proposed adoption of the FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28 sewer rates in light of Written Objections and the San — CleanPowerSF Sfpuc Commission, April 28, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

cost-of-service rationale:

Drought Surcharges are assessed as a percentage
of Variable Charges and are based on a formula
designed to recover the retail revenue shortfall due
to reduced water sales during drought.

When SFPUC directs customers to reduce their water use by a certain percentage in response to a drought, metered water and sewer usage goes down. While metered water use is reduced due to conversation, volumetric-based water revenues go down. Because SFPUC’s billable wastewater volumes are calculated as a percentage of metered water usage, wastewater revenues also decrease. SFPUC’s costs, however, do not. Except electricity for pumping and chemicals for water and wastewater treatment, the vast majority of SFPUC’s annual expenditures are “fixed” or unrelated to the volume of water produced or wastewater treated. For example, debt service costs of revenue bonds issued by SFPUC to fund capital projects must still be paid, regardless of water usage. Pipes still require maintenance and repair, even with lower volumes going through them, treatment plants must remain in operation and fully staffed, and billing and accounting must continue and are not reduced simply because customers are buying less water. Service costs may, in fact, increase during droughts for a variety of reasons, including additional outreach and enforcement or the need to procure additional alternative water supplies.

Required revenues are developed based directly on the cost of service.

The 2023 Rate Study and subsequent updates to financial plans and budgets have analyzed the total costs of the agency, including operations and maintenance costs, pay-as-you-go or revenue-funded capital expenses, debt service, and any contribution to reserves required by approved financial policies. This total “revenue requirement” is then reduced by any non-rate revenues and potentially use of reserves, as allowed by policy. The resulting “annual net revenue requirement” which

must be collected from retail rates is a measure of costs, and reduced revenues imply that rates are not sufficient to cover agency costs.

SFPUC has implemented drought surcharges under prior rate authorizations. From April 2022 to May 2023, during a Commission- declared drought, customers were asked to conserve water by 5%. At the time of the drought declaration, SFPUC staff performed modelling of expected reductions in water usage at the individual customer class level and compared the resulting revenues to the agency’s latest financial forecasts and updated volumetric usage information. Based on this analysis, the agency determined that a 5% surcharge was needed to recover the lost revenues in water rates, and a 4.9% surcharge on wastewater volumetric charges was necessary to recover the lost revenue on wastewater rates. Were the Commission to declare a drought in a future timeframe, staff would perform a similar analysis, using updated information available at the time, to develop drought surcharges that, combined with other revenue sources, do not exceed the projected cost of service. Please see Exhibit B for additional materials regarding the drought surcharge.

7. Rates Based on Projected Costs
Mr. Lowenberg next suggests that SFPUC’s service costs are not sufficiently adaptive, further suggesting that SFPUC should have a mechanism in its rate structure for “downward correction.” Over time, service costs have historically increased rather than decreased. Based on all of the evidence before it, including Commission-approved capital and operating budgets, SFPUC projects water and sewer service costs will cumulatively increase in FYE 2027 and FYE 2028. There is no evidence in the record to suggest costs could possibly decrease over the next two years, and SFPUC finds no support for such a contention. As a policy matter, SFPUC has, however, ensured its rates continue to adapt to changes in costs, including by only adopting three years of water and sewer rates in 2023, and proposing to adopt two years of rates in 2026.

In FYE 2028, SFPUC will again conduct a cost-of-service analysis for its water and sewer utilities, providing another opportunity to evaluate service costs in the very near future.

Proposition 218 does not require that agencies constantly reevaluate or revise their rates by the month, day, or hour, and such a constant variation would be costly to analyze and implement, would lead to unacceptable levels of instability in rate revenues, and would cause unnecessary levels of bill unpredictability for SFPUC’s water and sewer customers. More importantly, Proposition 218 does not require such exactitude in rate-setting. (See, e.g., Dreher v. City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 977, 1029)

(“The Constitution does not require the City to trace the flow of water from each source of supply to each parcel, molecule by molecule . . . constitutional proportionality does not require that level of exactness.”).

A suggestion that rates be designed to allow for downward correction provides SFPUC with no additional evidence or information that would suggest its cost projections are inaccurate, or that the rates SFPUC has proposed for any particular class exceed the cost to provide service to parcels subject to that class. Similarly, such a suggestion does not demonstrate that it is unreasonable for SFPUC to rely on its projected costs to form the basis for its proposed rates, nor does such a suggestion point to any other flaw in SFPUC’s rate-setting rationale.

Moreover, there is a mechanism to reduce rates in the event of costs being lower than projected – the use of fund balance reserves. SFPUC has an adopted Fund Balance Reserve policy, which sets minimums and maximums for reserves needed to provide sufficient capacity to bridge shortfalls in cash flow and cover unanticipated expenditures. If, in a given year, expenses are lower than projected and/or revenues are higher than projected, the excess funds are deposited into the agency’s fund balance reserve. When setting rates, SFPUC evaluates the level of reserves, and, as allowed by policy, may appropriate reserves to offset a portion of costs, reducing the need for additional rate increases. The proposed water and sewer rates for FY 2026-27 and FY 2027-28, as detailed in SFPUC’s FY 2026-27 through FY 2035-36 Financial Plan, rely on the use of tens of millions annually in reserve balances to offset both water and sewer rates.

8. Meter Size as a Proxy for Extra Capacity
Demand
Extra Capacity is used to allocate functionalized costs associated with providing water during peak water demand conditions to customer classes. Costs assigned to extra capacity include those associated with pumping, transmission, distribution, storage, and treatment of water above the average day needs. The vast majority of costs associated with water system Extra Capacity is allocated to the volumetric portion of rates.

A small part of the Extra Capacity Costs is collected through the meter portion of the bill, capturing fixed costs associated with Extra Capacity.

Some of this allocation captures costs associated with hydrants and cisterns. Because costs for hydrants and cisterns are capacity based costs and not billed on a volumetric basis, these costs are allocated to customers in their meter charges. The reallocation of Extra Capacity Costs in Table 4-11 also recognizes that not all extra capacity related costs are based on the present day usage of customers.

SFPUC determines the required meter size of a property based on the total number of drainage fixture units of property. The count of drainage fixture units is then used to calculate the peak water capacity need of the property. The meter assigned to the property is the smallest meter that can provide the peak capacity needs. This methodology represents the best available alignment of Extra Capacity Demand and customer property characteristics.

9. Allocation of Capital Improvement Costs to
Ratepayers
Whether any particular cost or project should be cash- funded, debt- funded, or a combination thereof is a purely policy choice left to the discretion of SFPUC. Accordingly, this comment correctly identifies this as a “finance policy decision.” As this is a purely policy decision, this comment does not allege a cognizable violation of Proposition 218. See III.B.7., above, for additional discussion on this topic.

The amount of service costs that are cash- funded through ratepayer revenues versus being grant- or bond-funded is outside of the scope of a Proposition 218 inquiry. The cash-funded capital and operating expense costs SFPUC determines to be necessary are based on policy decisions as to what percentage of capital needs SFPUC can and should revenue fund, as well as the levels of service and staffing SFPUC determines are necessary or desirable. Whether SFPUC “should” incur a utility cost, or whether it “should” fund its costs through debt versus ratepayer revenues or reserves are core policy questions unrelated to the rate- setting procedures and restrictions in Proposition 218. Similarly, the amount SFPUC carries in cash reserves is a policy question left to the discretion of SFPUC. Bond covenants require cash reserves. Similarly, it is a policy choice for SFPUC to ensure it has unencumbered reserves to incur new debt. Including cash reserves as a cost component is therefore consonant with Proposition 218. Proposition 218 merely requires that SFPUC allocate service costs proportionally, it does not dictate or otherwise inhibit policy decisions regarding whether SFPUC can or should incur such costs.

At its core, this comment criticizes SFPUC for the amount of debt it has issued—though it is unclear whether the commenter would prefer that SFPUC issue more or less. What matters for Proposition 218 is that SFPUC determine service costs and then establish rates to recover those costs in proportion to each class’s and parcel’s contribution to those costs. Customers will pay these service costs regardless of whether SFPUC uses ratepayer-derived revenues to directly fund capital project costs or, alternatively, uses ratepayer -derived revenues to pay

debt-service costs. Proposition 218 does not concern itself with whether SFPUC can or should cover any percentage of its capital costs through debt issuance. Likewise, whether SFPUC chooses to fund a fraction of its capital costs through debt issuance and to fund the remainder by cash is a policy choice that does not implicate Proposition 218, no matter the split. As a policy matter, the balance of debt - versus pay-as- you-go funding for capital projects is developed by following Commission-approved financial policies such as the Capital Financing Policy, evaluation of financing alternatives such as available grant programs, projected interest rates available on loans or revenue bonds, and the nature of the specific projects included in the Capital Improvement Plan. The proposed rates reflect the approved capital budgets. Financing proposals are developed to weigh competing priorities. For example, debt-funding of projects spreads out costs over many years but significantly increases total costs due to the need to pay for interest on the loan or bond.

10. Sewer Cost of Service Analysis Based on
Allegedly “Unaccounted Stormwater Sewer
Demands”
Mr. Loewenberg contends that the sewer cost of service analysis “is Inflated by Unaccounted Stormwater Sewer Demands.” This assertion confuses the calculation of the total cost of sewer service and allocation of that cost across ratepayers under Proposition 218. Mr. Loewenberg does not identify any basis here on which the total costs of sewer service may be inflated. To the contrary, SFPUC has supported its calculations of its total costs in providing sewer service. SFPUC must then allocate these total costs across ratepayers. It is this proportionality analysis that includes “sewer accounts and lot size.” Mr. Loewenberg has not shown that any parcel pays more than its proportional share of the total sewer costs based on any unaccounted stormwater sewer demands. For example, parks and owners of undeveloped land pay a proportional share of stormwater-related sewer costs. Meanwhile, streets are components of the conveyance system for runoff and not parcels to which it would be appropriate to allocate costs of sewer services under Proposition 218.

11. Purported Absence of Cost Analysis for
Stormwater Component of Sewer Rates
Mr. Loewenberg further incorrectly asserts that SFPUC did not disclose its cost analysis underlying the stormwater component of the proposed sewer rates. The stormwater component of the sewer bill was calculated using the financial models in the 2023 Rate Study. The rate study report provides the rates that were adopted by the commission for FYE 2023-

FYE 2026. The proposed rates for FY 2027 and FY 2028 are based on the continuation of the phase of in the stormwater component of rates and the projected rate adjustments. The current rate proposal relied on the phase factors (table below) for each rate component that were developed in the rate design model along, which are multiplied by the topline rate adjustments being proposed in this rate action to determine the percent change of each rate component year over year.

For example, Simplified Residential Tier 1 rates in FY 2024 were $2.31/1,000 sqft. FY 2025 rate escalation is a function of the year 2 phase in factor of 100% and the 9% rate increase, which translates to a 118% increase in the stormwater component, or $5.04/1,000 sqft. Row 11 of Table 9-1 of the rate study report shows the projected escalation of stormwater charges over the five- year rate projection period. FYE 2027 and FYE 2028 use the same phase in factors, but are multiplied by a larger topline rate increase that was not considered during the rate study.

Phase in Factors FYE
2025
FYE
2026
FYE
2027
FYE
2028
FYE
2029
FYE
2030
Residential -3.4% -3.5% -3.7% -3.8% -4.0% -4.1%
Non-Residential Flow -5.0% -5.2% -5.5% -5.8% -6.2% -6.6% Chemical Oxygen
Demand
-1.4% -1.5% -1.5% -1.5% -1.5% -1.5%
Total Suspended Solids -1.3% -1.4% -1.4% -1.4% -1.4% -1.4% Oil and Grease -0.4% -0.5% -0.5% -0.5% -0.5% -0.5%
Stormwater 100.0% 50.0% 33.3% 25.0% 20.0% 16.7%

12. Calculation of Differential Costs Associated with
Permeable and Impermeable Surfaces
Mr. Loewenberg additionally asserts that the proposed rates exaggerate differences in costs of service between permeable and impermeable surfaces. Please see III.A.2., above, addressing a parallel objection by Mr. Joshi.

13. Procedural Disputes
Finally, Mr. Loewenberg asserts a series of procedural disputes as to the Objections Procedure by bullet point. These do not constitute written objections, do not reflect any information Mr. Loewenberg lacks to assert his objections to the water and sewer rates fully, do not identify any inconsistency of SFPUC’s process with Government Code section 53759.1, and do not demonstrate any violation of Proposition 218.

C. Responses to Mr. Roh’s Objection
The objection letter received from Mr. Roh matches the one received from Mr. Loewenberg. The same responses apply to both letters.

D. Responses to Additional Correspondence
The other communications received by SFPUC before the objections deadline do not constitute written objections under the Objections Procedure. In addition, the concerns raised in these protests and other correspondence are contradicted by unchallenged financial materials the 2023 Rate Study and Commission financial projections.

Attachments:
• Exhibit A: Stormwater Runoff-Related Documents
• Exhibit B: Drought Surcharge-Related Documents
• Exhibit C: Toy Litigation Documents

EXHI
BIT A
Technical Memorandum

Limitations:

This document was prepared solely for San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) in accordance with professional standards at the time the services were performed and in accordance with the contract between SFPUC and Brown and Caldwell/SRT, A Joint Venture, dated May 21, 2019.

This document is governed by the specific scope of work authorized by SFPUC; it is not intended to be relied upon by any other party except for regulatory authorities contemplated by the scope of work. We have relied on information or instructions provided by SFPUC and other parties and, unless otherwise expressly indicated, have made no independent investigation as to the validity, completeness, or accuracy of such information. 1390 Market Street, Suite 406
San Francisco, California 94102

T: 415.552.5849

Prepared for: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Project Title: Stormwater Runoff Charge Program Development Assistance Project No: 154817
Technical Memorandum 1.1
Subject: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge Date: January 29, 2021
To: Sarah Bloom, SFPUC Project Manager
From: Kathryn Gillick, SRT Project Manager
Copy to: SFPUC Stormwater Runoff Charge Working Group

Prepared by:

Kathryn Gillick, SRT Project Manager

Reviewed by:

Joe Burg, BC Project Manager

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

ii
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

Task 1.1 TM FINAL_2021-01-27
Table of Contents
List of Figures ..................................................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ...................................................................................................................................................... iii Section 1: Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Precedents ................................................................................................................................................ 5

1.2.1 Other cities: Stormwater Charge Programs in Seattle, Philadelphia, DC, Portland ................ 5

1.2.2 Typical frameworks for stormwater charges ............................................................................. 7

1.3 Proposed SFPUC Stormwater Runoff Rate Structure Approach ............................................................ 8

1.4 Available Data ........................................................................................................................................... 8 Section 2: Standard Rate Structure .................................................................................................................. 9 Section 3: Proposed Simplified Residential Rate Structure .......................................................................... 11

3.1 Goals for the Simplified Residential Rate Structure ............................................................................. 11

3.2 Eligibility Criteria for Simplified Residential Rate Structure ................................................................. 11

3.3 Simplified Residential Rate Tier Definition and Charge Structure ....................................................... 13

3.4 Simplified Residential Rate Summary ................................................................................................... 19 Section 4: Potential Low-Impact Rate ............................................................................................................. 19 Section 5: Implementation Recommendations ............................................................................................. 20

5.1 Interface with Billing System .................................................................................................................. 20

5.2 Data Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 21 Appendix A: Definition of Key Terms .................................................................................................................. A Appendix B: Residential Rate Calculator Read-me and Preliminary Results ................................................. B

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

iii
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

List of Figures
Figure 3-1. Histogram of San Francisco residential parcels by parcel area ................................................ 15 Figure 3-2. Examples of small residential parcels ......................................................................................... 17 Figure 3-3. Examples of large residential parcels .......................................................................................... 18 Figure 4-1. Example of NDVI and parcel map data........................................................................................ 21

List of Tables
Table 3-1. Proposed Eligibility Criteria ............................................................................................................ 12 Table 3-2. Estimated Residential Parcels by DU Thresholds ........................................................................ 13 Table 3-3. Number of Small Area Parcels with Six DUs or Less .................................................................... 16 Table 3-4. Parcels below options for maximum parcel area ......................................................................... 17 Table 3-5. SFPUC Stormwater Charge Tiers and Charge Structure .............................................................. 18 Table 3-6. SFPUC Stormwater Charge Simplified Residential Rate Criteria and Structure ........................ 19

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

iv
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

List of Abbreviations
BC Brown and Caldwell
BES Bureau of Environmental Services
City City and County of San Francisco
CSB Customer Services Bureau (CSB)
CSS combined sewer system
DPW San Francisco Department of Public Works
DUs dwelling units
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERU Equivalent Residential Unit
ft foot/feet
ft2 square foot/feet
GIS Geographic Information Systems
HOA homeowner's association
mgd million gallons per day
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
NDVI Normalized Difference Vegetation Index
NIR Near-Infrared
SFPUC San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
SA service agreement
SIC Standard Industrial Classification
SPU Seattle Public Utilities
SRT SRT Consultants
TM technical memo

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

5 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

Task 1.1 TM FINAL_2021-01-27
Section 1: Introduction
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) operates and maintains the combined sewer system (CSS) and portions of the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) in the City and County of San Francisco (City). During dry weather, the CSS treats an average of 74 million gallons per day (mgd) of sanitary flows; during wet weather, the CSS is sized to treat up to 465 mgd of combined sanitary and stormwater flows. Currently, the cost of treating increased combined wastewater (i.e. sanitary sewer and stormwater) flows during wet weather are recovered through the total discharge volume charge. With a combined sewer system, operations and maintenance of the sewer system is ongoing, and year-round, whether it is the rainy season or not. The agency’s costs for collecting and treating stormwater flows were estimated to be approximately 20 percent during the 2018 SFPUC Rate Study.1 The percent of costs attributable to stormwater are subject to change based on a variety of factors and are updated every four years during the wastewater rate study. To increase ratepayer equity, improve billing transparency, and incentivize better stormwater management practices, SFPUC seeks to bifurcate its existing wastewater rate into a sanitary sewer component and stormwater runoff component. This approach will allow SFPUC to recover costs related to collecting and treating stormwater runoff based on property characteristics that contribute to stormwater runoff. Sanitary sewer costs will continue to be based on customer sewer discharges.

1.1 Background
The SFPUC established the Stormwater Runoff Charge Working Group (working group) in 2014 to develop a Stormwater Runoff Charge Program and guide implementation. In December 2019, SFPUC engaged Brown and Caldwell (BC) and SRT Consultants, Inc. (SRT) to support the development and implementation of various aspects of the program, including making recommendations about the final rate structure, assisting SFPUC in estimating customer bill impacts, finalizing the stormwater runoff credit structure and calculator, assisting in the development of standard operating procedures for SFPUC to use in evaluating appeals to the stormwater runoff charge and applying customer bill credits, and finalizing the map of areas excluded from the stormwater charge. This technical memorandum (TM) documents the recommendations developed by the working group with the support of the consultant team regarding the Stormwater Runoff Charge Program rate structure.

1.2 Precedents

1.2.1 Other cities: Stormwater Charge Programs in Seattle, Philadelphia, DC, Portland There is substantial historical precedent for implementing stormwater charges across the United States. The SFPUC identified and examined the cost allocation and rate structure of five urban utilities with similar characteristics to San Francisco: Seattle, Washington; St. Paul, Minnesota; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Washington, D.C.; and Portland, Oregon.

Seattle, Washington
One-third of Seattle has a combined sewer and stormwater system. Seattle’s drainage fee was created in 1989 when the City’s sewer and drainage systems were combined into one enterprise for management purposes. In 2008, Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) allocated 45 percent of costs in the combined system to sanitary and 55 percent to stormwater using average flows and shifted the stormwater portion of the costs

1 https://sfwater.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=12072 Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

6 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

from the wastewater bill to the drainage fee. SPU considered several other options, such as billing pollution- generating surfaces such as roads at a higher rate, but eventually decided to use a simpler system.

The drainage fee is included in the annual property tax bill. SPU charges the drainage fee to all properties regardless of whether they are located in the combined sewer area or separate sewer area. SPU does not make a geographic distinction between properties because it determined that reducing combined sewer overflows and achieving regional stormwater priorities benefit everyone, and because it does not have a geographic difference in rates for other reasons. Residential parcels under 10,000 square feet (ft2) pay a flat rate based on 5 categories of parcel sizes. All other parcels are billed on the percent of impermeable area on their property multiplied by the total area of their property. The distinction of residential parcels under 10,000 ft2 versus other parcels existed in the billing system prior to charge implementation. Other areas are exempt from the fee based on documentation that they meet certain exemption requirements such as having a large area of wetland property or a low proportion of developed area.

St. Paul, Minnesota
St. Paul’s Storm System Sewer Charge pays for the operations and maintenance of the City’s separate sewer system and previously covered a portion of the capital costs associated with separating the CSS, which was completed in 1995. St. Paul calculates each parcel’s share of the charge by finding its standardized peak runoff rate. This formula uses the Modified Curve Number Method, which considers soil type, topography, slope, and other factors to predict the runoff from the 5-year, 3-hour storm.2 This storm was chosen because it is the design storm for the City’s entire system.

St. Paul developed runoff estimates using a random sampling of parcels. Land use is determined by the County Tax Office’s land use classifications, and similar classifications are grouped together. Because all parcels are assigned an identical runoff coefficient, it is assumed that they have the same slope (medium) and soil type (Group B); parcels that vary significantly can apply for a credit. One and two-family residential parcels pay a flat fee per parcel, while other properties pay a standard rate per parcel depending on the property type.3 If a single-family parcel is larger than 1/3 of an acre, then the excess area is charged at the undeveloped land rate.

Bills are sent annually to the property owner, regardless of who lives at or uses the parcel. St. Paul has considered changing the billing to be on the water/sewer utility bill, but did not choose this method because of incompatibility with its billing system.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Philadelphia’s stormwater program recovers costs through a fee on the sewer/water bill. The rate is calculated based on a parcel’s gross area and its impermeable area. The fee was developed in the early 1990s due to rising stormwater regulatory costs and a desire to achieve a fairer rate structure; previously, stormwater costs had been based on a customer’s meter size.

