comment" at SFPUC meetings Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 8:25:23 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 Sirs and Madams:

I note in dismay that the "General Public Comment" has been moved to the end of the agenda for the SFPUC meetings.

I have long taken part in commentating at meetings of local councils/commissions and boards.

My experience is that "General Public Comment" is traditionally at the beginning of the agenda. As meetings tend to go on for hours, putting this agenda item at the end discourages public comment.

I am especially dismayed as I mentor youth to take interest and make comments at various meetings.

I feel it is important for them to learn about local governments, engage and make their voices heard for their futures. Putting "General Public Comment" at the end discourages engagement of youth as they usually cannot stay on for a lengthy period.

Please reconsider this action and return "General Public Comment" to the beginning of the meeting.

Sincerely,
Cheryl Weiden

From: Sherman Lewis
To: Commission
Subject: Don"t dis the public
Date: Thursday, January 5, 2023 9:21:18 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.

You should be embarrassed, making the public wait til the end of a meeting in order to discourage public comment-- and then hiding who actually made the decision. Are all of you cowards, or just one high and mighty the rest of you acquiesce to? You are not treating smart, informed people who disagree thoughtfully with some of some policy the way you would want to be treated yourself in a similar situation. Maybe you sit a little too high above the people
you should be blistering to.
--
Sherman Lewis
Professor Emeritus, Cal State Hayward
President, Hayward Area Planning Association
510-538-3692, [email protected]
From: Peter Broadwell
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Agenda for public comment
Date: Friday, January 6, 2023 12:37:46 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.

SFPUC Commissioners -
(Cc: Mayor London Breed)
I've been to numerous public meetings. So do, some don't, allow public comment.

Those that do always take into consideration that those who are taking their time to comment are doing so to help the officials do a better job.

As a result they put the "Public Comment" period early in the agenda so as to not waste people
time waiting for an unpredictable length of time.

The latest SFPUC agenda has the the "Public Comment" section at the end.

Worse, it seems to have just changed to this position - this seems like a not so subtle effort to stifle input from the public...

Please move it back earlier, or at add an earlier agenda item that can be used by the public as well? ;;peter - Peter Broadwell
From: Virginia VanKuran
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Move public comments back to near the start of the meeting Date: Friday, January 6, 2023 6:58:27 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.

SFPUC Commissioners,
I urge you to move public comments back to near the start of the meeting where it has been traditionally. The public voice is a critical part of our democracy and I was impressed that you had it early in the meeting to help the public take better advantage of this opportunity.

It’s critical to know what your constituents are thinking as you make impactful decisions about our water. In particular the public voice has moved beyond thinking only about our specific water needs. We now know that considering all water users including the health of the waterways and lands nearby is critical and public comment is one place where that voice can be heard.

Please return public comments to their original location.

Regards,
Virginia Van Kuran
Tuolumne River water user living in Palo Alto
Palo Alto, CA

From: Kathy Howard
To: Commission
Cc: London Breed
Subject: Please change General Public Comment back to the beginning of your meetings Date: Friday, January 6, 2023 8:52:57 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.

Dear Commissioners,

I strongly oppose the moving of General Public Comment from the beginning of your meetings to the very end. Because the end of the meetings is indeterminate, this move will discourage public comment.

Your web site declares:

Serving “community interests” includes encouraging participation by the community in PUC meetings and decisions.

Members of the public taking time from their busy and demanding lives to call or attend is a gift to any commission and to the continuance of our form of democratic government. I encourage you to honor that gift by moving General Public Comment back to the beginning of your meetings.

Sincerely,
Katherine Howard
Outer Sunset District
From: Dan Silver
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Anti-public participation procedures
Date: Friday, January 6, 2023 1:44:12 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.

Commissioners
Placing public comment at the back end of the agenda makes it difficult or impossible for many to participate, as there is no time certain. Please have respect for the public.

Sincerely,
Dan Silver, Executive Director
Endangered Habitats League
8424 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite A 592
Los Angeles, CA
90069-4267
213-804-2750
[email protected]
https://ehleague.org
From: Lauren Weston
To: Commission; [email protected]
Subject: Public commenting re: SFPUC meetings
Date: Friday, January 6, 2023 1:58:01 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.