Costs are allocated between stormwater and sanitary flows based on engineering analysis. Customer service costs are assessed as a flat service charge divided equally among all customers. Of the remaining costs, 20 percent is allocated to the gross area charge, and 80 percent to the impermeable area charge. This division is based on the idea that impermeable areas contribute approximately four times as much stormwater runoff to the CSS as permeable areas. Land is classified as either impermeable or permeable with no consideration of infiltration rates.

2 “Policy for the Determination and Review of the Storm Sewer System Charge,” City of Saint Paul Department of Public Works- Sewer Division. January 2020
3 “Stormwater Sewer System Charge,” www.stpaul.gov. Last updated on August 25, 2020 Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

7 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

Residential customers are billed at a flat rate calculated from the average gross and impermeable area of all residential properties in the City. Non-residential properties less than 5,000 ft2 are assumed to have an impermeable area of 85 percent of the total area (25 percent if the property is undeveloped). Non- residential properties larger than 5,000 ft2 are billed based on their actual gross and impermeable areas, calculated using Geographic Information Systems (GIS). All areas are rounded to the nearest 500 ft2 If there are multiple accounts on the same parcel, then the total charge for the parcel is divided equally between them. If the account belongs to a homeowner's association (HOA), then the entire fee is billed to the HOA.

Customers can request a different split between accounts.

The following properties are exempt from the stormwater fee: streets and the public right-of-way, a particularly large public park system (Fairmount Park), and cemeteries. Residential sideyards, in which an undeveloped property is owned by the residential property next door, are also exempt. The cemetery and sideyard exemptions were developed after the fee was launched in response to customer complaints.

Discounts, which were available prior to the development of the stormwater fee, are given to nonprofits, schools, universities, churches, low-income seniors, and public housing.

Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C.’s water utility, DC Water, began collecting stormwater fees in 2001 to support the District’s first Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit that was issued in 2000.4 The Stormwater Fee is based on a property’s impermeable surface area using a unit of measurement called the Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU).5 An ERU is based on the median impermeable area ft2 for a single family property:
one ERU equals 1,000 ft2 of impermeable surface. Commercial properties are charged based on the actual amount of impermeable surface. Residential properties are charged one of six flat tiered rates based on the ft2 of impermeable surface. The fee is charged monthly. DC Water determines the number of ERUs each property is billed through GIS and by photographic flyover data.

Portland, Oregon
Portland started its stormwater rate program in 2000 to fund projects related to the state of Oregon’s Department of Environmental Protection’s Combined Sewer Overflow permit requirements. Portland’s Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) operates the stormwater utility. Residential parcels are charged a flat rate based on the number of separate dwelling units (DUs) on the property, while parcels with five or more DUs and non-residential parcels are charged a flat rate per 1,000 ft2. Charge categories are split between “on-site” and “off-site” use. The on-site charge reflects direct usage of public stormwater drainage facilities, including the cost to collect, convey, and dispose of stormwater runoff from private properties.6 The off-site charge reflects the indirect uses and benefits, corresponding to flows from public rights of way. The ratio of on-site and off-site costs is intended to reflect the relationship between these uses and benefits and the characteristics of the development. The allocation between on-site and off-site costs is based on a computation of relative flow contributions from properties and rights of way.

1.2.2 Typical frameworks for stormwater charges
Stormwater utilities have developed a variety of ways to calculate stormwater rates, including:
• a flat fee per parcel

4 “Discounts through Stormwater Management: DDOE’s RiverSmart Rewards Program and DC Water’s Clean Rivers Impervious Surface Area Charge Incentive Program,” District Department of the Environment. 7/26/2013. 5 “Impervious Area Charge: Board of Director Policies. Standard Operating Guidelines and Procedures,” District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority. March 2009.
6 “Final Report: Stormwater Cost Allocation Study,” Black and Veatch. August 23, 2000.

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

8 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

• units of impervious area only
• a combination of impermeable and gross or permeable area • development intensity (percent of parcel covered by impermeable surfaces) In 2018, a survey of stormwater utilities with stormwater fees found that 92 percent of utilities incorporated impermeable area into their fee calculation methodology. Gross parcel area was incorporated into the fee calculation for 18 percent of the utilities.7 The proposed SFPUC rate structure discussed below is based on both the impermeable and permeable area of a given parcel.

1.3 Proposed SFPUC Stormwater Runoff Rate Structure Approach The working group determined in 2014 that the stormwater runoff rate should reflect the cost of wastewater treatment attributable to stormwater flows as determined by its rate consultant.8 The SFPUC recognizes that some parcels do not contribute stormwater runoff to the SFPUC CSS either due to their geographic characteristics or by being part of a separate stormwater system that drains to the bay or ocean rather than the SFPUC CSS. Those parcels will be excluded from the stormwater rate structure. Further definition of excluded areas and a map of known boundaries for those excluded areas will be provided in a future TM.

Stormwater charges will also not apply to public right-of-way in the city, as it is itself part of the city’s stormwater collection system and has been designed to manage all the rainfall it receives. This is the case for many other utilities with stormwater fees, including 64 percent of utilities surveyed in 2018.7 Properties not excluded from the rate structure will fall into one of potentially three categories: the standard rate, the simplified residential rate, and a potential low-impact rate. The standard rate will apply to all parcels that contribute to the SFPUC CSS and are not eligible for the simplified residential rate. The simplified residential rate will apply to residential customers that meet certain characteristics (see Section 3). The SFPUC also considered the possibility of a low-impact rate structure, which, if adopted, would apply to parcels with large contiguous portions of permeable area that may result in significantly lower amounts of stormwater runoff. The data used to evaluate the potential rate structure are described below, followed by a discussion of the rate structure alternatives and recommendations.

1.4 Available Data
The stormwater runoff rate will be based on available data provided by SFPUC and other City departments in order to allow for seamless integration with the existing billing system and rely on actual, physical parcel characteristics. Potential considerations for using this data going forward is discussed in Section 5.2, Data Quality.

Impermeable and Permeable Areas
To determine the characteristics of a parcel, the SFPUC used GIS analysis of 2018 aerial photography to categorize all areas within San Francisco as either permeable or impermeable. This process was based on a Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) calculation. The NDVI uses a ratio of near-infrared/red wavelengths to identify live vegetation and estimate which areas in the City are vegetated, or permeable, with values ranging from 0 to 255. The SFPUC preliminary bill estimates used in this TM are based on 2018 aerial imagery and use an NDVI threshold value of 110 to differentiate between permeable and

7 “2018 Stormwater Utility Survey,” Black and Veatch. November 2018. 8 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). 2016. Internal Memorandum: Recommendations of the Stormwater Runoff Charge Working Group.

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

9 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

impermeable areas. This value was chosen to limit confusion caused by bare dirt, green-colored roofs, and tennis courts. Building footprints acquired from DataSF were automatically assigned an impermeable value.

The original 2018 aerial image had a pixel resolution of 0.25 ft x 0.25 ft. The resolution of the NDVI raster dataset was later reset to 1 ft2 to reduce processing time. Aerial photography is conducted annually and future imagery updates will require recalibration of the NDVI threshold.

While the NDVI methodology described above is the one currently proposed for use in calculating the stormwater runoff charge, changes in image processing technology might provide alternatives to NDVI. Any repeatable, authoritative method for classifying imagery as permeable or impermeable could be used instead.

Parcel Data
The GIS data broadly classified surface areas within the City as either permeable or impermeable; this information was then directly overlaid on parcel data from the San Francisco Department of Public Works.

The Office of the Assessor-Recorder also maintains a separate GIS parcel data set, which it is currently in the process of updating. SFPUC may use the Assessor’s Office data in the future after the data set is updated and reconciled with the SFPUC billing data.

Wastewater Accounts
The overlaid parcel data was then joined with existing billing system information for each wastewater account. The wastewater account information contains several data fields that could be used to identify residential and non-residential customers. Some data fields such as the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, Premise Type, and Number of dwelling units (DUs), are self-reported by the customer and verified by SFPUC staff. These fields are often initiated at the start of connection service and are not typically updated. Service agreement (SA) types are updated regularly and considered more reliable than the other billing system data fields. SAs were ultimately chosen as the main indicator for determining whether a parcel was residential, non-residential, or had mixed-use zoning (See Section 3, Simplified Residential Rate Tier Definition and Charge Structure).

Associations Between Data
SFPUC combined the parcel data described above with the wastewater service accounts and NDVI data using the map block lot number. The map block lot number represents a unique physical footprint of a lot and is the same even in the case of condominium buildings, where individually owned properties (“block lots”) can be stacked above each other. Impermeable and permeable areas can only be calculated for each map block lot, making it the most appropriate way to combine the datasets. Where multiple SAs exist for one map block lot, the relevant properties of those accounts such as number of DUs are summed. The result is a dataset of map block lot numbers, each of which has areas of impermeable and permeable surface and a count of DUs and SAs. This SFPUC-produced dataset is used in this TM to investigate the potential components of the stormwater runoff charge. However, the dataset is preliminary and not intended for determining stormwater charges. SFPUC is currently working to cleanup existing data to reduce errors that occur in the data association process.

Section 2: Standard Rate Structure
The SFPUC working group developed the stormwater rate structure that will be used for all parcels in the City that do not meet the criteria for inclusion in the simplified rate structure. In general, the standard rate structure will apply to non-residential parcels, though certain large residential properties will also fall into this category. To distinguish between this rate and the specialized rates discussed in subsequent sections of this TM, it is referred to as the “standard rate structure.” This term is a placeholder name and will likely be amended at a later point to ensure public understanding. To reduce appeals and administrative burden, the Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

10 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

standard rate will categorize all parcel area as either permeable or impermeable based on NDVI on aerial imagery with no adjustments for soil, slope, or other geographic features.

In developing the standard rate structure, the working group chose to calculate fees based on both impermeable and permeable areas of parcels because it meets the requirements of California’s Proposition 218. Proposition 218 mandates that property-related fees are proportionate to the cost of the services being provided to the parcel. For simplicity and clarity, the working group opted to use the actual ft2 of a property as the basis for the rate rather than the Equivalent Residential Unit method used by some utilities.9 The working group previously determined that while the majority of stormwater runoff is generated by impermeable surfaces, some runoff results from permeable areas and should be recovered through rates.10 To determine the relative contribution of the two land cover types, SFPUC modeled hypothetical watersheds using InfoWorks ICM. Modeling evaluated a range of soil types (A, B, C, and D) and site slopes (1, 2, and 5 percent) and generated an estimate of the percentage of runoff generated by a permeable surface relative to the runoff generated by an impermeable surface with the same characteristics. This parameter, referred to as the “runoff ratio” ranged between 9 and 35 percent. To inform rate calculations, SFPUC selected the value near the low end of the range, 10 percent, effectively assuming soil conditions and site slopes favorable to infiltration on permeable surfaces. See Section 4 for further discussion of the runoff ratio and a comparison to other utilities.

The relative impacts of impermeable and permeable areas will be used to set the actual monthly rates for each category in order to meet the revenue requirements necessary to maintain stormwater drainage infrastructure in the City. SFPUC staff developed preliminary estimates of the monthly standard rates based on the 2018 SFPUC rate study,11 which identified the portion of the overall revenue requirement for the CSS that could be attributed to stormwater. To recover all costs for collecting, conveying, and treating stormwater across the City in Fiscal Year 2023, the working group estimated that the monthly rates would be approximately:
• $9.13/1,000 ft2 of impermeable area
• $2.32/1,000 ft2 of permeable area
These rates and their timing are for estimation purposes only and will be re-evaluated based on subsequent rate studies, updated data, and further refinement to the stormwater charge program. The rates above would be phased in over at least five years to allow customers to adjust to bill increases. Sanitary sewer fees, which currently account for SFPUC costs to manage stormwater, would be reduced as the stormwater charge was implemented.

To calculate the stormwater charge for a given parcel, SFPUC will first identify the total amount of impermeable and permeable areas, rounded to the nearest 100 ft2. The rates for a given parcel would be calculated as shown in the equation below, with units indicated in square brackets:

9 Stormwater Working Group meeting, 4/21/2020.
10 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). 2016. Internal Memorandum: Recommendations of the Stormwater Runoff Charge Working Group.
11 https://sfwater.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?documentid=12072 Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

11 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

𝑀𝑜𝑛𝑡ℎ𝑙𝑦 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒
= (𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒
𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 [ $
1,000 𝑓𝑡2]) (𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝑖𝑚𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒
𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 [𝑓𝑡2])
+ (𝑃𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒
𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒 [ $
1,000 𝑓𝑡2 ]) (𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒
𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 [𝑓𝑡2])

Section 3: Proposed Simplified Residential Rate Structure SFPUC requested support from the consultant team to analyze the potential for a tiered, flat-rate structure that would charge residential parcels of a similar size and impermeable area based on easily understandable and implementable criteria. This rate is referred to as the “simplified rate structure” throughout this TM but will likely be renamed prior to implementation. As described in Section 1.2, Precedents, many cities with stormwater charges have specific rate categories for single-family residential properties.

3.1 Goals for the Simplified Residential Rate Structure The goals of a simplified rate structure were defined by the consultant team and confirmed by the working group.12 For each goal, the group identified metrics that could be used to compare different options for the simplified residential rate structure.

Goal #1: Maximize the number of parcels within the simplified residential rates system.

Metrics: Reviewed # of parcels, SAs, and DUs that would be eligible for the simplified residential rate structure
Goal #2: Ensure that the residential rate system accurately represents the stormwater runoff impact of parcels included in the system by grouping similar parcels into the same tier. This goal is also meant to minimize potential appeals due to parcels being dissimilar to each other.

Metrics: Statistical metrics for reviewing the clustering of residential parcels and assessing the standard deviation of the standard rate for parcels within each tier. Key means of evaluating this goal were the difference (and percent difference) between what a parcel would pay under the standard rate and the simplified residential rate.

Goal #3: Set thresholds that are clear, justifiable, and easy to explain to non-technical audiences.

Metrics: Qualitative review of the clarity of rate structure, including whether concepts were consistent with other SFPUC rates and policies and whether thresholds were round numbers.

3.2 Eligibility Criteria for Simplified Residential Rate Structure San Francisco has variability in the size of and number of dwelling units in residential parcels. Because one of the goals of the simplified residential rate structure is to group parcels that are relatively similar in terms of their runoff generation and customer perception, it was determined that not all residential parcels would necessarily qualify for the simplified residential rate structure, particularly large apartment buildings. These buildings are often constructed up to or near the property lot lines, have relatively small amounts of permeable area, and are substantially different in their runoff generation than a typical single-family home or small multifamily structure.

12 Stormwater Working Group meetings, 4/7/2020 and 4/21/2020 Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

12 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

Additionally, analysis of parcel data showed that parcels with both residential and non-residential SAs, which includes apartments over commercial or retail space, have an average impermeable area greater than 90 percent. Parcels with residential SAs only have an average impermeable area of approximately 77 percent.

Any parcels excluded from the simplified residential rate would be charged based on their actual permeable and impermeable areas as described in Section 2, Standard Rate Structure.

The working group evaluated multiple eligibility criteria for the simplified residential rate structure based on information derived by merging parcel data with data from SFPUC service accounts associated with each parcel (See Section 1.4, Available Data). Table 3-1 below describes each potential type of parcel information that was considered for use in the eligibility criteria, whether the type was used for the final criteria, and the reason for the determination.

Table 3-1. Proposed Eligibility Criteria
Parcel
Information
Used for
Eligibility Criteria?
Proposed
Eligibility Criteria Reason for Decision
Number of
associated
residential SAs
Yes
One or more
residential SAs per
parcel
Existence of a residential SAs was deemed to be the best indicator for whether a parcel was a residence. This data field is actively maintained by SFPUC staff because SA agreement type is used for other portions of the billing system. The SAs is updated based on customer use.

Type of residential
SAs: Single-family
or multifamily
No NA
SFPUC typically defines a single-family SAs as a single meter serving a single DU.13 However, review of the data found significant variability in the way SAs are identified as either single-family or multi-family. Because of this variability, the working group did not consider residential SA type to be a viable eligibility criteria.

Number of
associated non-
residential SAs
Yes Zero non-residential
SAs per parcel
SFPUC Stormwater Working Group recommends not including parcels with non- residential SAs in the simplified residential rate structure due to the difference in average impermeable area percentage between those parcels and parcels with residential SAs only.14 Parcels that have both non-residential and residential SAs will not be included in the rate.

Premise type No NA
The premise type data field for SFPUC SAs may not be actively maintained. Premise is the means of indicating physical location. Premises have service points (a meter), but are not necessarily updated if parcel use changes.

SIC code No NA
SIC codes self-reported by customers are used by SFPUC to estimate commercial wastewater loading. Many residential SAs do not have SIC codes and are therefore not useful as an eligibility criteria.15
Total number of
DUs served by all
accounts
associated with a
parcel
Yes Six or fewer DUs per
parcel16
Number of DUs is provided by the customer when a water service is installed at the property and is entered in the SFPUC billing system at the initial setup of the account for the service. The SFPUC Customer Service Bureau (CSB) staff validate the number of DUs provided by the customer by reviewing sources such as records from the City and County of San Francisco Office of the Assessor-Recorder and Department of Building Inspection, including a Report of Residential Building Record (commonly referred to as a 3R Report). The number of DUs is generally not updated each time a new customer account is opened on a premise because it

13 Stormwater Working Group meeting, 4/21/2020
14 Stormwater Working Group meeting, 4/7/2020
15 Stormwater Working Group meeting, 4/21/2020
16 Stormwater Working Group meeting, 9/8/2020
Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

13 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

Table 3-1. Proposed Eligibility Criteria
Parcel
Information
Used for
Eligibility Criteria?
Proposed
Eligibility Criteria Reason for Decision
usually represents occupants moving in/out rather than a change in the physical structure(s). This value is currently used in water bills to determine service tiers.17 Although this value is customer-reported, it is considered the most reliable way to distinguish between the single-family homes and small multifamily structures, which are targets for the simplified residential rate structure, and large multifamily structures which are not targets. The maximum number of DUs was based on a review of multiple potential values, discussed in the text below.

NA = not applicable

Eligibility for the residential rate also depends on parcel area. The potential for minimum and maximum size thresholds was evaluated in the context of setting size-based tier definitions and is discussed below in Section 3.3, Simplified Residential Rate Tier Definition and Charge Structure.

As discussed in Table 3-1, the working group chose the total number of DUs on a parcel as a key criterion for eligibility in the simplified residential rate. This number was calculated by summing the number of DUs listed for each SA associated with a given parcel. The working group considered multiple options for a maximum number of parcel DUs that would be eligible for the simplified residential rate and evaluated them based on:
(1) on the number of parcels that would be eligible under each option; and (2) the physical properties of the parcels with varying numbers of DUs. Table 3-2 lists the estimated number of residential parcels that would be eligible for the rate based on DUs.

Table 3-2. Estimated Residential Parcels by DU Thresholds Maximum Number of DUs for
Eligibility
Number of Residential Parcels Eligible
(Rounded to nearest thousand) Percent of Residential Parcels Eligible 2 110,000 86%
4 119,000 93%
6 123,000 96%
No limit 128,000 100%

The working group reviewed a sample of parcels with five or six DUs and found that their physical characteristics such as area and percent impermeableness are more similar to single family residential than large multifamily housing. Many of the parcels in this category are 2,500 or 3,000 ft2 parcels rather than the larger parcels that are typical of multifamily housing. Parcels with six dwelling units or fewer have an approximate average total area of 3,000 ft2 or less, and parcels with seven dwelling units or greater have an approximate average total area of more than 4,000 ft2. Based on this assessment, the working group recommended six as the maximum number of DUs for eligibility in the simplified residential rate.

3.3 Simplified Residential Rate Tier Definition and Charge Structure Using the eligibility criteria discussed in Section 3.2, Eligibility Criteria for Simplified Residential Rate Structure, the working group evaluated options for tiered, flat rates for the eligible parcels. Based on precedents from other cities, availability of data, and ease of communication, the working group recommends that parcel area be used to define the tiers. To collect the same revenue that would be

17 Stormwater Working Group meeting, 4/21/2020
Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

14 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

collected if the parcels were charged under the standard rate structure (see Section 2), the tier rates will be determined based on the entire revenue requirement for parcels in the tier under the standard rate structure divided by the number of parcels in the tier to get the flat rate per parcel.

The working group considered several parameters for defining the tiers, each of which is described in greater detail below:
• Number of tiers
• Minimum area for lowest tier
• Maximum area for highest tier
• Thresholds between the tiers
Minimum and maximum parcel size thresholds are set to maximize the number of parcels with similar runoff characteristics that are eligible for the simplified residential rate structure, addressing Goals 1 and 2 for the simplified residential rate. Additionally, the working group considered Goal 3 when assessing all four of these tier definitions to ensure that they are clear, justifiable, and easy to explain to non-technical audiences.

The consultant team developed an Excel-based calculator using preliminary parcel data from SFPUC to allow the working group to evaluate the impact of adjusting the number of tiers and tier thresholds. For a given input tier configuration, the calculator estimates the rates for each tier in order to recover the necessary revenue (see above) and provides statistics on the difference between the standard rate and the tiered flat rate for each parcel, including mean difference and percent difference. Appendix B includes the introduction “read-me” for the calculator and the summary outputs table for the working group’s recommended tier structure.

In addition, the calculator includes a histogram (Figure 3-1) that shows the distribution of residential parcel areas. The histogram shows that 85 percent of residential parcels are smaller than 3,600 ft2, and that there is a small number of very large residential parcels. Approximately 50 percent of the residential parcels are between 2,300 and 3,100 ft2, with distinct peaks around 2,500 and 3,100 ft2.

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

15 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

Figure 3-1. Histogram of San Francisco residential parcels by parcel area

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

16 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

Number of tiers
The working group determined that dividing eligible residential customers into more than five tiers would make the simplified rate structure needlessly complex to administer and communicate. Fewer than two tiers would group a large spread of property sizes within one tier, leading to some parcels paying significantly more than they would under the standard rate, and some significantly less. The working group evaluated options in the range between two and five tiers, ultimately concluding that three tiers captures a range of parcel sizes that are sufficiently similar in each tier without creating excessive differences between the tiered rate and what customers would otherwise pay under the standard rates. In this configuration, thresholds for the middle tier would be set to capture the majority of the eligible parcels, while the lower and higher tiers would capture a smaller number of parcels that were significantly smaller or larger, respectively.

Minimum area for lowest tier
Minimum and maximum parcel size thresholds will be set to maximize the number of parcels with similar runoff characteristics that are eligible for the simplified residential rate structure, addressing rate structure Goals 1 and 2 (see Section 3.1).

Due to the cost recovery criteria used to set tier rates, small parcels at the lower end of an individual tier would pay more than they would under the standard rate, especially when calculated as a percentage of that rate. The working group initially considered setting a minimum parcel size as a potential way to address this issue. Minimum parcel sizes of 750 ft2 and 1,000 ft2 were both considered. However, as shown in Table 3-3, the number of parcels and DUs under either threshold is small. Upon detailed examination of the parcels below this minimum, it was determined that many are potentially erroneous parcels that are parts of larger parcels, and which will be excluded from the simplified rate structure once data cleanup is complete (See Section 1.4). The remaining subset of small properties are almost entirely impermeable area, making them roughly similar to the slightly larger single-family home properties that are included in the rate. Additionally, excluding these small residential parcels may be confusing and difficult to justify or explain to a non- technical audience, which would be counter to Goal 3 of the simplified residential rate structure. Figure 3-2 shows aerial views of some of the small residential properties reviewed by the working group, including the estimated monthly charge under the standard rates structure.

Table 3-3. Number of Small Area Parcels with Six DUs or Less Count Less than 750 ft2 Less than 1,000 ft2
Parcels 138 484
DUs 169 660
Single-family SAs 127 389
Multifamily SAs 17 118
Total SAs 144 507

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

17 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

Figure 3-2. Examples of small residential parcels
Based on this evaluation of the parcels, the working group recommends setting the minimum parcel size threshold for the simplified rate structure to zero.

Maximum area for highest tier
The working group also evaluated several options for the maximum parcel size that would be included in the simplified rate structure, including 4,000 ft2, 5,000 ft2, 6,000 ft2, 7,000 ft2, and 10,000 ft2. Even the lowest of these potential thresholds is significantly larger than the average San Francisco residential parcel size of 2,400 and 3,000 ft2. Table 3-4 lists the number of residential parcels that would be included under each of the thresholds considered.

Table 3-4. Parcels below options for maximum parcel area Maximum Parcel Area
(ft2)
Number of Residential Parcels Eligible1
(Rounded to nearest thousand) Percent of Residential Parcels Eligible 4,000 112,000 88%
5,000 118,000 92%
6,000 120,000 94%
7,000 121,000 95%
10,000 122,000 96%

1. See section 3.2 for eligibility criteria.

After reviewing a sample of large residential properties and the statistics from the Excel-based calculator, the working group determined that parcel areas larger than 6,000 ft2 behave less similarly to the typical residential parcel in terms of runoff performance due to both the slightly larger impermeable area from larger structures and the much larger permeable area of the larger property grounds. Additionally, including them in the simplified rate structure would increase the revenue requirement for the highest tier, resulting in higher rates for all customers in the tier. Parcels bigger than 6,000 ft2 are also twice as large as the average residential parcel in San Francisco. Figure 3-3 shows aerial views of some of the large residential properties

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

18 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

reviewed by the working group, including the estimated monthly charge under the standard rates structure.

The impermeable area of these parcels in some cases is greater than the size of the average San Francisco residential parcel. SFPUC also reviewed the geographical distribution of large parcels and found that parcels greater than 6,000 ft2 were concentrated in several neighborhoods throughout the city.

Figure 3-3. Examples of large residential parcels
The working group recommends a maximum parcel area threshold of 6,000 ft2 for the simplified residential rate structure. Parcels above this threshold will fall under the standard rate structure. In order to help customers understand the threshold limit, SFPUC messaging should focus on the conclusion that parcels greater than 6,000 ft2 behave differently than a typical residential parcel, thereby justifying a different runoff performance charge.

Thresholds between the tiers
After establishing the number of tiers and the minimum and maximum parcel size included in the simplified rate structure, the working group considered preliminary tier thresholds that are intended to maximize the similarity between parcels within each tier. As shown in Figure 3-1, most residential parcels in San Francisco are relatively similar in size. The working group sought to set tier thresholds such that most of these parcels would be captured in a middle tier, with the lower and higher tiers capturing other residential parcels with slightly different runoff performance.

The working group evaluated several options in the tier structure calculator, and based on results of that analysis, recommends the preliminary tier thresholds and overall charge structure described in Table 3-5.

Accordingly, the preliminary tier thresholds are set so that the two large peaks in residential parcel size that occur at 2,500 ft2 and 3,000 ft2, as well as a smaller peak at 1,800 ft2, are within one central tier. The thresholds were also set such that there were not any peaks in parcel area frequency immediately above the threshold value. This is intended to reduce the likelihood that a large number of customers whose parcels are just above the tier threshold will appeal to be in the lower tier.

Table 3-5. SFPUC Stormwater Charge Proposed Tiers and Charge Structure T
i
e
r
Parcel Size Range (ft2) Number of Eligible
Parcels
Average Parcel
Size (ft2)
Average Parcel Impermeable Area
(ft2)
1 1 – 1,700 6,971 1,402 1,260
2 1,701 – 3,300 94,171 2,586 1,978
3 3,301 – 6,000 19,233 4,060 2,822

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

19 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

The final tier thresholds will be confirmed prior to implementation of the Stormwater Charge based on review of any revised parcel data or current rate studies.

3.4 Simplified Residential Rate Summary
Table 3-6 below summarizes the working group’s recommendations for the criteria and structure of the simplified residential rate. The flat rate per parcel in each tier will be determined prior to implementation of the Stormwater Charge based on updates to the standard rate structure (see Section 2). Tier rates will be calculated by summing the charge under the standard rate for all parcels within a given tier and dividing by the total number of parcels within that tier. This method ensures that SFPUC will collect the same revenue that would be collected if the parcels were charged under the standard rate structure.

Table 3-6. SFPUC Stormwater Charge Simplified Residential Rate Criteria and Structure Eligibility Criteria
Number of residential SAs One or more
Allow mixed use/presence of non-residential SAs No
Maximum number of DUs per parcel 6
Tier Definitions
Number of Tiers 3
Minimum parcel size 0 ft2
Maximum parcel size 6,000 ft2
Potential Tier Breaks (parcel size)
Tier 1: 1 – 1,700 ft2
Tier 2: 1,701 – 3,300 ft2
Tier 3: 3,301 – 6,000 ft2
Rates per tier Final rates for each tier to be determined by the tier threshold and any potential changes to cost of service

Section 4: Potential Low-Impact Rate
The working group evaluated a potential low-impact rate specifically for large parcels that generate less stormwater runoff relative to similar parcels. The rationale for this investigation was that large, permeable areas may cause less runoff proportional to small permeable areas, therefore justifying charging parcels with large areas of contiguous permeable area a lower rate.

SFPUC ultimately decided to not pursue a low-impact rate at this time. The standard rate structure selected in San Francisco already assumes the most favorable runoff ratio and soil conditions possible to permeable areas. This was further evidenced in comparison to the low-impact rate criteria of similar utilities. Because of this, stormwater runoff from large, permeable areas already receives the most favorable rate possible under the standard charge structure; additional adjustments are not needed.

Potential Low-Impact Rate Program Structure
To evaluate a low impact rate, SFPUC made preliminary assumptions about how such a rate would be implemented. Parcels in the standard rate structure would be potentially included in the low-impact rate based on eligibility criteria supported by physical runoff characteristics and scientific literature. A low-impact rate would also need to be supported by the hydrological impact of stormwater runoff, and rates would need to reflect physical realities of differences in runoff due to different parcel characteristics. Finally, determining Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

20 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

eligibility for any low-impact rate would need to be based on existing data already available to the billing system and parcel dataset, rather than additional, difficult to collect hydrological data.

Precedents for Low-Impact Rate Programs
Similar to the Stormwater Runoff Charge Program, the precedent for a low-impact rate was set by similar programs at other City utilities. In Philadelphia and St. Paul, there are certain areas excluded from the stormwater charge, such as rights-of-way, cemeteries, and parks. However, there is not a specific program in place to address the runoff generation from large, permeable parcels.

The most direct example of this rate structure is Seattle’s dedicated low-impact rate for large, undeveloped natural land. Parcels in Seattle must meet certain criteria to be eligible for the low-impact rate: they must be at least 0.5 acres, consist of mostly natural vegetation that produces significantly less runoff with less land disturbance than lawns or managed grass, and be contiguous in area. These criteria capture wide variations in parcel size and surface characteristics. Seattle justified including these parcels in a low-impact rate because the large, highly permeable areas generate significantly less runoff than similar parcels with “less absorbent” permeable areas (such as turf lawns) under Seattle’s runoff criteria.

No Low-Impact Rate
The working group investigated whether a low-impact rate was appropriate for San Francisco by evaluating whether large, permeable parcels may have runoff lower than what was assumed in the Standard Rate. As described in Section 2, SFPUC calculated runoff ratios based on an Infoworks hydraulic model that factors in topographical characteristics and soil conditions. The model estimated runoff generated from subcatchments based on the 5-year, 3-hour Level of Service storm.

SFPUC chose a runoff ratio value of 10 percent based on model results using the most favorable topographic and soil conditions for infiltration of runoff, effectively allocating a minimal amount of stormwater runoff to permeable areas. For comparison, the hydrological values used to calculate stormwater charges in other municipalities imply higher runoff ratios. When calculated from their documented assumptions, the runoff ratios for Seattle and Philadelphia are approximately 36 percent and 25 percent respectively, while the runoff ratio for Saint Paul is between 9 and 12 percent depending on land use type.

The working group determined that the standard rate structure selected in San Francisco already assumes the most favorable runoff ratio and soil conditions possible to permeable areas. Therefore, stormwater runoff from large, permeable areas that is charged according to its modelled performance under the standard charge structure is already receiving the most favorable rate possible and does not justify a low- impact rate at this time.

Section 5: Implementation Recommendations

5.1 Interface with Billing System
Implementing the stormwater runoff charge will require coordination with the SFPUC’s customer billing system to minimize administrative burden and ensure that customers are billed accurately. The consultant team identified a number of potential implementation considerations for the billing system, including:
• In some cases, parcels that are charged residential sanitary sewer service rates will not be eligible for the simplified residential rates and will instead be charged based on the standard rate structure (due to their parcel size or number of dwelling units). The billing system should allow for identification of the parcels stormwater billing structure independently from other components of the bill.

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

21 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

• How will the billing system handle differences between NDVI data, which is in raster form, and parcel data, which is in vector form? The raster data, which informs the impermeable/permeable surface area classification, is in a discrete 1 ft2 pixel resolution. The NDVI data will be converted to vector form so that it can be compared and overlaid to the parcel dataset. Overlaying the grid of impermeable/permeable surface data will cause fractional differences where the pixel resolution may only partially overlap the parcel line boundaries. This overlay issue is shown in Figure 4-1 below, showing an overlap of raster data (in blue) with vector data (in green). The yellow shaded areas highlight the potential concern regarding overlap. This issue may be negligible for small properties, especially those within the simplified residential rate structure, but as parcel perimeter increases, so does the magnitude of discrepancies.
• Note that the billing system will have to incorporate the rounding of impermeable/permeable areas to the nearest 100 ft2.

These issues will be addressed further in standard operating procedures that the Customer Service Bureau will use for assessing appeals to the stormwater runoff charge.

Figure 4-1. Example of NDVI and parcel map data18

5.2 Data Quality
Development of the stormwater runoff charge and rate structure is based on available data provided by SFPUC and other City departments. During this evaluation, the consultant team and working group identified several data sources that should be refined, updated, or may warrant additional consideration in the future.

Permeable and Impermeable Areas
The classification of parcel surface areas relies on NDVI raster data derived from aerial imagery. The accuracy of impermeable and permeable areas allocated to a parcel therefore relies on the resolution of the source data. Periodic updates to the aerial imagery would ensure accurate representation of surface areas in the City, especially considering the recent rapid redevelopment of parcels on the eastern side of the City.

Additionally, NDVI relies on the Near-Infrared (NIR) band used in aerial photography. The NIR band is not always included in aerial photography and future data sources should be evaluated to ensure the data format is compatible with the proposed NDVI calculations. Future image classification of impermeable and

18 https://grass.osgeo.org/grass78/manuals/v.select.html

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

22 Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

permeable surfaces should also consider methods to accurately classify surfaces such as bare dirt, tennis courts, and other surfaces that are often inaccurately represented by NDVI as to minimize appeals to the Stormwater Charge.

Parcel Data
The GIS and billing system data is joined with parcel data obtained from the Department of Public Works, but parcel data may be based on the Assessor’s Office in the future. After the internal corrections to the Assessor’s Office dataset, it may serve as the new basis for parcel mapping. Additionally, very small residential parcel areas that were identified during the development of the simplified rate system could potentially be reclassified and combined with larger, adjacent properties after the data corrections are made. This would redistribute the parcel sizes in the lowest tier of the simplified rate structure, reducing the difference between what the smallest parcels would pay under the tiered rate versus the standard rate.

Wastewater Accounts
The wastewater account information obtained from the billing system contains several data fields that are used to identify residential and non-residential customers. The SAs data fields are considered the most reliable for determining whether a parcel was residential, non-residential, or had mixed-use zoning based on the SA types (residential or non-residential) associated with the parcel. Keeping these data fields regularly updated would reduce future appeals and ensure accurate rate structure assignment.

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

A
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

Appendix A: Definition of Key Terms

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

A
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

This page intentionally left blank.

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

A-1
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

The following list provides definitions of terms that are frequently used in this technical memo. Terms were developed to facilitate communication during evaluation of the stormwater runoff charge and are preliminary.
• SFPUC Stormwater Runoff Charge Working Group (the working group) – A team of SFPUC employees that was established in 2014 to develop and implement the Stormwater Runoff Charge Program. The working group includes staff from Wastewater Enterprise, Finance, Communications, IT, and Customer Services Bureau (CSB).
• Permeable - Also known as porous or pervious, these surfaces allow water to infiltrate into the soil to filter out pollutants and recharge the water table.
• Impermeable - Also known as impervious, these typically artificial surfaces are covered by water- resistant materials that prevent water from easily infiltrating the ground beneath them. Water instead either collects on the surface or flows onto another surface or drainage infrastructure. • Excluded area – Areas of the City or a specific parcel that do not drain to infrastructure that SFPUC owns, maintains, or operates. These areas will not be subject to the charge and will be defined in future work beyond the scope of this TM.
• Runoff ratio – the percentage of runoff generated by a permeable surface relative to the runoff generated by an impermeable surface with the same size and characteristics. • Stormwater Runoff Charge Structure – A proposed component of the SFPUC wastewater rate that accounts for the costs related to stormwater drainage in the City, including drainage into the CSS. The structure would recover these costs based on property characteristics that contribute to stormwater runoff.
• Standard Rate – The component of the stormwater runoff charge structure in which parcels are charged based on their total impermeable and permeable area, as measured by NDVI aerial imagery. This term is intended as a placeholder for discussion and may be revised as the stormwater charge is developed further. See Section 2 for additional information.
• Simplified Residential Rate – The component of the stormwater runoff charge structure for residential parcels of similar size and number of DUs in which eligible parcels are charged a flat rate by their assigned tier. Tiers will be determined based on total parcel area. This term is intended as a placeholder for discussion and may be revised as the stormwater charge is developed further. See Section 3 for additional information.

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

A-2
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

This page intentionally left blank.

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

B
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

Appendix B: Residential Rate Calculator Read-me and
Preliminary Results

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

B
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

This page intentionally left blank.

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

B-1
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

The Residential Rate Calculator was developed for SFPUC by BC and SRT under Task Order 8 of Contract PRO.0054.B. The calculator is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Copied below for reference are:
• The calculator read-me
• The calculator summary inputs and outputs table for the working group’s recommended tier structure (See Section 3.3)
Residential Rate Calculator Read-me

1. Purpose
This Excel calculator is a tool for developing potential tiers for the simplified stormwater rate structure for residential parcels in San Francisco. Based on discussions with SFPUC staff, the eligibility for the simplified residential rate will be determined by total parcel area and the number of DUs per parcel. This calculator allows the user to set the minimum parcel area for inclusion in the simplified rate structure, the thresholds for up to five tiers based on parcel area, and the maximum number of DUs per parcel.

Based on these inputs, the calculator outputs the following:
• Flat rate per parcel for each tier, assuming that the rate recovers the equivalent revenue that would otherwise be collected from all properties in the tier under the proposed standard stormwater rate (as determined by the SFPUC 2018 Rate Study).
• Total number of parcels, SAs, and DUs that fall within each tier • Basic statistics (sum, average, standard deviation, min, max) on both the difference and percent difference between the standard rate and the simplified residential rate.

2. Assumptions
The calculator operates on several assumptions that are based on guidance from SFPUC staff:
• The standard stormwater rate, which was developed by SFPUC and is made up of separate rates for a parcel’s impermeable and permeable areas. Although not identified as inputs, they can be changed in the calculator as needed.
• A parcel’s excluded area, representing portions of a parcel that do not drain to the SFPUC system, are not charged under the standard stormwater rate. Under the simplified rate structure the excluded area is included in the calculation of the parcel’s total area. • Only parcels that have at least one residential SAs (either single family or multi-family) and zero non- residential SAs associated with them are eligible for the simplified residential rate. The calculator only includes data for customers matching this criteria. Modifying this assumption would require updating the calculator with new data (see Section 7 below).
• Potential residential tier rates are based on the goal of generating approximately the same revenue from parcels within the tier as would be generated if they were all charged the standard rate. To do this, the residential tier rate is calculated by summing the standard charge for all parcels within the rate, and then dividing that sum by the total number of parcels.
• The calculator rounds all rates, both tiered and standard, to the nearest cent. This rounding results in a minor difference in total revenue collected under each rate system that is quantified as the sum of the difference (not the sum of the absolute difference).

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

B-2
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

3. Operation
The calculator is operated on the “Input-Output” tab. To operate the calculator, adjust the limited number of input cells, indicated with green shading, to define the eligibility criteria and tier thresholds for the rate structure. The inputs and their requirements are described below:
• Minimum Parcel Area (Cell C9) – This represents the smallest parcel that is eligible for the simplified residential rate structure. Parcels with areas below the minimum are not assigned to a tier and will be charged the standard rate based on their individual permeable and impermeable areas. In effect, this value is also the minimum size of parcels within Tier 1. If no minimum is desired, enter a value of 0 or leave the cell blank. This value cannot be negative.
• Maximum Number of DUs per Parcel (Cell C10) – This represents the maximum number of DUs that can be associated with a parcel for it to be included in the simplified residential rate. Parcels with more DUs than this value are excluded from the tiers and will be charged the standard rate based on their individual permeable and impermeable areas. See Section 6 for a description of known issues with the DU data.
• Tier Maximum Parcel (Cells C13 through C17) – These cells represent the maximum size for parcels within each tier. Entries must be positive numbers and the tier areas must increase sequentially for the calculator to function. The calculator can determine up to five tiers. To model five tiers, all tier fields must be completed with the maximum parcel area for each tier increasing from one through five. To model fewer than five tiers, the user can leave the higher tier area fields blank. For example, the inputs to model a three-tier rate structure are shown in the figure at the end of the read me. For the calculator to function, Tier 1 must have a value.

Each time an input value is updated, the rates for the tiers will automatically be adjusted. Due to the large number of parcels, the calculator may take a few seconds to complete the calculations, including the summary statistics on the “Input-Output” tab. Navigating to the “Scatterplot” tab may also require additional time for the graphics to load (note also the limitations with the scatter plots described below). Note that the calculator passes these inputs to a hidden tab, “Other Calcs,” before they are used for the index-match functions in the “Parcel Calculations” tab.

4. Limitations
The calculator generates scatter plots that allow the user to understand the spread of rates by parcel size.

However, due to the large number of tightly clustered points, the scatter plots do not accurately depict variations in the concentration or density of points above a certain threshold. To overcome this limitation in the future, a two-dimensional density plot could be used instead of a scatterplot.

5. Description of Data Fields in Parcel Calculations Tab The “Parcel Calculations” tab is where the calculations for each parcel are performed. Columns A through K are data extracted from the spreadsheet titled “Parcels Summary Data.xlsx” that was provided by SFPUC on March 11, 2020. Data provided by SFPUC is indicated with tan cell shading. This data may need to be updated to incorporate cleanup work that is currently under way (see Section 7 for instructions on updating calculator data). The remaining columns are generated by the calculator based on the user inputs. Each column in the tab is described below.
• mapblklot – Original data field identifying the parcel map block lot. The map block lot is a non- overlapping identifier for parcels. Parcels that overlap each other completely (such as condominiums) all have the same map block lot.
• TotSF_19 – Original data field representing total area of parcel. For reference, see the bottom of the readme for a histogram of the values in this field.