Hello, I just wanted to send a quick note acknowledging the change in public comment for public meetings. It is a burden to constituents for them to stay the entirety of a meeting to have space to speak on issues of importance in the communities we live in and serve. I would like you to reconsider this change, the barrier for access is real and makes it harder for public participation. Thank you for considering.

Lauren
Lauren Weston (she/her)
Executive Director
Acterra: Action for a Healthy Planet
(530) 219-2813
acterra.org
| Subscribe
Acterra staff use self-identified pronouns to support workplace inclusion for everyone.

I respectfully acknowledge that my work takes place on the ancestral and unceded land of the Ramaytush Ohlone and/or the Yokutz.

Whose land are you on?

From:

To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Unwarranted SFPUC Rules of Order revision, December 13, 2022 Date: Friday, January 6, 2023 2:36:14 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 San Francisco Public Utilities Commissioners:

On December 13, 2022 the SFPUC voted to revise their Rules of Order and quietly moved "General Public Comment" to near the end of their agendas.

This means that, in order to speak on an item that is not on the agenda, a member of the general public must wait through most of a meeting though there may be nothing s/he finds riveting or controversial. This seems designed to squelch, not encourage, members of the public who wish to make a statement concerning an item about which the Commission may be unaware.

Sincerely,
Susan Hinton

From: Ana Bertero
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: SFPUC is dissing public!!!
Date: Friday, January 6, 2023 2:39:49 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,
A very disappointing thing happened at the last SFPUC meeting on December 13. The SFPUC voted to revise the Rules of Order and you quietly moved "General Public Comment" to near the end of your agendas.

This means that to speak on an item that is not on the agenda, we, the PUBLIC, whom you’re supposed to be serving, will have to sit through most of the meeting. Granted there will still be an opportunity to comment on posted agenda items when they are being considered but it’s a very discouraging change.

Clearly this change was obviously aimed at making it more difficult for the public to participate. Well it’s time you put the “Public” back in SFPUC! I am very upset that the SFPUC is making it more difficult for the public to engage, please amend the Rules of Order back to its previous format.

Respectfully,
Ana Bertero

Sent from my iPhone
From: Amy Adams
To: Commission; [email protected]
Subject: SFPUC public comment
Date: Friday, January 6, 2023 2:52:26 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.

Please respect the public's time and put the general public comment time back to the beginning of the meeting. To have to wait until the end of a meeting will discourage public participation. While that might be your goal in making the change, public engagement is important for this type of committee which oversees basic citizen utilities- That's what the P stands for after all.

If commissioners are wanting to make the meeting shorter at the expense of public discourse, I question as to whether they've got the right attitude to serve in such a capacity.

Regards,
Amy Adams
From: Thomas Schwertscharf
To: Commission
Subject: Public Comments
Date: Friday, January 6, 2023 3:07:50 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.

Greetings Commissioners,
Please don’ make it more difficult to attend and speak before the SFPUC in person. People like myself who are severely disabled have enough of a struggle to just attend the meetings as it is but now you want to throw up an additional barrier.

I think that your ultimate goal, based on past behaviors, is to eventually eliminate public comment altogether because you don’t want any input from the public. This reminds me of the same intolerance that Jerry Brown and Gavin Newsom have exhibited in their refusal to listen to the outside scientific community in regards to the twin and single tunnel projects.

It got to the embarrassing point where Brown told opponents of the project to just “Shut Up.” Water is a complicated problem in California and for you to believe that you have all the answers is folly.

Thomas Schwertscharf
Sent from my iPad
From: CRUMPTON FAMILY
To: Commission; [email protected]
Subject: The SFPUC Dissed Us
Date: Friday, January 6, 2023 3:44:55 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.

Respectfully,
I am very upset that the SFPUC is making it more difficult for the public to engage...