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

B-3
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

• ImpSF_19 – Original data field representing impermeable area of parcel based on Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) from aerial imagery. • PermSF_19 – Original data field representing permeable area of parcel based on NDVI from aerial imagery.
• ExcSF_19 – Original data field representing area of parcel that is not identified as either impermeable or permeable. According to SFPUC staff, two main conditions that contribute to excluded area are (1) areas of parcels that do not drain to the SFPUC system and were therefore purposely excluded and (2) small differences between the raster (grid-based) imperviousness data from NDVI imagery and the vector- based shapes of parcels. Condition 2 is likely responsible for the small, excluded area values for some parcels, both negative and positive.
• Pct_Imp – Original data field representing percent of total area that is impervious. Note that this includes excluded area that does not drain to the SFPUC system. • Sum_SngFAM – Original data field representing the number of SFPUC single family residential SAs are associated with the parcel.
• Sum_MulFam – Original data field representing the number of SFPUC multi-family residential SAs are associated with the parcel.
• Sum_NonRes – Original data field representing the number of SFPUC non-residential SAs are associated with the parcel.
• Sum_DW_UNI – Original data field representing the total number of DUs associated with the parcel in the SFPUC system. Number of DUs associated with each SA is self-reported by the customer at the time the agreement is establish. The total number DUs associated with a parcel is the sum of all DUs for all the residential SAs associated with the parcel.
• Parcel Area Subdivisions – Original data field that groups parcels into bins based on total parcel area in 500 ft2 increments.
• Standard Rate – Calculation of parcel charge using standard stormwater rates per 1,000 ft2 of impermeable and permeable area. Rates are rounded to the nearest cent. • Proposed Tier – Determination of proposed tier based on user inputs. The value “None” indicates that the parcel is not eligible for the residential rate structure based on inputs. Rates are rounded to the nearest cent.
• Proposed Tier Rate Exclusive – The rate each parcel within the simplified residential rate structure would be charged based on the tier determination. Parcels excluded from the residential rate structure are labeled with “ – “ to represent a null value. This allows for plotting of only the parcels within the rate structure in the “Scatterplots” tab.
• Proposed Rate Inclusive – The proposed rate for all residential parcels based either on the residential rate tier or the standard rate, depending on whether the parcel is eligible for the simplified residential rate. This field represents that actual rate each parcel in the dataset would be charged given the user inputs.
• Difference – The difference between the tiered residential rate and the standard rate. Difference is calculated as the proposed residential tier rate minus the standard rate. A parcel that would pay more under the standard rate than the residential tiered rate has a negative difference, while a parcel that would pay more under the tiered residential rate than the standard rate will have a positive difference.

Note that the sum of the difference for each tier should be approximately zero but rounding error can result in minor deviations from zero.

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

B-4
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

• Absolute Difference – The absolute value of the difference a parcel would pay between the tiered residential rate and the standard rate. This value is summed to understand the overall and average magnitude of difference within a tier.
• Percentage Difference – Percent difference is calculated by dividing the proposed residential tier rate by the standard rate minus 100 percent. This shows the percentage increase or decrease of a proposed rate versus the standard rate fee per parcel.

6. Known Errors and Outliers
Some parcels within the data set result in large absolute and percent differences when assigned to a residential tier. Most, but not all, of the outliers result from the following conditions:
• Parcels with large amounts of excluded area - Excluded area in the data set represents either (1) area of parcels that do not drain to the SFPUC system and is therefore excluded from stormwater charges or (2) small differences between the raster (grid-based) imperviousness data from NDVI imagery and the vector-based shapes of parcels. At present, the calculator determines residential tier eligibility based on total area, which results in parcels that have large, excluded areas receiving tiered rates. However, under the standard rate the excluded area would not be charged, which may result in a lower overall bill.

Data analysis indicates that the most significant outliers come from parcels with greater than 800 ft2 of excluded area. This is a potential area for refinement of the calculator based on direction from SFPUC and budget availability.
• Parcels with small total area – Parcels with fewer than 1,000 ft2 tend to have large percentage differences due to having very low standard rates compared to their residential tier. Setting a minimum parcel area eligibility criteria can reduce this issue. • Parcels with relatively higher percentage of pervious area - Parcels with a higher percentage of pervious area compared to other parcels in their tier would pay more under a residential tier system than they would under a standard rate structure.
• Parcels where the DU information appears inaccurate – Some parcels have DU counts that could not realistically exist on the parcel, given either its very small total area or impervious area. In some cases, this may be due to a single SA that serves multiple parcels being assigned to one parcel that does not contain any or all of the building with the DUs. In addition, DUs counts are self-reported at the time the SA is established and may have either been misreported or are no longer representative of the parcel. • Parcels where the DUs equal zero – Parcels without DUs may have been miscategorized and require further review. At the time of calculator release, the data only includes six parcels with zero DUs.

7. Data Update
The data in the calculator represents parcels in San Francisco that have one or more residential SA , either single family or multi-family, and zero non-residential SAs as of September 24, 2019. This data was provided by SFPUC on March 11, 2020 in working form and may need to be updated in the future. To update the data with new information:
• Organize the data’s columns to match the calculator columns A through K in the “Parcel Calculations” sheet.
• Ensure that all parcels/map block lots included in the data have at least one or more residential SA, either single family or multi-family, and zero non-residential SAs • Once organized, the data can be copied into columns A through K in the “Parcel Calculations” sheet.

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

B-5
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

• Note the new number of the bottom row in the sheet. In the “Inputs-Outputs” sheet, update the formulas in the “Calculator Outputs” box to run through the final row of the “Parcel Calculations” tab. Note that many of the cells contain array functions (denoted by a “{ }” bracketing the formula) and require pressing Ctrl+Shift+Enter after editing the formula. If only Enter is hit, the formula will only calculate one cell instead of a matrix of cells and will not function correctly. • For reference, prepare an updated histogram reflecting the total areas of the parcels in the dataset to replace the existing image.

8. Histogram
The histogram below shows all residential parcels that have one or more residential SA, either single family or multi-family, and zero non-residential SAs as of September 24, 2019, by parcel size. This may be used to see clusters in parcel size and inform potential tier thresholds. (See Figure 3-1 in TM body for Histogram)

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

B-6
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

This page intentionally left blank.

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

B-7
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

Technical Memorandum 1.1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Stormwater Runoff Charge

B-8
Use of contents on this sheet is subject to the limitations specified at the beginning of this document.

This page intentionally left blank.

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.

To: Erin Franks

From: Julio Maravilla

Subject: DRAFT Effective Area calculation

Date: 5/4/2018

As part of the Stormwater Runoff Charge task there was a need to determine what the effective area for each parcel in the city is. The effective area for generating runoff was determined to be 100% of the impervious parcel area with 10% of the pervious parcel area. The 10% factor was determined through the following analysis.

A model was set up in ICM with 12 subcatchments, each subcatchment being 2 acres.

Each subcatchment had a pervious area of 1 acre and an impervious area of 1 acre.

Each subcatchment had a land use of NRCS – A, NRCS – B, NRCS – C or NRCS – D and catchment slope of either 1%, 2%, or 5% (figure 1).

A 5yr-3hr LOS design storm was
simulated with this network model
to generate a results table of total
runoff for impervious area and
pervious area for each
subcatchment (table 1 and table 2).

For each subcatchment, the ratio
of pervious runoff to impervious
runoff was then calculated and
summarized (table 3). A factor of
10% was selected based on the
ratio for the NRCS – A
subcatchment with a 1.0% which
was the least conservative for use
in our analysis of effective runoff
area for parcels.

Table 1

1 2 5
A 0.00322 0.00369 0.00423
B 0.00695 0.00769 0.00849
C 0.01034 0.01118 0.01209
D 0.01096 0.01182 0.01182
Runoff from Pervious (MG)
Land Use
NRCS
Slope (%)

Table 2

1 2 5
A 9% 11% 12%
B 20% 22% 25%
C 30% 32% 35%
D 32% 34% 34%
Ratio of Pervious to Impervious Runoff (%)
Land Use
Slope (%)

Table 3

ICM Network ID: 139236

Model Run ID: 139285

1 2 5
A 0.03453 0.03457 0.03462
B 0.03453 0.03457 0.03462
C 0.03453 0.03457 0.03462
D 0.03453 0.03457 0.03457
Runoff from Impervious (MG)
Land Use
NRCS
Slope (%)

EXHIBIT B

525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488

DATE: December 21, 2021

TO: Marge Vizcarra, Customer Services Bureau Director

CC: Diala Batshoun, Tricia Hutcherson, Pet Torres, Customer Service
Alan Marshall, Rajesh Prasad, Richard Johnson, Tahir Dar, IT Cheryl Huey, Kristina Alagar Cordero, Charles Perl, Eric Sandler, Finance
Steve Ritchie, Ellen Levin, Julie Ortiz, Water
Tyrone Jue, Ron Flynn, Office of the General Manager
Betsey Lauppe Rhodes, John Coté, Communications
Sheryl Bregman, John Roddy, City Attorney

FROM: Erin Franks, Rates Administrator

SUBJECT: FY 2021-22 Drought Surcharge – Effective April 1, 2022

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) adopted Resolution 21-0177 declaring a water shortage emergency for the SFPUC and a systemwide 10% water use reduction system-wide, and a 5% water use reduction for retail customers. As required by Resolution 18-0053 and Resolution 18-0054, this also triggered the implementation of a temporary drought surcharge not-to-exceed a 5% increase of current volumetric water and wastewater rates for retail water and wastewater customers. The water shortage declaration set the effective date for the drought surcharges at as April 1, 2022.

As described in the rates resolution, for residential customers, the surcharges shall assume that the overall demand reduction is split evenly between Tier 1 and Tier 2. Each non-residential customer shall incur the percent drought surcharge uniformly. The overall required surcharge is based on the following formula: surcharge ($ per CCF) = Water Revenue Shortfall from reduced flow/Reduced Water Flow. The drought surcharges shall remain in effect until the Commission adopts a resolution to rescind the water delivery reduction.

Please implement the temporary drought surcharge to the rate schedules below, effective April 1, 2022.

Retail Water Rates
Based on our calculations, the maximum drought surcharge of 5% is needed on retail water rates to account for a 5% reduction in usage. The drought surcharge of 5% will apply to FY 2021-22 water volumetric rates for Schedules W-1A, W-1B, W-1C, W-2, W-3A, W-4, W-5, W-21, W-22, W-24, W-31, and W-

33. FY 2021-22

Water Rates Schedules
Rate Effective
7/1/2021 -
3/31/2022
Rate Effective
4/1/2022 -
6/30/2022
Drought
Surcharge
($/ccf)
Schedule W-1A, W-21

Single Family Residential - Tier 1 $9.60 $10.08 $0.48
Single Family Residential - Tier 2 $10.71 $11.25 $0.54
Schedule W-1B

Multi-Family Residential - Tier 1 $9.60 $10.08 $0.48
Multi-Family Residential - Tier 2 $10.76 $11.30 $0.54
Schedule W-1C, W-2, W-3A, W-
4, W-5, W-22, W-31, W-33

Nonresidential $10.55 $11.08 $0.53
Schedule W-24

Nonpotable $0.95 $1.00 $0.05

Retail Wastewater Rates
Based on our calculations, a drought surcharge of 4.9% is needed on wastewater rates to recover lost revenue from a 5% reduction in volumes. The drought surcharge of 4.9% will apply to FY 2021-22 wastewater volumetric rates for Schedules A and B.

FY 2021-22

Wastewater Rates
Rate Effective
7/1/2021 -
3/31/2022
Rate Effective
4/1/2022 -
6/30/2022
Drought
Surcharge
($/ccf)
Schedule A

Residential $15.97 $16.75 $0.78
Schedule B

Nonresidential Flow Rate $9.46 $9.93 $0.47
Nonresidential COD Rate $0.647 $0.679 $0.032
Nonresidential TSS Rate $1.647 $1.728 $0.081
Nonresidential O/G Rate $1.661 $1.742 $0.081

Prop A Pass-Through
Only a portion of water rate increases can be passed on to tenants based on the rules approved in San Francisco’s 2002 Proposition A. For the current fiscal year, that pass-through amount is $3.00/ccf. The 5% surcharge also applies to

the pass-through amount, so on April 1, 2022, landlords may pass though 5% more, or $3.15/ccf, to their tenants.

Contract Rates
Any customers who have a contract for water or sewer service that mandates a specific rate will not have the drought surcharge applied. However, if that contract sets the customer to one of the rate schedules listed above, the drought surcharge should be included.

Please contact me if you have any questions. Thank you.

Water Sales Actuals and Projections (CCF), FY 2021-22
base -1 year --->
FY 2021-22
Annual July August September October November December January February March April May June Projection Actuals Actuals Actuals Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Retail
Retail Non-Municipal
Retail Paying - Non-Municipal, In-City, Non-Residential B&C-WTR Builders & Contractors 107,730 6,319 14,211 5,544 18,081 16,572 4,789 7,456 7,825 5,880 3,910 6,409 10,734 6.1% 4.2% 4.2% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact, drought CM-WTR Commercial 6,273,392 461,588 444,639 473,319 606,556 561,122 520,996 529,990 507,171 492,348 536,600 560,812 578,250 -1.0% -13.8% -13.8% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact, drought D&S-WTR Docks & Ships 2,359 101 213 409 441 280 217 115 206 73 103 127 75 -27.1% -11.2% -11.2% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact, drought IND-WTR Industrial 64,457 4,048 3,632 5,213 6,497 5,881 5,582 5,046 5,336 5,497 5,944 5,683 6,097 -3.1% -17.6% -17.6% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact, drought COMBO-NR Combination Fire & Water, Non-Residential 189,109 15,750 14,313 15,584 17,406 16,373 14,722 15,979 14,679 14,558 15,634 17,108 17,002 -3.6% -11.3% -11.3% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact, drought FIRE-NR Fire Service, Non-Residential 18,555 1,725 1,573 1,462 1,650 1,427 1,523 1,756 1,442 1,715 1,390 1,397 1,495 -3.0% IRR-NR Irrigation, Non-Residential 191,877 25,398 22,341 25,912 21,552 16,244 10,677 7,216 4,417 7,860 9,628 17,085 23,548 -0.5% 0.0% 0.0% drought TIYB-CMW Treasure Island Commercial 11,200 238 310 2,483 2,043 1,026 755 451 435 347 195 1,445 1,472 only 1 year due to newer SA type; 2 years beginning in May TIYBIRNR Treasure Island Irrigation Non Residential 8,616 310 646 1,566 567 645 1,301 837 324 416 589 787 629 0.0% 0.0% only 1 year due t drought TIYBUCMW Treasure Island Unmetered Commercial 176 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 only 1 year due to newer SA type; 2 years beginning in May TIYBFRNR Treasure Island Fire Non Residential 14 0 7 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 only 1 year due to newer SA type Retail Paying - Non-Municipal, In-City, Non-Reside 6,867,486 515,491 501,900 531,505 674,807 619,592 560,577 568,860 541,850 528,710 574,008 610,869 639,317 Retail Paying - Non-Municipal, In-City, Residential
RES-MWTR Multi-Family Residential 9,919,046 808,456 764,867 835,805 858,081 832,453 816,492 867,232 809,911 794,760 822,652 835,467 872,871 1.1% -0.9% -0.9% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact, drought RES-SWTR Single Family Residential 6,798,381 578,238 542,248 581,804 592,171 566,234 560,471 591,710 532,139 528,212 547,018 566,778 611,358 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact, drought COMBO-R Combination Fire & Water, Residential 824,084 67,295 70,438 71,491 70,529 66,550 68,268 71,441 64,691 64,439 67,605 68,647 72,691 -0.8% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact, drought FIRE-R Fire Service, Residential 5,620 632 507 380 439 491 469 412 480 340 421 593 457 -1.2% IRR-R Irrigation, Residential 158,912 18,200 15,584 16,188 19,895 15,222 12,219 5,358 5,021 6,025 10,272 14,518 20,410 -0.9% 0.0% 0.0% drought Retail Paying - Non-Municipal, In-City, Residential 17,706,044 1,472,820 1,393,644 1,505,668 1,541,114 1,480,950 1,457,918 1,536,153 1,412,243 1,393,775 1,447,968 1,486,002 1,577,787 Retail Paying - Non-Municipal, Suburban
SUBAPWTR Airport 480,486 35,540 38,096 35,030 41,326 46,315 42,273 40,345 40,147 35,374 40,908 39,649 45,483 2.5% -12.5% -12.5% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact, drought SUBCMWTR Suburban Commercial 515,978 68,809 63,565 60,276 60,180 46,132 29,855 19,258 24,267 20,596 27,983 31,459 63,597 3.0% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact, drought SUBRWTR Suburban Single Family Residential 31,851 2,672 4,320 3,144 4,844 2,388 2,591 1,606 1,895 1,255 1,739 1,941 3,456 2.2% 2.6% 2.6% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact, drought SUBCOMBO Combination Fire & Water, Suburban 5,250 -129 226 112 791 571 798 581 539 369 413 348 632 2.4% -29.6% -29.6% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact, drought SUBFIRE Fire Service, Suburban 6 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 -89.0% SUBIRR Irrigation, Suburban 257,076 41,336 36,700 36,323 31,373 20,452 9,575 1,993 2,966 8,164 8,363 25,333 34,498 2.7% 0.0% 0.0% drought NONPOTNR Non-Potable 118,498 18,477 18,758 17,821 13,118 9,510 3,014 1,271 1,221 3,729 4,163 11,887 15,528 10.3% 0.0% 0.0% drought Wholesale - Paying Only MU-WTRNP TI Treasure Island 181,660 22,393 20,078 18,391 16,726 15,433 10,143 11,363 10,946 10,908 11,266 15,645 18,368 average only years prior to breakout of Sas (diff # years Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total Retail Paying - Non-Municipal, Suburban Total 1,590,805 189,097 181,747 171,097 168,358 140,799 98,250 76,418 81,982 80,396 94,836 126,262 181,564 Actuals 6,890,151 6,375,167 6,538,358 6,378,006 5,610,653 4,564,012 Retail Non-Municipal Total 26,164,334 2,177,408 2,077,291 2,208,270 2,384,280 2,241,341 2,116,745 2,181,431 2,036,075 2,002,880 2,116,811 2,223,133 2,398,669 Projection 4,564,012 4,067,694 3,810,032 3,874,574 4,325,479 5,154,806 6,550,536 Retail Paying - Municipal Budget 6,597,241 6,501,596 7,022,721 6,037,696 5,320,599 4,339,028 3,868,818 3,627,716 4,267,548 4,108,213 4,883,426 6,214,274 MU-COMBO Municipal Combination Fire & Water 35,510 3,371 2,804 3,763 5,615 2,841 2,865 1,027 1,864 1,451 1,294 3,277 5,338 3.9% 32.8% 32.8% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact, drought MU-FIRE Municipal Fire 1,495 224 70 223 70 57 57 251 116 143 102 93 90 -16.0% MU-IRR Municipal Irrigation 499,278 50,531 105,640 57,475 53,368 42,515 34,222 11,456 7,363 11,614 22,547 41,327 61,220 2.5% 0.0% 0.0% drought Retail - Paying & Nonpaying MU-WTR Municipal Water 765,708 60,953 56,427 61,709 70,208 68,596 58,504 73,384 52,937 60,099 61,818 67,604 73,469 1.9% -11.3% -11.3% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact, drought Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total SUBMUWTR Suburban Municipal Water (San Bruno Jail) 27,290 1,959 1,736 3,053 1,423 1,739 3,189 2,175 2,166 2,288 2,180 2,465 2,917 -3.6% -5.6% -5.6% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe imp Actuals 2,289,542 2,305,012 2,326,625 2,532,088 2,369,484 2,231,836 WMUNI-BC Municipal, Sharp Park 31,102 4,990 3,910 4,690 4,122 3,339 2,310 400 38 115 896 2,212 4,082 12.7% 0.0% 0.0% drought Projection 2,231,836 2,279,497 2,110,417 2,086,651 2,214,724 2,348,843 2,555,955 RECIRRHP Irrigation Recycled Water (Harding Park) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% drought Budget 2,479,580 2,478,961 2,485,027 2,548,550 2,351,686 2,208,430 2,272,629 2,110,413 2,099,599 2,188,735 2,317,181 2,547,603 TIYBMUWT Treasure Island Municipal 4,957 438 459 554 510 451 459 343 318 306 373 374 372 only 1 year due to newer SA type; 2 years beginning in May TIYUMUWT Treasure Island Unmetered Municipal 1,548 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 139 139 only 1 year due to newer SA type; 2 years beginning in May TIYBMUIR Treasure Island Irrigation Municipal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% drought Retail Paying - Municipal Total 1,366,887 122,593 171,173 131,594 135,443 119,665 101,733 89,163 64,928 76,142 89,335 117,490 147,627 Retail Non-Paying
SUBNPFIR Suburban Non-Paying Fire 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0% long term to avoid divide by zero errror (no data in years) SUBNPWTR Suburban Non-Paying Water 16,285 582 3,390 622 2,642 399 4,106 296 1,174 340 1,352 285 1,095 19.5% 7.2% 7.2% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact, drought MU-IRRNP Municipal Irrigation Non-Paying 21,176 3,812 2,543 1,983 1,965 1,890 1,605 1,047 657 888 1,043 1,431 2,311 9.4% 0.0% 0.0% drought MU-WTRNP Municipal Water Non-Paying 81,977 -14,853 50,615 -15,844 7,757 6,189 7,647 7,560 7,582 6,400 6,177 6,499 6,247 -3.1% -1.9% -1.9% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact, drought NPMU-FIR Municipal Fire Non-Paying 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 6 1.1% Retail Non-Paying Total 119,452 -10,459 56,548 -13,238 12,365 8,478 13,358 8,903 9,414 7,628 8,577 8,220 9,659 Retail Total 27,650,674 2,289,542 2,305,012 2,326,625 2,532,088 2,369,484 2,231,836 2,279,497 2,110,417 2,086,651 2,214,724 2,348,843 2,555,955 Upcountry
HHCMWTR Hetchy Commercial Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -12.7% -100.0% doesn't matter all usage shifted to Brooks Ranch account, just zero out HHRSWTR Hetchy Residential Water 56 4 3 2 4 4 4 6 6 6 6 7 5 6.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact, drought LLNL-WTR Lawrence Livermore National Labs 221,120 0 44,112 85,868 7,028 10,790 14,227 3,568 4,730 6,047 13,818 12,045 18,888 -50.0% only years where skepticism that usage will show up MCHR-WTR Moccasin Creek Hatchery Multifamily 1,231 161 163 125 161 140 73 69 53 49 47 69 120 13.3% -6.1% -6.1% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact, drought NONPOTGR Groveland Non-Potable 154,776 23,527 17,353 15,951 13,785 11,110 10,742 5,363 6,360 9,761 9,725 14,509 16,592 -2.8% 2.9% 2.9% 0.0% average only pre special formula to accommodate 1 month lag in actuals; 1/2 COVID impact; drought NONPOTBR Nonpotable Brooks Ranch 2,012 239 276 294 142 207 129 91 104 76 87 133 233 using Hetchy Commercial for historic data for projections, since this is the same account, just reclassified to be nonpotable. Switch happens in November Upcountry Total 379,196 23,931 61,907 102,240 21,119 22,251 25,174 9,097 11,254 15,939 23,682 26,762 35,838 Wholesale
Wholesale Paying
Wholesale - Municipal Utilities
Alameda County Water District 4,490,406 450,956 377,929 383,526 383,000 276,467 203,095 239,122 243,512 426,806 466,765 557,678 481,550 7.9% 7.1% 7.1% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact; how to consider extra purchases, drought Brisbane 212,868 20,001 19,523 20,571 20,557 20,242 17,637 18,390 15,212 12,477 14,157 14,918 19,182 3.2% 6.4% 6.4% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Burlingame 1,626,542 157,474 159,550 157,438 156,450 136,472 123,180 108,061 100,248 127,730 112,406 118,105 169,426 2.6% -1.9% -1.9% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Coastside County Water District 646,219 86,247 83,579 97,329 114,811 81,135 40,396 10,963 9,076 21,034 22,260 35,978 43,411 -5.3% 19.4% 19.4% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Cordilleras Mutual Water Company 2,893 324 421 221 415 146 182 222 152 126 203 197 282 3.6% 6.0% 6.0% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Daly City 1,832,467 213,132 170,486 134,980 140,837 164,511 152,820 142,950 153,900 118,992 145,397 129,014 165,448 0.5% -2.1% -2.1% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact East Palo Alto 742,089 72,021 63,246 65,217 66,990 62,294 56,576 58,084 52,948 52,609 55,353 62,022 74,729 1.7% -1.8% -1.8% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Estero Municipal Improvement District 2,023,009 219,768 198,533 202,692 207,825 170,596 146,237 127,855 117,081 117,105 122,490 167,213 225,613 3.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Guadalupe Valley Municipal Improvement Dist 106,224 8,741 11,600 8,228 11,148 11,184 8,609 6,977 7,080 6,771 7,296 7,577 11,014 2.0% -9.6% -9.6% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Hayward 7,097,720 733,713 635,427 710,720 711,695 591,612 493,376 547,441 460,194 464,336 473,496 592,712 682,995 3.1% 1.1% 1.1% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Hillsborough 1,208,867 166,862 149,277 156,801 146,680 116,186 74,492 47,572 37,667 44,272 43,625 83,712 141,721 1.1% 3.5% 3.5% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Menlo Park 1,367,789 157,839 136,194 132,362 144,602 122,157 85,322 75,855 77,777 69,779 84,154 120,711 161,038 6.6% -1.6% -1.6% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Mid-Peninsula California Water District 1,239,705 127,838 117,477 129,386 126,737 109,169 83,816 86,121 74,736 78,010 80,933 103,068 122,415 3.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Millbrae 907,122 87,545 88,365 85,652 88,806 77,273 70,421 66,218 59,839 60,207 62,777 68,408 91,610 0.1% -1.5% -1.5% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Milpitas 2,588,660 285,437 242,963 225,133 244,453 236,103 211,868 179,154 188,676 153,398 195,366 175,117 250,993 6.2% -2.2% -2.2% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Mountain View 3,649,197 389,141 394,307 364,017 364,237 351,495 283,310 215,658 220,022 208,655 242,363 259,237 356,755 2.1% 1.8% 1.8% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact North Coast County Water District 1,181,558 112,793 105,538 120,006 107,413 95,281 80,673 95,130 88,186 91,049 88,494 94,202 102,793 1.3% 5.4% 5.4% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Palo Alto 4,841,843 565,167 495,424 508,549 491,500 419,650 297,678 272,109 272,333 259,816 294,436 422,936 542,245 3.2% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Purissima Hills Water District 831,431 103,501 109,949 100,991 101,778 93,837 60,534 33,655 26,877 28,779 31,419 50,416 89,695 4.5% 5.1% 5.1% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Redwood City 4,004,785 408,067 379,346 418,136 403,619 338,907 275,587 279,342 204,711 259,709 286,767 347,788 402,806 2.6% 0.5% 0.5% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact San Bruno 524,181 110,269 68,455 58,340 52,525 37,939 27,425 33,588 25,138 14,706 22,756 23,346 49,696 2.5% 5.1% 5.1% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact; how to consider in-lieu? San Jose 2,041,445 190,101 204,246 190,232 199,107 195,809 165,753 128,477 137,102 127,811 150,685 153,992 198,130 0.4% -0.8% -0.8% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Santa Clara 1,544,587 143,730 154,912 148,581 141,509 147,539 134,508 130,264 119,415 95,192 113,642 98,815 116,481 15.4% 1.1% 1.1% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Sunnyvale 4,545,550 325,476 491,957 463,154 417,291 431,186 397,590 283,737 296,121 253,752 386,620 335,914 462,752 7.1% -1.4% -1.4% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Westborough Water District 393,892 34,561 27,813 33,492 32,941 34,622 45,939 36,421 26,388 26,501 30,494 27,024 37,697 5.9% -4.5% -4.5% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact SUBRPU Wholesale - Municipal Utilities Total 49,651,046 5,170,702 4,886,517 4,915,754 4,876,924 4,321,810 3,537,023 3,223,366 3,014,393 3,119,622 3,534,354 4,050,102 5,000,479 Wholesale - Private Utilities
Cal Water - Bear Gulch 5,101,805 668,416 568,869 663,248 605,480 501,317 285,303 226,298 209,564 169,809 192,765 398,648 612,087 6.1% 4.3% 4.3% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Cal Water - San Carlos 1,546,858 174,566 150,527 155,665 155,534 135,232 121,943 99,967 90,871 88,570 93,027 120,747 160,210 4.4% 2.1% 2.1% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Cal Water - San Mateo 4,675,069 514,123 443,732 470,120 451,120 374,819 384,537 308,585 296,019 300,086 297,654 353,859 480,414 3.2% 0.6% 0.6% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Cal Water - South San Francisco 2,478,628 295,162 257,232 263,553 216,352 215,965 191,519 173,746 154,793 153,774 163,388 170,536 222,609 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact Stanford University 686,062 67,182 68,290 70,018 72,596 61,511 43,687 35,732 44,391 42,714 44,291 60,914 74,738 1.9% -3.4% -3.4% 0.0% average only pre 1/2 COVID timeframe impact SUBRPR Wholesale - Private Utilities Total 14,488,422 1,719,449 1,488,650 1,622,604 1,501,082 1,288,843 1,026,989 844,328 795,639 754,952 791,125 1,104,704 1,550,057 Wholesale Paying Total 64,139,468 6,890,151 6,375,167 6,538,358 6,378,006 5,610,653 4,564,012 4,067,694 3,810,032 3,874,574 4,325,479 5,154,806 6,550,536 Wholesale Non-Paying
BANK-DC Banked In-Lieu Groundwater, Daly City 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.5% -100.0% no in-lieu credit in FY 21-22 due to drought Projection
NotesTotal COVID
Recovery DroughtSA Type Name Long Term
Trend
Additional Change
Base Notes