A very disappointing thing happened at the last SFPUC meeting on December 13. They voted to revise their Rules of Order and quietly moved "General Public Comment" to near the end of their agendas. This means that to speak on an item that is not on the agenda, you will have to sit through most of the meeting.
(There will still be an opportunity to comment
on posted agenda items when they are being considered.) This change was obviously aimed at making it more difficult for the public to participate. It’s time to put the “Public” back in SFPUC! Thomas Crumpton
From: Diana Scott
To: Commission
Cc: Mayor London Breed
Subject: PLEASE RESTORE GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT TO BEGINNING OF MEETING! Date: Friday, January 6, 2023 4:21:54 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 the Commission:

I protest the Rules of Order change at the PUC's meeting 12/13 that places General Public Comment at the end of DPUC meetings.

Please restore it to the beginning of the meeting, so as not to muzzle public comment by forcing those whose comments are not for items on the agenda to stay through the entire meeting.

This is an abridgement - whether or not deliberate - of public speech on issues of concern.

As a member of SPEAK, the Sunset neighborhood organization, I strongly urge restoration of public comment to its previous position on the agenda.

Thank you.

Diana Scott, Ocean Beach

From: [email protected]
To: Commission
Subject: Public meetings
Date: Friday, January 6, 2023 8:28:46 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.

The public has the right to speak! Putting comments at the END of meetings is practically a gag rule !! For Shame !!
Julie McKee
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
From: Pat McGuire
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment Should be THE CENTRAL ELEMENT...

Date: Friday, January 6, 2023 8:38:24 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.

...in a PUBLIC agency's meeting agenda, IMHO. Changing the Rules of Order for SFPUC meetings is disrespectful of the only attendees who attend primarily to make a point, and not to listen to the agency's operational trivia over an entire session before being allowed to comment!
Think about this: it is not the way democracy should play out. Shame on SFPUC for this recent change!
--
pat

From: Keith Howell
To: Commission
Subject: Public input
Date: Saturday, January 7, 2023 1:35:03 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.

Doesn't the "P" in your name stand for "Public"? So why are you trying to make public input harder? This is the thin edge of the wedge. Not a good start. Keith Howell, 94115

From: Erica Stanojevic
To: [email protected]; Commission
Subject: Please move public comment back to the beginning of the meetings Date: Saturday, January 7, 2023 3:24:08 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.

Hello,
To be accessible to the public, public comments need to be at the beginning of the agenda.

Otherwise it is too hard for members of the public to speak.

Please move the comment section back to the beginning of the agenda.

Be well,
Erica Stanojevic
From: Jean Barish
To: Commission
Cc: London Breed
Subject: SFPUC Meetings
Date: Sunday, January 8, 2023 6:39:56 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 SFPUC Commission President and Commissioners,
I have recently learned that the SFPUC has changed its Rules of Order, moving "General Public Comment" to the end of the agenda.

This means that to speak on an item that is not on the agenda, I and others will now have to sit through most of the meeting if we want to comment on a non-agendized issue.

This change makes it much more difficult for the public to participate in meetings. I urge you to put
the “Public” back in SFPUC and rescind your rule change moving Public Comment for Items not on the Agenda back to the beginning of the meeting.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,
​
Jean
Jean B Barish, Esq., MS

From: Janet Lorraine Paul
To: Commission
Subject: 1-9-23 Moving Public Comment
Date: Monday, January 9, 2023 8:26:45 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.

The public comment was moved to the end of the agenda. So you are discouraging people from commenting and will not comment on that. That is a blatant block to the people having their say.

Please stop the trickery.

And 600 pages to be revised in a very short time, with holidays in that time. Again, you seem determined to bully this through. We are watching and noting, and determined to continue to resist the destruction you are promoting. --
Janet Lorraine Paul
From: Charlene Woodcock
To: Commission; [email protected]
Subject: SFPUC needs to serve the Public!
Date: Monday, January 9, 2023 12:19:12 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: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, Mayor London Breed It has become evident that the SFPUC majority is putting its responsibilities to the public well behind its loyalty to special interests. The revision of your Rules of Order is a pitifully transparent example—put General Public Comment at the end of meetings since many working members of the public may not be able to stay to the end.