3.0 3.5

4.0 4.5

5.0 5.5

6.0 6.5

7.0 7.5

8.0 Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Monthly Water Sales (Million CCF)
Wholesale Water Sales Projections
FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 Projections Budget

1.9 2.0

2.1 2.2

2.3 2.4

2.5 2.6

2.7 2.8
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Monthly Water Sales (Million CCF)
Retail Water Sales Projections
FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 Projections Budget
BANK-CW Banked In-Lieu Groundwater, Cal Water 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% -100.0% no in-lieu credit in FY 21-22 due to drought BANK-SB Banked In-Lieu Groundwater, San Bruno 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0.3% -100.0% no in-lieu credit in FY 21-22 due to drought Wholesale Non-Paying Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wholesale Total 64,139,468 6,890,151 6,375,167 6,538,358 6,378,006 5,610,653 4,564,012 4,067,694 3,810,032 3,874,574 4,325,479 5,154,806 6,550,536 Total Sales (Ccf) 92,169,338 9,203,624 8,742,086 8,967,224 8,931,214 8,002,388 6,821,022 6,356,289 5,931,703 5,977,164 6,563,885 7,530,412 9,142,329 Retail Non-Municipal Total 26,164,334 2,177,408 2,077,291 2,208,270 2,384,280 2,241,341 2,116,745 2,181,431 2,036,075 2,002,880 2,116,811 2,223,133 2,398,669 % Change from Previous Year 5.1% -8.9% -7.9% -1.6% 11.4% 15.6% 1.6% 12.7% 14.9% 2.8% 4.3% 6.9% 14.9% Retail Paying - Municipal Total 1,366,887 122,593 171,173 131,594 135,443 119,665 101,733 89,163 64,928 76,142 89,335 117,490 147,627 % Change from Previous Year 10.4% -26.5% 22.4% 1.1% 26.1% 12.2% 6.2% 30.3% 43.3% 53.8% -15.9% 7.4% 30.4% Retail Non-Paying Total 119,452 -10,459 56,548 -13,238 12,365 8,478 13,358 8,903 9,414 7,628 8,577 8,220 9,659 % Change from Previous Year 6.4% -211.9% 443.0% -217.1% -29.3% -1112.2% 22.2% 14.2% 148.3% -28.0% -5.8% -3.1% -30.0% Retail Total 27,650,674 2,289,542 2,305,012 2,326,625 2,532,088 2,369,484 2,231,836 2,279,497 2,110,417 2,086,651 2,214,724 2,348,843 2,555,955 % Change from Previous Year 5.3% -10.8% -4.2% -2.5% 11.8% 15.9% 2.0% 13.3% 15.9% 3.9% 3.2% 6.9% 15.4% Upcountry Total 379,196 23,931 61,907 102,240 21,119 22,251 25,174 9,097 11,254 15,939 23,682 26,762 35,838 % Change from Previous Year -17.4% -8.9% 196.6% 47.2% 15.9% -55.5% -59.6% -70.3% -27.4% 46.1% -51.0% -34.4% -45.5% Wholesale Paying Total 64,139,468 6,890,151 6,375,167 6,538,358 6,378,006 5,610,653 4,564,012 4,067,694 3,810,032 3,874,574 4,325,479 5,154,806 6,550,536 % Change from Previous Year -2.6% -0.6% -7.9% -0.6% 1.9% 1.0% -3.3% -0.5% 6.2% -10.0% -13.5% -13.5% 10.2% Wholesale Non-Paying Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
% Change from Previous Year -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% Wholesale Total 64,139,468 6,890,151 6,375,167 6,538,358 6,378,006 5,610,653 4,564,012 4,067,694 3,810,032 3,874,574 4,325,479 5,154,806 6,550,536 % Change from Previous Year -6.2% -3.6% -10.7% -3.6% -1.5% -2.6% -7.5% -5.5% 0.6% -14.4% -17.2% -16.6% 6.6% Total Sales (Ccf) 92,169,338 9,203,624 8,742,086 8,967,224 8,931,214 8,002,388 6,821,022 6,356,289 5,931,703 5,977,164 6,563,885 7,530,412 9,142,329 % Change from Previous Year -3.1% -5.5% -8.6% -3.0% 1.9% 1.9% -5.1% 0.1% 5.5% -8.7% -11.5% -10.5% 8.5% Long Term Trend Dates
Category Start End Start End Start End Start End
Standard pre-COVID only 2/1/2017 2/1/2020 2/1/2016 2/1/2019 3/1/2020 9/1/2021 3/1/2019 9/1/2020 Irrigation/Fire ignore COVID 9/1/2018 9/1/2021 9/1/2017 9/1/2020 In-lieu no data before Ju 8/1/2018 8/1/2021 8/1/2017 8/1/2020 Drought Impact Groveland current month is 2/1/2017 2/1/2020 2/1/2016 2/1/2019 Retail 0% Brooks Ranch no data before No 11/1/2020 9/1/2021 11/1/2019 9/1/2020 Irrigation 0% Wholesale 0%
Sept
No. of Accounts Annual CCF Average CCF Per Month
RES-MWTR Multi-Family Residential 34,151 9,919,046 24.20 RES-SWTR Single Family Residential 110,365 6,798,381 5.13 COMBO-R Combination Fire & Water, Residential 3,611 824,084 19.02 FIRE-R Fire Service, Residential 5,314 5,620 0.09 IRR-R Irrigation, Residential 365 158,912 36.28 Retail Paying - Residential Total 153,806 17,706,044 9.59 Long Term Trend Dates COVID SIP Projection Dates
Numerator Denominator Numerator Denominator
SA Type Name Category Rate Class
FY 19-20
Volume Actuals
(CCF)
FY 19-20 Actuals
($)
FY 20-21
Volume
Projection
(CCF)
FY 20-21
Projection ($)
FY 21-22
Volume
Projection
(CCF)
FY 21-22
Budget ($)
Volumetric Charges
Rate Changes Single Family Residential 8.42% 8.49% 8.51% Rate Changes Multi-Family Residential 8.31% 8.36% 8.43% Rate Changes Nonresidential 8.42% 7.33% 7.54%
Rate Changes Wholesale 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Rate Changes Nonpotable 7.89% 7.32% 7.95%
B&C-WTR Builders & Contractor San Francisco Nonresidential 69,361 629,241$ 88,247 859,255$ 95,750 1,002,638$ CM-WTR Commercial San Francisco Nonresidential 6,895,808 62,787,339$ 4,814,839 47,053,449$ 5,784,296 60,791,618$ COMBO-NR Combination Fire & W San Francisco Nonresidential 203,080 1,845,212$ 147,677 1,440,173$ 173,126 1,815,716$ COMBO-R Combination Fire & W San Francisco Multi-Family Residential 846,897 7,168,873$ 873,177 8,009,485$ 856,669 8,520,867$ D&S-WTR Docks & Ships San Francisco Nonresidential 4,849 44,233$ 3,225 31,577$ 2,946 31,015$ FIRE-NR Fire Service, Non-Resi San Francisco Nonresidential 20,254 184,475$ 19,028 186,005$ 19,364 203,573$ FIRE-R Fire Service, ResidentiSan Francisco Nonresidential 5,774 52,551$ 5,325 52,016$ 5,429 57,029$ HYDRNTCP City Fire Hydrants San Francisco Nonresidential -$ - HYDRNTSP Suburban Fire Hydran Suburban Nonresidential -$ - IND-WTR Industrial San Francisco Nonresidential 73,296 667,455$ 44,731 437,191$ 57,719 606,694$ IRR-NR Irrigation, Non-ResideSan Francisco Nonresidential 194,045 1,767,171$ 196,190 1,917,684$ 196,047 2,060,833$ IRR-R Irrigation, Residential San Francisco Nonresidential 194,459 1,770,172$ 184,330 1,800,972$ 182,872 1,921,503$ MU-COMBO Municipal Combinatio Municipal Nonresidential 25,438 231,761$ 25,538 249,723$ 26,832 282,170$ MU-FIRE Municipal Fire Municipal Nonresidential 2,094 19,045$ 1,403 13,693$ 1,598 16,770$ MU-IRR Municipal Irrigation Municipal Nonresidential 514,262 4,680,025$ 502,708 4,910,228$ 491,405 5,161,892$ MU-WTR Municipal Water Municipal Nonresidential 835,089 7,611,761$ 680,242 6,654,855$ 755,240 7,945,917$ NONPOTNR Non-Potable Suburban Nonpotable 110,751 90,222$ 114,512 100,111$ 111,166 104,917$ RES-MWTR Multi-Family ResidentSan Francisco Multi-Family Residential 10,330,393 86,934,078$ 10,423,579 95,054,322$ 10,335,830 102,204,229$ RES-SWTR Single Family ResidentSan Francisco Single Family Residential 7,051,008 59,983,057$ 7,283,157 67,215,719$ 7,151,172 71,617,096$ SUBAPWTR Airport Suburban Nonresidential 518,121 4,702,414$ 389,308 3,792,329$ 455,923 4,776,257$ SUBCMWTR Suburban Commercia Suburban Nonresidential 537,190 3,516,166$ 537,007 3,772,625$ 537,578 4,061,525$ SUBCOMBO Combination Fire & W Suburban Nonresidential 9,112 83,082$ 4,136 40,477$ 6,081 63,995$ SUBFIRE Fire Service, SuburbanSuburban Nonresidential 21 190$ 104 1,016$ 108 1,139$ SUBIRR Irrigation, Suburban Suburban Nonresidential 267,387 2,349,140$ 261,989 2,470,444$ 259,204 2,628,547$ SUBMUWTR Suburban Municipal W Municipal Nonresidential 23,440 212,827$ 26,261 255,922$ 27,357 286,714$ SUBRWTR Suburban Single Fami Suburban Single Family Residential 32,217 292,722$ 32,341 318,781$ 31,954 341,781$ WMUNI-BC Municipal, Sharp Park Municipal Nonpotable 32,545 293,372$ 30,493 294,988$ 29,726 310,438$ SUBRPR Wholesale - Private U Wholesale Wholesale 14,858,081 60,169,284$ 14,963,047 60,594,356$ 14,798,776 59,929,122$ SUBRPU Wholesale - Municipa Wholesale Wholesale 49,615,722 202,602,899$ 50,793,331 207,411,594$ 50,553,752 206,433,289$ Service Charges
Rate Change Standard 7.96% 6.85% 6.90%
Rate Change Fire 8.42% 6.86% 6.51%
Rate Change Wholesale 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
B&C-WTR Builders & Contractor San Francisco Standard 267,897$ 286,254$ 306,006$ SA Type Name Category Rate Class
FY 19-20
Volume Actuals
(CCF)
FY 19-20 Actuals
($)
FY 20-21
Volume
Projection
(CCF)
FY 20-21
Projection ($)
FY 21-22
Volume
Projection
(CCF)
FY 21-22
Budget ($)
CM-WTR Commercial San Francisco Standard 6,176,948$ 6,600,189$ 7,055,616$ COMBO-NR Combination Fire & W San Francisco Standard 252,642$ 269,953$ 288,580$ COMBO-R Combination Fire & W San Francisco Standard 2,140,973$ 2,287,671$ 2,445,526$ D&S-WTR Docks & Ships San Francisco Standard -$ -$ -$ FIRE-NR Fire Service, Non-Resi San Francisco Fire 2,163,526$ 2,312,043$ 2,462,498$ FIRE-R Fire Service, ResidentiSan Francisco Fire 1,359,254$ 1,452,561$ 1,547,086$ HYDRNTCP City Fire Hydrants Municipal Standard 682$ 729$ 779$ HYDRNTSP Suburban Fire Hydran Suburban Standard 682$ 729$ 779$ IND-WTR Industrial San Francisco Standard 97,645$ 104,336$ 111,536$ IRR-NR Irrigation, Non-ResideSan Francisco Standard 239,814$ 256,246$ 273,928$ IRR-R Irrigation, Residential San Francisco Standard 158,993$ 169,887$ 181,609$ MU-COMBO Municipal Combinatio Municipal Standard 56,458$ 60,326$ 64,489$ MU-FIRE Municipal Fire Municipal Fire 235,138$ 251,279$ 267,631$ MU-IRR Municipal Irrigation Municipal Standard 457,804$ 489,172$ 522,926$ MU-WTR Municipal Water Municipal Standard 963,820$ 1,029,861$ 1,100,923$ NONPOTNR Non-Potable Suburban Standard 9,064$ 9,685$ 10,353$ RES-MWTR Multi-Family ResidentSan Francisco Standard 9,875,958$ 10,552,653$ 11,280,808$ RES-SWTR Single Family ResidentSan Francisco Standard 18,346,105$ 19,603,170$ 20,955,830$ SUBAPWTR Airport Suburban Standard 46,085$ 49,242$ 52,640$ SUBCMWTR Suburban Commercia Suburban Standard 89,920$ 96,081$ 102,711$ SUBCOMBO Combination Fire & W Suburban Standard 9,914$ 10,593$ 11,324$ SUBFIRE Fire Service, SuburbanSuburban Fire 9,332$ 9,973$ 10,622$ SUBIRR Irrigation, Suburban Suburban Standard 21,477$ 22,949$ 24,532$ SUBMUWTR Suburban Municipal W Municipal Standard 4,613$ 4,929$ 5,269$ SUBRWTR Suburban Single Fami Suburban Standard 41,010$ 43,820$ 46,844$ WMUNI-BC Municipal, Sharp Park Municipal Standard -$ -$ -$ SUBRPR Wholesale - Private U Wholesale Wholesale 922,840$ 922,840$ 922,840$ SUBRPU Wholesale - Municipa Wholesale Wholesale 3,357,016$ 3,357,016$ 3,357,016$ Adjustments
468113 SALE OF WATER-LOW San Francisco 28,572$ 30,530$ 32,636$ Delinquency Write-DoSan Francisco
Discount Program San Francisco
Summary for Budget
Raw Data ccf ccf ccf
468111 SALE OF WATER-SF COSan Francisco 25,889,225 264,942,185$ 24,083,505 267,983,000$ 24,861,220 297,774,000$ Municipal Total Municipal 1,432,868 14,767,305$ 1,266,644 14,216,000$ 1,332,157 15,966,000$ 4860XX Municipal Workorders #DIV/0! #DIV/0! -$ 1,041,322 12,647,843$ 468121 SALE OF WATER-MUNI PAYING #DIV/0! #DIV/0! -$ 290,836 3,318,157$ 468131 SALE OF WATER-SUB Suburban 1,474,800 11,261,419$ 1,339,397 10,739,000$ 1,402,014 12,238,000$ 468181 Sale Of Water-Suburb Wholesale 64,473,803 267,052,039$ 65,756,378 272,286,000$ 65,352,528 270,642,000$ Total 93,270,696 558,022,948$ 92,445,924 565,224,000$ 92,947,918 596,620,000$ SA Type Name Category Rate Class
FY 19-20
Volume Actuals
(CCF)
FY 19-20 Actuals
($)
FY 20-21
Volume
Projection
(CCF)
FY 20-21
Projection ($)
FY 21-22
Volume
Projection
(CCF)
FY 21-22
Budget ($)