California’s water issues will NOT be resolved by this approach. Private profits must give way to the needs of the state and its residents, no matter how determined Stuart Resnick and his fellow agribusiness tycoons are to maintain their influence and control of our water. It's long past time to bring the climate crisis into our calculations for all state policies, but especially over the distribution of water and the needs of California’s native fisheries, plants, and animals, as opposed to the destructive demands of industrial agriculture.

Sincerely,
Charlene M. Woodcock
Berkeley
From: Laura Stec
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: General Public Comment should be at the START of the meeting Date: Monday, January 9, 2023 9:34:40 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,
The last time I saw your full name written out, the “P” stood for Public. Is this still your commitment?
I just learned the SFPUC has moved the "General Public Comment" to the end of your agendas. This means to speak on an item that is not on the agenda, we, the public, will have to sit through most of the meeting. This is impractical. Public comments should be at the start of the meeting because this is the most efficient and effective time for you to hear from us.

Please don’t make it more difficult for us to engage.

Please remember the Sunshine Ordinance.

PLEASE PUT THE “P" BACK IN SFPUC.

Thank you,
Laura Stec
Portola Valley
Sunshine Ordinance:

Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decision in full view of the public. Commissions, boards, councils and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business.
____________________________________________________________________________ ___
LSIC www.LauraStec.com I [email protected] I 650-387-1067 Let's change the world with great tasting food! I Video.Speaking sampler:
http://www.YouTube.com/laurastec
From: LIBBY HIGGS
To: Commission
Subject: Moving Public Comments to End of Meeting
Date: Monday, January 9, 2023 3:42:11 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.

San Francisco Public Utility Commissioners:

The Commissioners are here to serve the needs of the public. You fill their needs for water, water waste and other utilities. This is a very important job especially in a city as large San Francisco. The most important item is water.

The water which is stored hundreds of miles away from you. It hasn't stopped flowing to your customers yet so all you have to worry about is what? How about giving 1% of your water storage to help bring "our" salmon back to our Tuolumne.

When was the last time you really looked at "our" river? Do you think of the river as yours? Do you think of it all aside from your work? The river belongs to everyone. As owners or stewards of the river we should all do everything we can maintain it's health. That's won't happen without your desire to have a healthy river.

You care so much for the public that you have limited their very brief statements to the end of the meeting!!!
You are obviously truly uninterested in what I or
others think. Too bad the public doesn't get to vote for you. We'd vote you out!! Libby Higgs
From: Jeff Brown
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Comment on SFPUC Decision to Move GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS to the End of Meetings Date: Monday, January 9, 2023 5:43:30 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,

I had intended to attend tomorrow’s meeting to give input on a matter within the Commission’s purview but not on the agenda. Then I noticed that the General Public Comments portion of the meeting had been moved from near the beginning – where it has historically been and where virtually every public agency with which I’m familiar puts it – to near the very end, at a time when I will not be able to attend, and which, in general for an interested community member, is far more difficult to predict. I am writing now to register my utter disappointment and distaste for the Commission’s decision – apparently reached in its December 13 th meeting – to institute this
procedural change.

On its website, the first sentence in the SFPUC’s Mission Statement – just after the subtitle: “We Are Here to Serve You” – is:

Our mission is to provide our customers with high quality, efficient and reliable water, power, and sewer services in a manner that is inclusive of environmental and community interests, and that sustains the resources entrusted to our care.

Making it more difficult for the community whom you claim to serve to give general input, which this agenda shuffling is quite transparently designed to do, is the antithesis of operating “in a manner that is inclusive of . . . community interests.” Not only is it arrogant and insulting, it will inevitably rob the Commission of views and information that can, in certain cases, help it better understand issues that it faces and improve approaches to resolving them and accomplishing its overall goals. At the very least, it will cause community participation to atrophy and lead to a more insular agency that acts increasingly on inbred perspectives. This is the last thing that an agency whose middle name is “PUBLIC,” literally, should want to have happen!

I urge you to reverse this terrible decision and restore General Public Comments to the head of each agenda, where they rightly belong and, I point out again, are commonly found.

Sincerely,
Jeff Brown
Palo Alto

January 9, 2023

Subject: Request that SFPUC move General Public Comment back to the beginning of the agendas

Dear Commissioners,

We are members of the SFLUC – San Francisco Land Use Coalition – from all over San Francisco. Our goals are promoting equitable growth, protecting valuable resources, providing for public input, and preventing displacement.

It has come to our attention that the SF PUC has inexplicably decided to move General Public Comment from the beginning of your meetings to the end of your meetings. Since your meetings can be very long and are of indefinite length, this change will make it much more difficult for members of the public to participate during General Public Comment. This includes whether they are attending in person and have to wait for hours in a meeting room or they are tracking you at home or at work. The Commission website states, “We are dedicated to transparency and fairness in our service to you.” Limiting public input does not promote either transparency or fairness.

General Public Comment is extremely important for City Commissions. It is the time when the public can both express broad concerns not currently on an agenda and bring valuable information to your attention. Your website states, that your “responsibility is to provide operational oversight ins areas such as rated and charges for services, approval of contracts, and organizational policy.” Yet you are only five people charged with oversight for an enormous department. Allowing the public the most convenient time to help you with this task can make your commission more effective.

We ask that you change the General Public Comment back to the beginning of the agendas, and respect the members of the public who take the time and make the effort to provide information and feedback on one of San Francisco’s most important departments.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

San Francisco Land Use Coalition

Jerry Dratler – D1, the Richmond District
Stephanie Peek – D1, the Richmond District
Maurice Franco – D2, the Marina
Marlayne Morgan – D2, Cathedral Hill
Kathleen Courtney – D3, Russian Hill
Chris Bigelow – D3, Russian Hill
Kathy Howard – D4, Outer Sunset
Erica Zweig – D4, Outer Sunset
Jeffrey Rigo – D4, Outer Sunset
Ken Rackow – D4, Outer Sunset
Tes Welborn – D5, Haight Ashbury

2 Bruce Wolfe – D5, Haight Ashbury
George Wooding – D7, Midtown Terrace
Karen Wood – D7, Miraloma Park
Karen Breslin – D7, Miraloma Park
Katherin Petrin – D7
Bruce Bowen – D8, Dolores Heights
Junona Jonas – D8, Dolores Heights
Gary Weiss – D8, Corbett Heights
David Troup – D8, Corbett Heights
Matt McCabe – D8, Noe Valley
Ozzie Rohm – D8, Noe Valley

From: [email protected]
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: SFPUC meeting 01-11-2023
Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 10:06:11 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.

SFPUC meeting
01-10-2023

To the SFPUC Commissioners:

I am afraid that the SFPUC has forgotten what the “P” stands for in SFPUC. Public.

You have systematically ignored the information given to you by the educated public which includes organizations such as the TRT, Fishing groups, Indigenous groups and independent scientists and
individuals. Your own data has been shown to be faulty and yet you continue to stand by it. The SFPUC has not even acknowledged the good work done in the Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment (LTVA) study which cost the tax payers $743,000.

And rather than implementing the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan put forth after 10 years of work by the California State Water board you react by suing.!

Part of your mandate is to protect the Tuolumne River, and yet the ecological state of the Tuolumne River and San Francisco Bay-Delta is poor because of your mis-management.

And now you are poised to make it more difficult for the Public to speak at your meetings.

In your last meeting you voted to revise your Rules of Order and move "General Public Comment" to the end of your agendas. This move will make it more difficult for the Public to give you input.

I object. You are not acting for the benefit of the River or your constituents and the Public.

Thank you

Julianne Adams Frizzell / ASLA
Palo Alto CA 94301l

Virus-free.www.avg.com

From: John Cordes
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: The SFPUC should not reduce public participation Date: Tuesday, January 10, 2023 8:00:34 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.

Dear commissioners,
Please restore the level of public participation in your meeting by moving the public comments back to the beginning of the agenda.

At the last SFPUC meeting on December 13, you voted to revise their Rules of Order and quietly moved "General Public Comment"
to the end of their agendas. This means that to speak on an item that is not on the agenda requires sitting through the entire meeting to speak This change obviously makes it more difficult for the public to participate. As a public body, this is inappropriate.