MGD MGD MGD
San Francisco 52.91 49.35 50.95 Municipal 2.93 2.60 2.73 Municipal Workorders #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 2.13
Municipal Non-Workorders #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0.59
Suburban 3.01 2.74 2.87 Wholesale 131.77 134.76 133.93 Total 190.62 189.45 190.48
Wastewater Billed Flows Actuals and Projections (CCF), FY 2021-22 Source: CC&B MGT 892 Report Drought Impact
Current Projection Methodology Retail 0%
Projection coefficient for each SA Type is the % change between the numerator and denominator projection dates Start End Start End Base number is three year average of actuals Standard 2/1/2017 2/1/2020 2/1/2016 2/1/2019 pre-COVID trend only Fire 8/1/2019 10/1/2021 8/1/2018 10/1/2020 ignore COVID TI 5/1/2021 10/1/2021 5/1/2020 10/1/2020 can't use until at least 1 year of data COVID 3/1/2020 10/1/2021 3/1/2019 10/1/2020
Actuals & Projections base -1 year --->
July August September October November December January February March April May June Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Projection Residential
Residential Single Family ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## #DIV/0! ########## 0.0% Residential Multifamily ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## #DIV/0! ########## 0.0% Saddleback 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% volumes not recorded in CC&B, only $ Presidio Residential ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## #DIV/0! ########## 0.0% Residential Total ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## Nonresidential
Nonresidential ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## #DIV/0! ########## 0.0% Recreation & Parks Leasees 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% SA type not currently in use Presidio Commercial ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## #DIV/0! ########## 0.0% Fire ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% base altered since first year of data FY 18-19 Treasure Island Nonresidentia ########## 235 309 ########## ########## 940 657 377 364 285 125 ########## ########## 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% base altered to deal with no data prior to May 2020 TI Unmetered Nonresidential 176 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% base altered to deal with no data prior to May 2020 Stormwater-Only 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% will always be 0 by definition Nonresidential Total ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## Data for Graph Municipal Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total Municipal Nonpaying ########## ########## 988 ########## 959 ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## #DIV/0! ########## 0.0% Actuals 1,796,104 1,796,104 Municipal Paying ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## #DIV/0! ########## 0.0% Projections 1,796,104 1,716,629 1,850,715 1,756,822 1,827,319 1,850,164 2,031,015 1,884,704 1,758,215 1,872,812 1,926,350 2,019,898 22,290,748 Municipal Fire ########## 221 73 223 71 71 69 295 134 183 123 101 110 0.0% 0.0% base altered since first year of data FY 18-19 Treasure Island Municipal ########## 431 466 533 495 452 459 343 318 306 373 373 372 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% base altered to deal with no data prior to May 2020 TI Unmetered Municipal ########## 126 126 126 74 126 126 126 126 126 126 138 138 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% base altered to deal with no data prior to May 2020 Municipal Fire Nonpaying 9 3 0 0 0 1 0 -15 5 0 6 3 6 0.0% 0.0% base altered since first year of data FY 18-19 Municipal Stormwater-Only 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ########## 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% will always be 0 by definition Municipal Total ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## Suburban
Watershed 204 24 0 24 0 36 0 36 0 47 0 34 2 ########## #DIV/0! ########## 0.0% Suburban Total 204 24 0 24 0 36 0 36 0 47 0 34 2
Total ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## Paying Only Total 22,276,868 1,794,925 1,715,641 1,849,563 1,755,863 1,826,258 1,849,034 2,029,651 1,883,486 1,756,912 1,871,542 1,925,194 2,018,800 Comparison to Prior Year
Residential Total ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## Prior Year 16,757,919 1,564,073 1,466,041 1,581,911 1,415,595 1,291,081 1,410,220 1,374,317 1,245,729 1,369,690 1,354,947 1,358,351 1,325,964 % Change -3.5% -14.2% -13.1% -13.0% -8.2% 4.8% -5.4% 2.9% 7.3% -3.8% -2.0% 0.0% 8.2% Nonresidential Total ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## Prior Year 4,223,377 357,905 364,430 424,701 371,716 324,027 352,340 303,864 302,940 338,015 344,428 363,625 375,383 % Change 32.1% 15.3% 10.1% 0.6% 11.0% 30.3% 33.6% 89.3% 66.6% 16.5% 45.5% 43.3% 42.8% Municipal Total ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## Prior Year 458,729 44,110 41,959 59,123 38,599 33,968 35,136 28,592 26,116 35,005 39,739 39,037 37,346 % Change 18.5% -5.1% 0.0% -20.1% 14.9% 54.8% 26.9% 47.0% 64.2% 32.4% 9.4% 20.8% 30.7% Suburban Total 204 24 0 24 0 36 0 36 0 47 0 34 2
Prior Year 225 28 10 66 (9) 25 - 32 15 30 - 28 - % Change -9.2% -14.1% -100.0% -63.4% -100.0% 43.7% #DIV/0! 15.4% -100.0% 56.6% #DIV/0! 23.2% #DIV/0! Total ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## ########## Prior Year #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! % Change #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! Long Term
Trend
Additional Change
NotesTotal COVID
Recovery Drought
Projection Dates
Numerator Denominator
Category Annual
Projections
FY 2021-22

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5
Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Millions
Total Wastewater Discharges (CCF)
FYE 2017 FYE 2018 FYE 2019
FYE 2020 FYE 2021 Actuals FYE 2021 Projections
SA Type Name Category Rate Class FY 19-20
Actuals (CCF)
FY 19-20 Actuals
($)
FY 20-21
Volume
Projection
(CCF)
FY 20-21
Projection ($)
FY 21-22 Volume
Projection (CCF) FY 21-22 Budget ($)
Volumetric Charges
Volume & Rate Change Residential 6.28% 3.16% 7.28% -1.47% 7.25% Rate Change Nonresidential 6.23% 7.32% 7.27%
Rate Change Fire 5.74% 6.88% 6.77%
Rate Change Stormwater Only 3.39% 4.20% 4.06%
MU-WW Municipal Paying Municipal Nonresidential 545,917 7,380,161$ 480,618 6,972,753$ 520,800 8,105,181$ NONRESWW Nonresidential Nonresidential Nonresidential 6,142,524 84,455,663$ 4,689,242 69,190,993$ 5,427,310 85,905,075$ RES-WW Residential Single Family Single Family Residential Residential 6,324,480 86,811,264$ 6,662,095 98,099,613$ 6,518,492 102,947,045$ RESM-WW Residential Multifamily Multi-Family Residential Residential 10,472,447 144,735,730$ 10,664,913 158,121,214$ 10,554,338 167,831,716$ SUB-WW Watershed Suburban Residential 216 2,974$ 238 3,527$ 251 3,984$ WWCOMBC Presidio Commercial Wholesale Nonresidential 75,401 1,384,649$ 77,562 1,528,536$ 82,160 1,736,911$ WWRESBC Presidio Residential Wholesale Residential 63,640 879,279$ 61,958 918,327$ 63,331 1,006,759$ WWSADDLE Saddleback Multi-Family Residential Residential 82,618$ - 91,426$ - 96,640$ WWFIR-MU Municipal Fire Municipal Fire 2,105 17,394$ 777 6,866$ 786 7,412$ WWFIRE Fire Nonresidential Fire 26,051 215,401$ 19,607 173,272$ 19,109 180,300$ STRMWTRU Stormwater-Only Nonresidential Stormwater Only - 103,554$ - 107,903$ - 112,284$ STRMWUMU Municipal Stormwater-Only Municipal Stormwater Only - 8,177$ - 8,520$ - 8,866$ 22,657,010 23,186,578
Service Charges
Rate Change Standard 123.47% 64.38% 44.72%
MU-WW Municipal Paying Municipal Standard 19,940$ 32,778$ 47,437$ NONRESWW Nonresidential Nonresidential Standard 395,886$ 650,772$ 941,812$ RES-WW Residential Single Family Single Family Residential Standard 2,876,521$ 4,728,527$ 6,843,229$ RESM-WW Residential Multifamily Multi-Family Residential Standard 932,538$ 1,532,939$ 2,218,504$ SUB-WW Watershed Suburban Standard 190$ 312$ 451$ WWCOMBC Presidio Commercial Wholesale Standard 100$ 165$ 239$ WWRESBC Presidio Residential Wholesale Standard 25$ 41$ 60$ WWSADDLE Saddleback Multi-Family Residential Standard 425$ 699$ 1,012$ WWFIR-MU Municipal Fire Municipal Standard 9,011$ 14,813$ 21,438$ WWFIRE Fire Nonresidential Standard 238,344$ 391,799$ 567,020$ STRMWTRU Stormwater-Only Nonresidential Standard -$ -$ -$ STRMWUMU Municipal Stormwater-Only Municipal Standard -$ -$ -$ Adjustments
463105 SEWER SERVICE-LOW-INCOME SUSingle Family Residential 28,572$ 30,651$ 32,874$ FY 2021-22 Drought Surcharges
Actuals Forecast Forecast Forecast Budget Forecast Budget Source Description 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2023 2023 Annual Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
FYE 22 Budget Total Revenue Requirements 325,978,000$ 335,656,000$ 335,656,000$ FYE 22 Budget Projected Fixed Charge Revenue 53,410,701 53,410,701 53,410,701 Projected Private Fire Revenue
Variable Revenue Requirements 272,567,299$ 67,766,841$ 70,396,711$ 64,135,775$ 70,267,971$ 282,245,299$ 282,245,299$ Wholesale Revenue 266,362,412$ 270,529,775$ 270,529,775$ Grand Total Revenue Requirements 538,929,710$ 552,775,073$ 552,775,073$ Quarterly Allocation of Variable Revenue - Baseline 24.9% 25.8% 23.5% 25.8% Demand Reduction 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Residential Tier 1 Reduction 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 2.5% 50/50 per language in rates resolution 2.5% 2.5% Residential Tier 2 Reduction 0.0% 0.0% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% 2.5% FY22 Q1 model w/no con SFR Baseline Demand 6,830,232 1,712,425 1,728,699 1,656,817 1,732,291 7,183,125 6,830,232 7,050,753 Tier 1 4,327,287 1,084,905 1,095,216 1,049,675 1,097,491 63.4% 4,327,287 4,466,999 Tier 2 2,502,944 627,520 633,483 607,142 634,799 36.6% 2,502,944 2,583,754 Reduced Tier 1 Demand 4,242,560 1,084,905 1,095,216 1,008,255 1,054,184 65.3% 4,156,532 4,290,730 Reduced Tier 2 Demand 2,418,216 627,520 633,483 565,722 591,492 34.7% 2,332,188 2,407,486 SFR Reduced Demand 6,660,776 1,712,425 1,728,699 1,573,976 1,645,676 6,488,720 6,698,216 SFR Tier 1 Rate $9.60 $9.60 $9.60 $9.60 $9.60 $9.60 $9.60 SFR Tier 2 Rate $10.71 $10.71 $10.71 $10.71 $10.71 $10.71 $10.71 SFR Variable Revenue - Baseline 68,348,491$ 17,135,825$ 17,298,677$ 16,579,371$ 17,334,617$ 71,958,877$ 68,348,491$ 70,555,199$ SFR Variable Revenue - with Conservation 66,627,671$ 17,135,825$ 17,298,677$ 15,738,122$ 16,455,047$ 64,880,441$ 66,975,179$ FY22 Q1 model w/no con MFR Baseline Demand 10,907,663 2,669,843 2,761,107 2,690,109 2,786,604 11,192,499 10,907,663 11,088,242 Tier 1 7,862,051 1,924,376 1,990,157 1,938,983 2,008,535 72.1% 7,862,051 7,992,209 Tier 2 3,045,612 745,467 770,950 751,126 778,069 27.9% 3,045,612 3,096,033 Reduced Tier 1 Demand 7,725,133 1,924,376 1,990,157 1,871,731 1,938,870 74.3% 7,589,360 7,715,003 Reduced Tier 2 Demand 2,908,694 745,467 770,950 683,873 708,404 25.7% 2,772,921 2,818,827 MFR Reduced Demand 10,633,828 2,669,843 2,761,107 2,555,604 2,647,274 10,362,280 10,533,830 MFR Tier 1 Rate $9.60 $9.60 $9.60 $9.60 $9.60 $9.60 $9.60 MFR Tier 2 Rate $10.76 $10.76 $10.76 $10.76 $10.76 $10.76 $10.76 MFR Variable Revenue - Baseline 108,246,480$ 26,495,239$ 27,400,927$ 26,696,357$ 27,653,956$ 110,725,096$ 108,246,480$ 109,693,205$ MFR Variable Revenue - with Conservation 105,458,833$ 26,495,239$ 27,400,927$ 25,327,092$ 26,235,575$ 102,694,479$ 104,394,605$ FY22 Q1 model w/no con Nonresidential Baseline Demand 9,435,556 2,369,117 2,523,500 2,059,501 2,483,438 9,078,875 9,435,556 10,225,462 Nonresidential Reduced Demand 9,208,409 2,369,117 2,523,500 1,956,526 2,359,266 8,963,778 9,714,189 Nonresidential Rate $10.55 $10.55 $10.55 $10.55 $10.55 $10.55 $10.55 Nonresidential Variable Revenue - Baseline 99,545,117$ 24,994,180$ 26,622,925$ 21,727,740$ 26,200,273$ 93,715,544$ 99,545,117$ 105,763,081$ Nonresidential Variable Revenue - with Conservation 97,148,716$ 24,994,180$ 26,622,925$ 20,641,353$ 24,890,259$ 94,567,861$ 102,484,693$ FY22 Q1 model w/no con Nonpotable Baseline Demand 149,599 68,646 35,412 6,773 38,768 140,892 149,599 136,778 Nonpotable Reduced Demand 147,322 68,646 35,412 6,435 36,830 142,119 129,940 Nonpotable Rate $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 $0.95 Nonpotable Variable Revenue - Baseline 142,119$ 65,214$ 33,641$ 6,435$ 36,830$ 415,355$ 142,119$ 404,182$ Nonpotable Variable Revnue - with Conservation 139,956$ 65,214$ 33,641$ 6,113$ 34,988$ 135,013$ 123,443$ FY22 Q1 model w/no con Wholesale Baseline Demand 64,139,468 19,803,676 16,552,672 11,752,300 16,030,821 65,352,528 64,139,468 64,948,678 Wholesale Reduced Demand 62,750,312 19,803,676 16,552,672 11,164,685 15,229,280 60,932,495 61,701,244 Wholesale Rate $4.10 $4.10 $4.10 $4.10 $4.10 $4.19 $4.19 Wholesale Variable Revenue - Baseline 262,971,820$ 81,195,070$ 67,865,953$ 48,184,430$ 65,726,366$ 266,362,412$ 268,744,372$ 270,529,775$ Wholesale Variable Revnue - with Conservation 257,276,280$ 81,195,070$ 67,865,953$ 45,775,209$ 62,440,048$ 255,307,154$ 258,528,211$ COVID Impact on Baseline (Worse)/Better than Budget 3,714,908$ 923,616$ 959,460$ 874,127$ 957,705$ (5,963,092)$ 4,170,368$ Revenue Shortfall due to Conservation (6,907,030)$ -$ -$ (3,297,223)$ (3,609,807)$ (14,004,413)$ (12,437,747)$ Required Surcharge (% per ccf) 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.1% 5.1% 5.0% 4.4% Rates with Drought Surcharge Applied - Forecast Surcharge ($/ccf) Surcharge ($/ccf) Single Family Residential - Tier 1 $10.08 $0.48 $10.08 $0.48 Single Family Residential - Tier 2 $11.25 $0.54 $11.25 $0.54 Multi-Family Residential - Tier 1 $10.08 $0.48 $10.08 $0.48 Multi-Family Residential - Tier 2 $11.30 $0.54 $11.30 $0.54 Nonresidential $11.08 $0.53 $11.08 $0.53
Nonpotable $1.00 $0.05 $1.00 $0.05
Weighted Average $10.61 $0.51 $10.61 $0.51
Rates with Drought Surcharge Applied - Budget Surcharge ($/ccf) Single Family Residential - Tier 1 $10.03 $0.43
Single Family Residential - Tier 2 $11.19 $0.48
Multi-Family Residential - Tier 1 $10.03 $0.43
Multi-Family Residential - Tier 2 $11.24 $0.48
Nonresidential $11.02 $0.47
Nonpotable $1.00 $0.05
Weighted Average $10.57 $0.45
Wholesale - COVID Impact on Baseline (Worse)/Better than Bu (3,390,591)$ (1,785,403)$ -$ Wholesale - Revenue Shortfall due to Conservation (5,695,540)$ (13,437,219)$ (12,001,564)$ Required Surcharge (% per ccf) 2.1% 5.0% 4.4%
Surcharge ($/ccf) Surcharge ($/ccf)
Rates with Drought Surcharge Applied - Forecast $4.19 $0.09 $4.40 $0.21 Rates with Drought Surcharge Applied - Budget $4.38 $0.19 Apply Surcharge? No No No Yes Yes Yes
Total Variable Revenue - Baseline 539,254,027$ 149,885,528$ 139,222,124$ 113,194,333$ 136,952,042$ 545,026,579$ 556,945,441$ Total Variable Revenue - with Conservation 526,651,457$ 149,885,528$ 139,222,124$ 107,487,888$ 130,055,917$ 517,584,948$ 532,506,131$ Total Variable Revenue - with Surcharge 531,412,954$ 149,885,528$ 139,222,124$ 107,487,888$ 134,817,414$ 4,761,497$ 543,533,467$ 556,472,628$ Total ccf - Baseline 91,462,519 26,623,707 23,601,389 18,165,501 23,071,922 91,462,519 93,449,913 check to total ccf - Baseline 91,462,519 91,462,519 Total ccf - Budget 92,947,918 93,449,913
FY 2021-22 Drought Surcharges
actuals Forecast Forecast Forecast Budget Forecast Budget Source Description 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2022 2023 2023 Annual Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
FYE 22 Budget Total Revenue Requirements 375,871,000$ 384,155,000$ 384,155,000$ FYE 22 Budget Projected Fixed Charge Revenue 10,641,201 10,641,201 10,641,201 FYE 22 Budget Projected Stormwater Phase 1 Rev 121,150 121,150 121,150 Variable Revenue Requirements 365,108,650$ 87,836,427$ 89,002,375$ 92,959,457$ 95,310,391$ 373,392,650$ 373,392,650$ Quarterly Allocation of Variable Revenue - Baseline 24.1% 24.4% 25.5% 26.1% Demand Reduction 5.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0%
Oct updated fore Residential Baseline Demand 16,168,978 3,991,210 3,987,277 4,069,055 4,121,436 17,136,412 16,168,978 16,883,621 Residential Reduced Demand 15,759,453 3,991,210 3,987,277 3,865,602 3,915,364 15,360,529 16,039,440 Residential Volumetric Rate $15.97 $15.97 $15.97 $15.97 $15.97 $15.97 $15.97 Residential Variable Revenue - Baseline 258,218,572$ 63,739,628$ 63,676,816$ 64,982,802$ 65,819,327$ 271,886,145$ 258,218,572$ 267,887,410$ Residential Variable Revenue - with Conservation 251,678,466$ 63,739,628$ 63,676,816$ 61,733,662$ 62,528,360$ 245,307,644$ 256,149,850$ Oct updated fore Nonresidential Baseline Demand 6,091,269 1,364,060 1,439,087 1,598,581 1,689,541 6,050,166 6,091,269 6,832,525 scaled to FY 20-21 Nonresidential Baseline COD 25,990,178 5,820,158 6,140,285 6,820,814 7,208,921 25,990,178 25,990,178 scaled to FY 20-21 Nonresidential Baseline TSS 10,601,257 2,374,012 2,504,590 2,782,174 2,940,481 10,601,257 10,601,257 scaled to FY 20-21 Nonresidential Baseline O/G 3,229,774 723,265 763,047 847,616 895,845 3,229,774 3,229,774 Nonresidential Reduced Demand 5,926,863 1,364,060 1,439,087 1,518,652 1,605,064 5,786,705 6,490,899 Nonresidential Reduced COD 25,288,691 5,820,158 6,140,285 6,479,773 6,848,475 no change to strength 24,690,669 24,690,669 Nonresidential Reduced TSS 10,315,124 2,374,012 2,504,590 2,643,065 2,793,457 10,071,194 10,071,194 Nonresidential Reduced O/G 3,142,600 723,265 763,047 805,235 851,053 3,068,285 3,068,285 Nonresidential Volumetric Rate $9.46 $9.46 $9.46 $9.46 $9.46 $9.46 $9.46 Nonresidential COD Rate $0.647 $0.647 $0.647 $0.647 $0.647 $0.647 $0.647 Nonresidential TSS Rate $1.647 $1.647 $1.647 $1.647 $1.647 $1.647 $1.647 Nonresidential O/G Rate $1.661 $1.661 $1.661 $1.661 $1.661 $1.661 $1.661 Nonresidential Variable Revenue - Baseline 97,263,973$ 21,780,988$ 22,979,008$ 25,525,776$ 26,978,202$ 95,934,878$ 97,263,973$ 108,335,197$ Nonresidential Variable Revenue - with Conservation 94,638,774$ 21,780,988$ 22,979,008$ 24,249,487$ 25,629,292$ 92,400,774$ 99,062,445$ COVID Impact on Baseline (Worse)/Better than Budget (9,626,105)$ (2,315,811)$ (2,346,551)$ (2,450,880)$ (2,512,862)$ (17,910,105)$ 2,829,958$ Revenue Shortfall due to Conservation (9,165,305)$ -$ -$ (4,525,429)$ (4,639,876)$ (17,774,127)$ (21,010,313)$ Required Surcharge (% per ccf OR pound) 4.9% 0.0% 0.0% 4.9% 4.9% 4.8% 5.6% Rates with Drought Surcharge Applied - Forecast Surcharge ($/ccf) Surcharge ($/ccf) Residential $16.75 $0.78 $16.74 $0.77
Nonresidential Flow Rate $9.93 $0.47 $9.92 $0.46
Nonresidential COD Rate $0.679 $0.032 $0.680 $0.033
Nonresidential TSS Rate $1.728 $0.081 $1.730 $0.083
Nonresidential O/G Rate $1.742 $0.081 $1.750 $0.089
Weighted Average per CCF $16.75 $0.78 $16.75 $0.78
Rates with Drought Surcharge Applied - Budget Surcharge ($/ccf) Residential $16.87 $0.90
Nonresidential Flow Rate $10.00 $0.54
Nonresidential COD Rate $0.69 $0.04
Nonresidential TSS Rate $1.74 $0.09
Nonresidential O/G Rate $1.76 $0.10
Weighted Average per CCF $16.66 $0.90
Apply Surcharge? No No No Yes Yes Yes
Total Variable Revenue - Baseline 355,482,545$ 85,520,616$ 86,655,823$ 90,508,577$ 92,797,528$ 355,482,545$ 376,222,608$ Total Variable Revenue - with Conservation 346,317,240$ 85,520,616$ 86,655,823$ 85,983,149$ 88,157,652$ 337,708,418$ 355,212,295$ Total Variable Revenue - with Surcharge 350,639,960$ 85,520,616$ 86,655,823$ 85,983,149$ 92,480,372$ 354,121,688$ 273,409,811$ Total ccf - Baseline 22,260,247 5,355,270 5,426,364 5,667,636 5,810,977 22,260,247 23,716,146 check to total ccf - Baseline 22,260,247 22,260,247
Total ccf - Budget 23,186,578 23,716,146
Water Rates Schedules
Rate Effective
7/1/2021 -
3/31/2022
Rate Effective
4/1/2022 -
6/30/2022
Drought Surcharge
($/ccf)
Schedule W-1A, W-21
Single Family Residential - Tier 1 $9.60 $10.08 $0.48
Single Family Residential - Tier 2 $10.71 $11.25 $0.54
Schedule W-1B
Multi-Family Residential - Tier 1 $9.60 $10.08 $0.48
Multi-Family Residential - Tier 2 $10.76 $11.30 $0.54
Schedule W-1C, W-2, W-3A, W-4, W-
5, W-22, W-31, W-33
Nonresidential $10.55 $11.08 $0.53
Schedule W-24
Nonpotable $0.95 $1.00 $0.05
Wastewater Rates
Rate Effective
7/1/2021 -
3/31/2022
Rate Effective
4/1/2022 -
6/30/2022
Drought Surcharge
($/ccf)
Schedule A
Residential $15.97 $16.75 $0.78
Schedule B
Nonresidential Flow Rate $9.46 $9.93 $0.47
Nonresidential COD Rate $0.647 $0.679 $0.032
Nonresidential TSS Rate $1.647 $1.728 $0.081
Nonresidential O/G Rate $1.661 $1.742 $0.081
FY 2021-22
FY 2021-22

EXHIBIT C
76700151
Jul 21 2025
03:50PM

1 Reply in Support of MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01814012.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

DAVID CHIU,
SBN 189542
City Attorney
SARA J. EISENBERG, SBN 269303
ALEXANDER J. HOLTZMAN, SBN 311813
JULIE WILENSKY, SBN 271765
Deputy City Attorneys
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-5408
Telephone: (415) 554-3999
(415) 554-4274
Facsimile: (415) 554-3837
E-Mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

JENNIFER TOY, ROSE AQUILINA, MARK
ROH, and TED LOEWENBERG individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs and Petitioners,

vs.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION, and DOES 1 – 10,

Defendants and Respondents.

Case No. CPF-22-517764
(Consolidated with Case No. CPF-23-518342)

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS

AND RESPONDENTS CITY AND COUNTY

OF SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN

FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE

ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY

ADJUDICATION

Hearing Date: February 13, 2025
Hearing Judge: Judge Jeffrey S. Ross
Time: 9:30 a.m.

Place: Dept. 606

Date Action Filed: May 17, 2022

2 Reply in Support of MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01814012.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................................................................................3 REPLY .............................................................................................................................................5 I. Introduction ..............................................................................................................5 II. Argument .................................................................................................................5 A. The Undisputed Facts Are Sufficient to Grant the Motion. .........................5 B. Government Code Section 53750.5 Is Constitutional and Dispositive........6 C. Plaintiffs’ Purported Fact Disputes Are Legal Issues on Which the City Prevails. ........................................................................................................9

1. Costs Associated with Hydrants Are Property Related. ..................9

2. Hydrants Provide Immediately Available Water to Plaintiffs’ Properties. ......................................................................................10

3. Hydrants Do Not Offer a General Governmental Service. ............11

4. The City’s Rates Satisfy Proposition 218’s Proportionality Requirement. ..................................................................................12 D. The Court Should Alternatively Grant Summary Adjudication. ...............14 III. Conclusion .............................................................................................................14 PROOF OF SERVICE ...................................................................................................................16

3 Reply in Support of MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01814012.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Barratt American, Inc. v. City of San Diego
(2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 809 ........................................................................................................8 Beutz v. County of Riverside
(2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1516 ......................................................................................................6 Bidart Bros. v. Elmo Farming Co.
(1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 248 ...........................................................................................................7 Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil
(2006) 39 Cal.4th 205 ................................................................................................................11 Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino
(1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654 .....................................................................................................12 Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior Court
(2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004 ................................................................................................................8 Cal. State Teachers’ Retirement System v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 41 ..........................................................................................................9 Capistrano Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. City of San Juan Capistrano (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1493 ........................................................................................... passim City of Pasadena v. Superior Court
(2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1228 ......................................................................................................6 City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation Dist. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1191 ...............................................................................................................13 County of Sonoma v. Com. on State Mandates
(2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1264 ........................................................................................................8 Coziahr v. Otay Water Dist.
(2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 785 ....................................................................................................... 9 Crawley v. Alameda County Waste Management Authority
(2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 396 ..................................................................................................6, 10 Davis v. City of Berkeley
(1990) 51 Cal.3d 227 ..................................................................................................................6 Greene v. Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation Dist. (2010) 49 Cal.4th 277 .............................................................................................................6, 9 Griffith v. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency
(2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 586 ................................................................................................13, 14 Hedayati v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 833 ........................................................................................................11

4 Reply in Support of MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01814012.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Hershey v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108
(1927) 200 Cal. 550 .....................................................................................................................7 Hindin v. Rust
(2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1247 ...................................................................................................14 Hohenshelt v. Superior Court
(2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1319 ........................................................................................................8 KCSFV I, LLC v. Florin County Water Dist.
(2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 1015 ........................................................................................................6 Larson v. Duca
(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 324 .........................................................................................................9 Lewinter v. Genmar Industries, Inc.
(1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1214 ......................................................................................................12 Methodist Hospital of Sacramento v. Saylor
(1971) 5 Cal.3d 685 .................................................................................................................8, 9 Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego
(1980) 26 Cal.3d 848 ...................................................................................................................7 United Community Church v. Garcin
(1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327 .....................................................................................................6, 7 VFLA Eventco, LLC v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 287 ......................................................................................................12 Constitutional Provisions and Statutes
Proposition 218 ..................................................................................................................... passim California Constitution, article XIII D
section 4 .....................................................................................................................................11 section 6 ............................................................................................................................ passim Government Code
§ 53750.5 .......................................................................................................................... passim § 53759 ......................................................................................................................................14 Water Code
§ 525 ..........................................................................................................................................10 Rules of Court and Regulations
California Rules of Court
Rule 3.1113. .................................................................................................................................6 Code of Regulations, Title 24, pt. 2
§ 2902 ........................................................................................................................................10 Other Authorities
Eileen C. Moore & Michael Paul Thomas, Cal. Civ. Prac. Procedure § 14:39 .........................................................................................................................................7

5 Reply in Support of MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01814012.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
REPLY
I. Introduction
In opposing the Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication (“Motion”) filed by Defendants and Respondents the City and County of San Francisco and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (together, the “City), Plaintiffs and Petitioners Jennifer Toy, Rose Aquilina, Mark Roh, and Ted Loewenberg (“Plaintiffs”) rely heavily on the evidentiary burden of proof on government agencies in Proposition 218 cases. But Plaintiffs do not challenge the accuracy of any facts or calculations in the SFPUC’s detailed 2018 and 2023 cost of service studies.

Instead, they seek to overturn the City’s legal determination, consistent with state law, that it may include the costs of water from hydrants as costs of “water services” under Proposition 218. On that issue, Government Code section 53750.5 appropriately interpreted Proposition 218 and forecloses Plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs point to no basis to conclude that the statute is such an unreasonable interpretation of Proposition 218 as to be unconstitutional. Rather than identifying disputed factual issues, Plaintiffs raise legal issues as to the interpretation of Proposition 218 that resolve in the City’s favor. Because the costs of “water services” under Proposition 218 include costs associated with water from hydrants, the Court should grant the Motion and enter judgment for the City.

II. Argument
A. The Undisputed Facts Are Sufficient to Grant the Motion.

In opposing the Motion, Plaintiffs first argue that the City has not carried its burden of proof with its undisputed material facts. (Opp. at pp. 7–9.) But those facts and Plaintiffs’ substantial agreement with them are all that is required for this Court to grant summary judgment here. The City needed to provide factual evidence supporting its cost of service analysis. It did that with the extensive 2018 and 2023 cost of service studies and detailed rate models. Plaintiffs do not challenge any of the facts reflected in the cost of service studies, only the legal analysis that costs for water that comes from hydrants is properly included in the costs of service for water services. (See Plaintiffs’ Response to Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Fact Nos. 2–3, 5–6.) This contrasts with the two cases cited by Plaintiffs, where the issue was the absence of factual support for the cot of service analysis, not a legal dispute as to the meaning of Proposition 218. (See KCSFV I, LLC v.

6 Reply in Support of MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01814012.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Florin County Water Dist. (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1029 [describing absence from the record of required analysis and facts]; Beutz v. County of Riverside (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1533 [same]; see also United Community Church v. Garcin (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 327, 337 [cited by Plaintiffs but reflecting factually insufficient separate statement], superseded in unrelated part by statute, City of Pasadena v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1238 fn. 4.) The limited number of undisputed material facts in the City’s statement reflects that the key issue in the Motion—whether water services include the availability of water from hydrants—is legal rather than factual.

On that legal issue, the burden of proof relied on by Plaintiffs has no role. In interpreting words used in Proposition 218, courts do not refer to the burden of proof. (See Crawley v. Alameda County Waste Management Authority (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 396, 409 (Crawley).) Nor does the burden of proof alter courts’ significant deference to the Legislature’s clarifying interpretations of ambiguous terms in Proposition 218. (See Greene v. Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation Dist. (2010) 49 Cal.4th 277, 291 (Greene).) 1 B. Government Code Section 53750.5 Is Constitutional and Dispositive.

Plaintiffs have provided no ground on which the Court should disregard Government Code section 53750.5 in interpreting “water services” in Proposition 218. (See Opp. at pp. 16–18). Courts recognize the properly broad definition of categories of services under Proposition 218. (See Crawley, supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 409 [interpreting the scope of “refuse collection services” in Proposition 218 broadly, without reference to a burden of proof].) Consistent with common sense, and bolstered by a consistent Court of Appeal decision, the Legislature explained that “water services” under Proposition 218 include the availability of water from hydrants. (Gov. Code, § 53750.5, subd. (a).) This “interpretation of uncertain constitutional terms, as reflected in subsequently enacted legislation, is entitled to great deference by the courts.” (Davis v. City of Berkeley (1990) 51 Cal.3d 227, 242.)

1 Plaintiffs purport to incorporate by reference in their Opposition the entirety of their cross- Motion for Summary Judgement in Aquilina. (Opp. at p. 10 & fn. 4.) The combined length of the Opposition and Cross-Motion would significantly exceed the length limit for the opposition brief. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1113.) The Court should therefore disregard the incorporation of separate briefing. (See Eileen C. Moore & Michael Paul Thomas, Cal. Civ. Prac. Procedure § 14:3.) If the Court does incorporate Plaintiffs’ separate brief, however, it should also incorporate the City’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ cross-motion.

7 Reply in Support of MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01814012.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Plaintiffs argue that the statute does not apply to their claims about the AWSS or their claim under California Constitution, article XIII D, section 6 (“Section 6”), subdivision (b)(4), that hydrants provide a “standby service.” (Opp. at p. 16.) But the statute addresses hydrants within a jurisdiction broadly, not just hydrants physically connected to pipes carrying potable water. This approach is consistent with Capistrano Taxpayers Association, Inc. v. City of San Juan Capistrano (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1493, 1502, as mod. (May 19, 2015) (Capistrano), which interpreted Proposition 218 in light of a Government Code provision. (See ibid. [“since water service is already immediately available to all customers of City Water, there is no contravention of subdivision (b)(4) in including charges to construct and provide recycled water to some customers”].) Section 53750.5 also accurately states that hydrants provide “immediately available” water, not a standby service. (Gov.

Code, § 53750.5, subds. (a)(3), (a)(6).) Plaintiffs make no effort to show that their claims remain viable when the costs associated with hydrants are properly considered as part of water services under Proposition 218, consistent with section 53750.5. (See Mot. at pp. 18–21.) Plaintiffs next contend section 53750.5 is unconstitutional (Opp. at pp. 16–19), but they have not come close to meeting the demanding standard to demonstrate unconstitutionality. To start, Plaintiffs forfeited any constitutional challenge by omitting it from their government claims and many amended complaints, consistent with “the general rule applicable in civil cases that a constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity or it will be considered waived.” (Bidart Bros. v.

Elmo Farming Co. (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 248, 263.) That the plaintiff in Bidart forfeited the unconstitutionality issue after not raising a constitutional question until appeal, does not show that Plaintiffs avoid forfeiture after omitting it from their complaints and government claims. (See Hershey v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108 (1927) 200 Cal. 550, 564 [not addressed in the Opposition and holding constitutional question not raised in initial protest document was waived].) At summary judgment, courts do not consider matters outside the pleadings, including regarding the invalidity of statutes and ordinances. (See Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1980) 26 Cal.3d 848, 885, revd. on other grounds (1981) 453 U.S. 490 [holding a plaintiff that failed to raise the invalidity of an ordinance in the pleadings waived the issue at summary judgment].) “[I]n the absence of some request for amendment there is no occasion to inquire about possible issues not raised by the pleadings.”

8 Reply in Support of MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01814012.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
(Ibid. [internal quotation marks and citations omitted].) Plaintiffs cite Brinker Restaurant Corp. v.

Superior Court (2012) 53 Cal.4th 1004, 1024, but the decision—which discusses class certification determinations—says nothing about a plaintiff’s pleading obligations for constitutional questions or summary judgment. Plaintiffs also cite Hohenshelt v. Superior Court (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 1319, 1325, a writ proceeding in which the defendant, who had successfully compelled arbitration in the Superior Court, raised a constitutional issue in opposition to a writ petition. This case therefore likewise did not address the plaintiffs’ pleadings obligations or summary judgment.

As to section 53750.5’s constitutionality, Plaintiffs make no effort to show that Proposition 218’s text is unambiguous and contrary to section 53750.5’s interpretation of “water services” beyond merely stating “it is a legislated assessment that contravenes one of Proposition 218’s fundamental principles.” (Opp. at pp. 17–18.) When different possible interpretations of a constitutional term exist and “the Legislature has by statute adopted one, its action in this respect is well nigh, if not completely, controlling [citation].” (County of Sonoma v. Com. on State Mandates (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1284, as mod. on den. of rehg. (Dec. 19, 2000).) “Nor need it be shown that the construction placed upon the constitutional provision by the Legislature is ‘more probably than not’ the meaning intended by those who framed or adopted the proposal.” (Methodist Hosp. of Sacramento v. Saylor (1971) 5 Cal.3d 685, 693 (Saylor).) The absence of any authorities from Plaintiffs pointing to a definition of “water services” inconsistent with the Legislature’s interpretation is dispositive.

Plaintiffs address only one of the many cases cited by the City regarding the high standard for showing unconstitutionality. (See Mot. at pp. 15–16 [discussing cases unaddressed by Plaintiffs].) The one decision Plaintiffs consider, Barratt American, Inc. v. City of San Diego (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 809, applied the same rules to interpretation of Proposition 218 as for all other constitutional provisions and upheld the Legislature’s action—thereby supporting the City here. In ruling for the defendant, Barratt did not suggest any rule requiring contemporaneous adoption of implementing statutes or prohibiting interpretation by the Legislature of substantive terms of Proposition 218. (See id. at p. 817 [unconstitutionality must “clearly, positively and unmistakably appear[]”]; see also Capistrano, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at p. 1502 [affirming interpretation by the Legislature of an aspect of water services].) Plaintiffs otherwise try to impugn the Legislature’s

9 Reply in Support of MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01814012.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
motives in a footnote. (Opp. at p. 17 fn. 5.) But assuming section 53750.5 was a response to the previously dismissed Kessner lawsuit filed by counsel for Plaintiffs against more than 80 water agencies statewide with similar allegations to those here, that would bolster rather than undermine the validity of the Legislature’s actions by highlighting the Legislature’s knowledge of the relevant constitutional background and approval of the understanding of “water services” held by the large number of defendant government agencies in Kessner. (See Greene, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 291.) The cases Plaintiffs cite are inapposite. Coziahr v. Otay Water District (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 785, 797 involved the standard of evidentiary proof in a Proposition 218 action and did not involve an interpretation by the Legislature of an uncertain constitutional term. Meanwhile, Larson v. Duca (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 324, 333 addressed a potentially inapplicable statute that, if applied as an interpretation of the constitutional provision, would be clearly inconsistent with the constitutional text. (See also Cal. State Teachers’ Retirement System v. County of Los Angeles (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 41, 61 [similarly addressing clear conflict between statute and two different constitutional provisions].) By contrast, especially given that section 53750.5 codified a prior Court of Appeal decision, the Legislature’s interpretation is at least “plausible,” and there is no “plain and unmistakable conflict between the statute[s] and the Constitution.” (Saylor, supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 693.) C. Plaintiffs’ Purported Fact Disputes Are Legal Issues on Which the City Prevails.

In opposing summary judgment, Plaintiffs identify five purported issues of fact. (Opp. at pp. 10–14.) Each is actually an issue of law about compliance with a subpart of Section 6, subdivision (b), not an issue of fact. Plaintiffs are incorrect as a matter of law on each. All depend on Plaintiffs showing that the availability of water from hydrants is not a water service under Proposition 218, which they cannot do as described above. And Plaintiffs are incorrect as to each legal conclusion even if water from hydrants reflects a separate service.

1. Costs Associated with Hydrants Are Property Related.

Plaintiffs’ first asserted “Triable Issue of Fact,” corresponding to Section 6, subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2), is that “Costs of Public Fire Service are not Property Related and Cannot be Included in City’s Property Related Water Fees.” (Opp. at pp. 10–11.) Plaintiffs here confuse “public fire service” and the provision of water to hydrants. Firefighting services are not funded by water rates

10 Reply in Support of MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01814012.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
and relatively rarely involve use of hydrants. (See Luttropp Dep. Tr. at pp. 18:16–19, 20:11–21:4; also Gov. Code, § 53750.5, subd. (a) [stating hydrant infrastructure and flows are components of water service, not fire service].) Meanwhile, consistent with state law, hydrants are “located and designed to protect developed properties, such as buildings, facilities, and other structures within the City, which receive water service from the SFPUC.” (Luttropp Decl. ¶ 2; see id. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs do not dispute that developed properties must have a water connection and water service. (See Mot. at p. 17 [citing Water Code, § 525; Code Regs., tit. 24, pt. 2, § 2902].) Nor have they shown that any meaningful number of developed properties fail to pay for water service. Unlike the connection charges Plaintiffs reference, hydrant availability is not contingent on the creation by property owners of a new connection to the water system and is therefore property related. Water is available via the hydrants and cisterns to fight property fires as an incident of property ownership. Like the hazardous waste collection fee in Crawley and other fees for water services, the portion of the water rates associated with the availability of water from hydrants and cisterns “requires nothing other than normal ownership and use of property.” (Crawley, supra, 243 Cal.App.4th at p. 408; compare Opp. at pp. 14–15.)

2. Hydrants Provide Immediately Available Water to Plaintiffs’ Properties.

Plaintiffs’ second and third “Triable Issue[s] of Fact” are that “Public Fire Water is Not ‘Actually Used by or Available to’ Plaintiffs” and the “City’s Public Fire Water Service is a Standby Service,” corresponding to Section 6, subdivision (b)(4). (Opp. at pp. 11–12.) The City satisfies Section 6, subdivision (b)(4), which requires that services subject to rates be “actually used by or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question,” rather than being “[s]tandby charges.” “Through hydrants, water is immediately available to those properties to aid in extinguishing a fire that directly threatens them.” (Gov. Code, § 53750.5, subd. (a)(6); see id. § 53750.5, subd. (a)(3); Luttropp Decl. ¶ 2.) Hydrants are located throughout the City, including low- pressure and AWSS hydrants near all Plaintiffs. (Teahan Decl., Exs. A, E–G.) “As a whole, the City’s low-pressure hydrant system and [AWSS] provide immediate availability of water to aid in extinguishing fires on or threatening properties across the City.” (Luttropp Decl. ¶ 7; see Luttropp Dep. Tr. at p. 39:6–18; see also Capistrano, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at p. 1502 [“since water service is already immediately available to all customers of City Water, there is no contravention of subdivision

11 Reply in Support of MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01814012.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
(b)(4) in including charges to construct and provide recycled water to some customers”].) Plaintiffs’ primary argument on the availability of water from hydrants is that the number of fires extinguished by the San Francisco Fire Department (“SFFD”) demonstrates that costs associated with hydrants are not includable in water rates, but the number of fires in San Francisco is irrelevant to Proposition 218’s application. The water service at issue is the availability of water from hydrants for fighting fires on their properties. (See ibid.)
2 Nor have Plaintiffs provided competent evidence about the number of fires extinguished by the SFFD given their expert’s testimony that she simply performed word searches as instructed by Plaintiffs’ counsel and did not understand her analysis to reflect the number of extinguished fires. (Ramesh Dep. Tr. at pp. 27:18–21, 28:5–23.) Plaintiffs otherwise contend that water from hydrants is not properly included in water rates because customers usually cannot lawfully use water from hydrants themselves. (Opp. at p. 11.) But they have identified no authority making personal access a requirement for availability under Proposition 218. Indeed, the definition of “available” cited by Plaintiffs reflects that availability does not require personal access. (See Exs. to Driscoll Decl. in Support of Summary Judgment, Ex. 10 at DD p. 77 [reflecting as the first definition of “available,” “present or ready for immediate use”].) Plaintiffs additionally assert the City somehow waived an opposition to their “standby theory.” (Opp. at pp. 11–12.) But the City addressed that water from hydrants is immediately available and not a standby service subject to California Constitution, article XIII D, section 4’s procedures. (See Mot. at pp. 19–20.) And Plaintiffs’ operative complaints do not contain any reference to section 4, in any event. (Compare Hedayati v. Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 833, 846 [discussing a defendant’s failure to address a theory of liability alleged in the complaint].)

3. Hydrants Do Not Offer a General Governmental Service.

Plaintiffs’ fourth “Triable Issue of Fact” is that “Public Fire Service is a General Governmental Service.” (Opp. at p. 12.) This assertion of a violation of Section 6, subdivision (b)(5), is again

2 The City’s water rates are therefore consistent with Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v.

Verjil (2006) 39 Cal.4th 205 in calculating the costs of service. Plaintiffs do not offer evidence that the City has miscalculated the cost. They argue the cost is misallocated, but Plaintiffs’ own purported expert on rates described imposing the costs of water from hydrants on those who have a fire on their property extinguished using a hydrant as an “extreme hypothetical” and not recommended. (Blank Dep. Tr. at pp. 81:19–82:6.)

12 Reply in Support of MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01814012.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
contradicted by the unrebutted evidence and the Legislature’s findings. “[H]ydrants are designed, installed, and used to serve properties receiving water service.” (Gov. Code, § 53750.5, subd. (a)(5).) “The essential purpose of hydrants” in San Francisco likewise “is to provide water service to suppress fires that threaten developed properties.” (Luttropp Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiffs’ only argument is that homeowners usually cannot personally operate hydrants lawfully. But, again, personal access to water system assets is not required for such assets to be included in rates for water services. The unrebutted evidence shows that the essential purpose of hydrants is to provide water service to suppress fires that threaten developed properties” while other uses are “incidental to [this] primary purpose.” (See Luttropp Decl. ¶ 3; id. ¶ 6; Luttropp Dep. Tr. at pp. 18:16–19, 20:11–21:4.)

4. The City’s Rates Satisfy Proposition 218’s Proportionality Requirement.

Plaintiffs’ final “Triable Issue of Fact” is that the “City’s Rates for its Residential Ratepayers Exceed the Proportional Cost of Service,” an allegation corresponding to Section 6, subdivision (b)(3). (Opp. at pp. 12–13.) On this issue, Plaintiffs contend that the location of AWSS hydrants throughout most but not all of the City means the City’s water rates are not proportional. This assertion is absent from Plaintiffs’ complaints and therefore falls outside the scope of summary judgment. (See VFLA Eventco, LLC v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 287, 308; Lewinter v. Genmar Industries, Inc. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1223.) “[S]ummary judgment cannot be denied on a ground not raised by the pleadings.” (Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654, 1663 [citing cases]; original italics.) In any event, Plaintiffs have raised no material issue of fact as to the City’s compliance with subdivision (b)(3). Plaintiffs identify no factual error in the detailed analysis in the 2018 and 2023 cost of service studies. (Corvinova Decl., Exs. A, D.) The City provided detailed calculations reflecting the allocation of costs of water services.

There is no false “fractional precision” in this portion of the rates, unlike the tiered portion of the rates invalidated in Capistrano. (See Capistrano, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at p. 1504 [highlighting unsupported differences between tiered rates separated by exactly 1/3, 1/2, and 5/6].) Meanwhile, Plaintiffs have offered no evidence demonstrating disproportionality when the hydrant systems are properly considered together. (See ibid; Gov. Code, § 53750.5 [“The cost associated with this aspect of water service is proportionately allocable among properties that may receive a reasonably similar

13 Reply in Support of MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01814012.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
level of service from the immediate availability of water to aid in extinguishing fires that directly or indirectly threaten those properties.”].)3 Indeed, Plaintiffs’ own arguments support the importance of the AWSS as a complementary system to the low-pressure hydrants, including providing resiliency in the event of an earthquake. (See Opp. at p. 12 [arguing the low-pressure hydrant system is vulnerable in an earthquake; Pltf. Add. UMF 83 [proposing as an undisputed fact that “the fire department could transport fire water any distance with enough hose and enough fire trucks along the way to keep the water pressurized”].) All ratepayers support the expansion and updating of the AWSS system.

Representative Plaintiffs all live within 500 feet of AWSS hydrants; they therefore cannot properly complain about their rates including costs of the AWSS system even absent its complementary role. (Teahan Decl., Exs. A, E, F, G; Luttropp Dep. Tr. at p. 35:13–14 [explaining hydrants are built to be within 500 feet of the developed property].) Plaintiffs have not even suggested any alternative allocation among residential, commercial, and industrial ratepayers. (Cf. Griffith v. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 586, 601 (Griffith), disapproved on unrelated grounds by City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation Dist. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1191 [“That there may be other methods favored by [P]laintiffs does not render defendant’s method unconstitutional.”].) The City’s allocation method is consistent with Capistrano, Griffith, and other authorities cited in the Motion to which Plaintiffs did not respond. (See Mot. at pp. 20–21.) Plaintiffs argue Capistrano is distinguishable because the AWSS was not built for water conservation and does not free up water for other uses. (Opp. at p. 14.) While the aspects of the recycled and potable water systems in Capistrano that made them complementary involved water conservation, the AWSS and low-pressure hydrants are properly analyzed together here given the Fire Department’s ability to draw on both types of hydrants to fight structure fires. (See Luttropp Decl. ¶ 7 [“Having both systems increases the Fire Department’s capacity to address more simultaneous, large

3 Plaintiffs additionally disclaimed the need for “differentiation in water charges” in discovery to avoid producing documents on proportionality. (See Mot. at pp. 20–21.) They now creatively construe those discovery responses as meaning the City could find money elsewhere to subsidize some ratepayers’ charges. But a subsidy provided to some ratepayers would be “differentiation in water charges.” In any event, even in this summary judgment briefing, Plaintiffs have not proposed any alternative allocation approach to the one in the City’s cost of service studies.

14 Reply in Support of MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01814012.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
property fires and to account for the potential loss of one or the other system in a natural disaster such as an earthquake.”]; Luttropp Dep. Tr. at p. 39:9–12.)
Plaintiffs try to distinguish Griffith by pointing out that Capistrano and Coziahr contained statements that the American Water Works Association (“AWWA”) M1 Manual on rate setting is not alone dispositive and does not control when it is contradicted by Proposition 218’s plain language. (Opp. at p. 15.) But, as reflected above, the City’s rate setting is supported by detailed studies prepared by independent analysts and by Government Code section 53750.5, not just by the M1 Manual. Accordingly, Griffith reflects the validity of the City’s proportionality analysis. Although the M1 Manual is not alone dispositive, Griffith bolsters its relevance to the propriety of the City’s proportionality analysis and the constitutionality of the Legislature’s guidance in section 53750.5.

Involvement by Raftelis employees in preparing the M1 Manual highlights the high level of expertise of a company involved in the 2023 Water and Wastewater Rate Study and does not undermine the reliability of the Manual. Nor is the federal lobbying disclosure for the AWWA cited by Plaintiffs relevant to any issue in this case, especially without information about the subject of the lobbying.

D. The Court Should Alternatively Grant Summary Adjudication.

If the Court concludes material factual disputes remain on any subpart of Section 6, it should grant summary adjudication to the City on the remaining subparts. Plaintiffs are incorrect that they assert only a single cause of action. Each subpart of Section 6 under which they bring a claim involves a distinct duty on the SFPUC and alleged injury by Plaintiffs. (See Hindin v. Rust (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1257.) “The most salient characteristic of a primary right is that it is indivisible” (ibid.), and the Opposition illustratively addresses the different subparts of Section 6 separately. (See Opp. at pp. 10–16 [e.g. asserting an alleged right not to pay for hydrants at all versus the right to be charged for a different portion of the costs].) Plaintiffs are not correct that recognizing distinct causes of action under Section 6, subdivision (b), would lead to duplicative litigation because the validation procedures for rates lead to an efficient resolution of all claims. (See Gov. Code, § 53759.) III. Conclusion
For the above reasons and those in the Motion, the Court should grant summary judgment in favor of the City.

15 Reply in Support of MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01814012.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Dated: January 22, 2025 Respectfully submitted,

DAVID CHIU
City Attorney
SARA J. EISENBERG
ALEXANDER J. HOLTZMAN

JULIE WILENSKY
Deputy City Attorneys

By: /s/ Alexander J. Holtzman
ALEXANDER J. HOLTZMAN

Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES

COMMISSION

16 Reply in Support of MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01814012.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

PROOF OF SERVICE

I, BIANCA E. ROJO, declare as follows:

I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of eighteen years and not a party to the above- entitled action. I am employed at the City Attorney’s Office of San Francisco, Fox Plaza Building, 1390 Market Street, 6th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94102.

On January 22, 2025, I served the following document(s):

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION’S MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

on the following persons at the locations specified:

Donald P. Driscoll, Esq.

Adryane Omens, Esq.

DRISCOLL & OMENS
P.O. Box 6596
Albany, CA 94706
Telephone: (510) 527-4500
Email: [email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Petitioners
Jennifer Toy, Rose Aquilina, Mark Roh, and
Ted Loewenberg

in the manner indicated below:

BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: Pursuant to San Francisco Superior Court Local Rule 2.10 and California Rules of Court 2.253(b)(2), I caused the documents to be served electronically through File & ServeXpress in portable document format (“PDF”) Adobe Acrobat.

I declare under penalty of perjury pursuant to the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed January 22, 2025, at San Francisco, California.

BIANCA E. ROJO
Bianca E. Rojo

1 Holtzman Decl. iso Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812013.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

JENNIFER TOY, ROSE AQUILINA, MARK
ROH, and TED LOEWENBERG individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs and Petitioners,

vs.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION, and DOES 1 – 10,

Defendants and Respondents.

Lead Case No. CPF-22-517764
(Consolidated with Case No. CPF-23-518342)

DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER J.

HOLTZMAN IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT CITY
AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN

AQUILINA

Hearing Date: February 13, 2025
Hearing Judge: Judge Andrew Y.S. Cheng
Time: 9:30 a.m.

Place: Dept. 613

Date Action Filed: May 17, 2022
Trial Date: December 1, 2025

ELECTRONICALLY

F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
01/13/2025
Clerk of the Court
BY: YOLANDA TABO
Deputy Clerk

2 Holtzman Decl. iso Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812013.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER J. HOLTZMAN
I, Alexander J. Holtzman, declare as follows:

1. I am a Deputy City Attorney at the Office of the San Francisco City Attorney, representing Defendants and Respondents the City and County of San Francisco and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (together the “City”). I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of California, and I am admitted to practice before this Court. I have personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration, and if called upon as a witness could and would testify competently to the matters herein.

2. I respectfully submit this declaration in support of Defendant and Respondent the City and County of San Francisco’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment in Aquilina (“Opposition”).

3. Attached as Exhibit 1 is the Declaration of Bill Teahan in Support of Defendants and Respondents City and County of San Francisco and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication, with accompanying exhibits.

4. Attached as Exhibit 2 is the Declaration of Deputy Chief Darius Luttropp In Support of Defendants And Respondents City And County Of San Francisco And San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication.

5. Attached as Exhibit 3 is the Declaration of Erin Corvinova in Support of Defendants and Respondents City and County of San Francisco and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication, with Exhibits D through F.

6. Attached as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of Complaint for Refund, Declaratory Relief, and Equitable Relief, and Petition for Writ of Mandate filed on October 3, 2023, in Aquilina, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. CPF-23-518342 (Aquilina).

7. Attached as Exhibits 5, 6, and 7 are purported government claims filed with the City and County of San Francisco with matter numbers 24-00237, 24-00238, 24-000239, dated August 8, 2023, and submitted on behalf of Plaintiffs before they filed Aquilina.

3 Holtzman Decl. iso Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812013.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

8. Attached as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Anna Maria Bereczky-Anderson of Legislative Intent Service, Inc., compiling the legislative history of Senate Bill 1386 of 2020.

9. Attached as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Rose Aquilina in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, signed March 9, 2024.

10. Attached as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Mark Roh in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, signed March 4, 2024.

11. Attached as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Ted Loewenberg in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.

12. Attached as Exhibit 12 are excerpts from the transcript of the July 10, 2023, deposition of SFPUC Financial Planning Director Erin Corvinova including as a person most qualified on behalf of the City on certain topics.

13. Attached as Exhibit 13 are excerpts from the transcript of the October 29, 2024, deposition of Ms. Corvinova including as a person most qualified on behalf of the City on certain topics.

14. Attached as Exhibit 14 are excerpts from the transcript of the January 3, 2025, deposition of Ms. Corvinova including as a person most qualified on behalf of the City on certain topics.

15. Attached as Exhibit 15 is Exhibit 2 to the January 3, 2025, deposition of Ms. Corvinova, which is a declaration by Ms. Corvinova dated January 3, 2025.

16. Attached as Exhibit 16 are excerpts from the transcript of the December 18, 2024, deposition of Deputy Chief Darius Luttropp including as a person most qualified on behalf of the City on certain topics.

17. Attached as Exhibit 17 are excerpts from the transcript of the December 3, 2024, deposition of Dr. Larry Blank.

18. Attached as Exhibit 18 are excerpts from the transcript of the December 20, 2024, deposition of Swetha Ramesh.

19. Attached as Exhibit 19 is a letter reflecting the City’s production to Plaintiffs on

4 Holtzman Decl. iso Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812013.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
October 23, 2024 of the spreadsheet marked CCSF_000830.csv, which compiles National Fire Incident Reporting (“NFIR”) data from the San Francisco Fire Department. This file is not “a copy of the file Fire_Incidents.csv,” as Plaintiffs’ counsel asserts. (Declaration of Donald Driscoll ¶ 6.) A copy of CCSF_000830 excerpting relevant columns is attached as Exhibit 20.

20. The contents of Exhibit 20 show that for the approximately six years between October 1, 2018 and October 14, 2024:
a. Words starting with “extinguish” appear in the “Narrative” field of 5,508 incident reports that would not be captured by Ms. Ramesh’s analysis, which only included reports where the “Actions Taken” field includes the words “extinguish” or “extinguishment.” b. For example, for Incident 18134031, the entry in the “Primary Situation” field is “111 Building Fire.” The narrative is “Crane, Charles Nov 15 2018 10:53PM:Initial call was for FIB.

E32 was first on the scene. They encountered and extinguished fire on the main floor of the house.

Plumbers had started a small fire in the bathroom while sweating pipe.” The words “extinguish” and “extinguishment” do not appear in any of the “Action Taken” fields. c. In another example, for Incident 20129192, the narrative states “Martinez, Anthony D Nov 30 2020 04:03PM:Responded to the transformer fire, arrived on scene to find a electrical pole on fire throwing embers on nearby homes. E40 spotted safely from hazard and extinguished pole with quick short burst of water. Notified PG&E electric to secure wires and hardware. E40 remained on scene to transfer incident to PG&E.” The words “extinguish” and “extinguishment” do not appear in the “Action Taken” fields. d. The Primary Situation field included the word “fire” in 38,739 incident reports that would not be captured by Ms. Ramesh’s analysis, which only included reports where the “Actions Taken” field includes the words “extinguish” or “extinguishment.” I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 13th day of January, 2025 in San Francisco, California.

ALEXANDER J. HOLTZMAN

1 Holtzman Decl. iso Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812013.docx 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
DAVID
CHIU, SBN 189542
City Attorney
SARA J. EISENBERG, SBN 269303
ALEXANDER J. HOLTZMAN, SBN 311813
JULIE WILENSKY, SBN 271765
Deputy City Attorneys
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-5408
Telephone: (415) 554-3999
(415) 554-4274
Facsimile: (415) 554-3837
E-Mail: [email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Att
orneys for Defendants and Respondents

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
SUPE

RIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY

OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

JENNIFER TOY, ROSE AQUILINA, MARK
ROH, and TED LOEWENBERG individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plain
tiffs and Petitioners,
vs.

CIT

Y AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION, and DOES 1 – 10,
De
fendants and Respondents.

Lead Case No. CPF-22-517764
(Consolidated with Case No. CPF-23-518342)
EXHIBITS 9-19 TO DECLARATION OF
ALEXANDER J.

HOLTZMAN IN

SUPPORT O

F DEFENDANT AND

RESPONDENT CITY AND COUNTY OF
SAN FRANCISCO’S OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT IN AQUILINA
Heari
ng Date: February 13, 2025
Hearing Judge: Judge Andrew Y.S. Cheng
Time: 9:30 a.m.

Place: Dept. 613
Date
Action Filed: May 17, 2022
Trial Date: December 1, 2025

ELECTRONICALLY

F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
01/13/2025
Clerk of the Court
BY: YOLANDA TABO
Deputy Clerk

EXHIBIT 12
PMQ: Erin Corvinova
July 10, 2023
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
3 4 JENNIFER TOY, MICHELLE DICKSTEIN, )
and ROSE AQUILINA, individually and )
5 on behalf of all others similarly )
situated, )
6 )
Plaintiffs and Petitioners, )
7 ) Case No.:
vs. ) CPF-22-517764
8 )

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, )
9 SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES )
COMMISSION, and DOES 1 through 10, )
10 )
Defendants and Respondents. )
11 ____________________________________)
12 13
14 15 DEPOSITION OF ERIN CORVINOVA, PERSON MOST 16 QUALIFIED FOR CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
17 taken on behalf of Plaintiffs and Petitioners,
18 at Veritext Legal Solutions, 1 Kaiser Plaza, Suite 250, 19 Oakland, California 94612, commencing at 10:00 AM
20 and concluding at 11:32 AM, Monday, July 10, 2023,
21 before Maximillian A. Contreras, CSR #13876.
22 23
24 25

Page 2 ends

Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com
PMQ: Erin Corvinova
July 10, 2023
1 A. I have not specifically calculated the
2 difference.
3 Q. Right. But you've -- have you considered
4 whether it could be calculated?
5 A. Have I considered whether it could be
6 calculated? I suppose, yes.
7 Q. You have considered that? That's something 8 that could be calculated; right?
9 ATTY. SNODGRASS: Calls for speculation.
10 And outside of the subject of the designation.
11 But go ahead and answer if you can.
12 THE WITNESS: I believe that that could be 13 calculated.
14 BY ATTY. DRISCOLL:
15 Q. Now, you got considerable expertise as
16 Rate Administrator. Now in your current position,
17 how would you calculated it?
18 A. Can you define what "it" is.
19 Q. The "it" is if public fire service were
20 removed from residential rates, how would you calculate 21 the change in residential rates?
22 ATTY. SNODGRASS: Calls for speculation.
23 Do you understand what he means by "public fire
24 service"?
25 THE WITNESS: I'm assuming it's the hydrants

Page 36 ends

Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com
PMQ: Erin Corvinova
July 10, 2023
1 and the AWSS.
2 BY ATTY. DRISCOLL:
3 Q. Yes, and I'm not asking for speculation.
4 I'm asking pursuant to the methodology used in the 2023 5 and 2018 rate studies. What would happen?
6 A. The hydrants and the AWSS are a separate cost 7 bucket for purposes of allocating costs. If you were to 8 exclude those from the rates as a whole, you would
9 subtract that total cost out of the revenue requirement, 10 which is the amount of revenue to be collected from 11 rates. Essentially just delete the dollar amount
12 as a line item and see what that did.
13 Q. And when you say "see what that did,"
14 you're saying that because this process usees Excel 15 spreadsheets and the change would work its way through 16 to the conclusion as to what the rate was?
17 A. That's correct, yes.
18 Q. And you wouldn't have to know anything about 19 individual customers to do this, would you? This would 20 be something that would be done on a uniform basis? 21 ATTY. SNODGRASS: Vague and ambiguous.
22 Go ahead and answer if you have an understanding.
23 THE WITNESS: For the -- it'd be uniform
24 across each customer class, yes.
25 ///

Page 37 ends

Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com
PMQ: Erin Corvinova
July 10, 2023
1 BY ATTY. DRISCOLL:
2 Q. And that's -- this simple method where things 3 work their way through spreadsheets so you could
4 determine what deleting costs associated with public 5 fire service did to rates, that's been true the entire 6 time you worked at SFPUC; right?
7 A. Some of the spreadsheets are more complicated 8 than others and not quite as neatly automated. But you 9 could get to the outcome sometimes with a little more 10 work. It wouldn't be as simple.
11 Q. It would basically be mechanical work,
12 numbers moved from one sheet to another; right?
13 A. I --
14 ATTY. SNODGRASS: You're asking whether that 15 characterization has applied at all times since she 16 began working for the PUC?
17 ATTY. DRISCOLL: Yeah.
18 THE WITNESS: I believe that's correct, yes. 19 BY ATTY. DRISCOLL:
20 Q. Do you know anything about the recordkeeping 21 of the SFPUC?
22 ATTY. SNODGRASS: Vague and ambiguous.
23 THE WITNESS: Some, but not like core job. 24 I'm passingly familiar.
25 ///

Page 38 ends

Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com
PMQ: Erin Corvinova
July 10, 2023
1 BY ATTY. DRISCOLL:
2 Q. Do you know how long billing information
3 is kept?
4 A. No, I do not.
5 Q. Have you ever looked up old billing
6 information?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And how far back have you gone?
9 A. Our current billing system was implemented in 10 2009, and I'm aware that it's possible to look up
11 records to 2009 in at least the current billing system. 12 Q. You can look up bills and you can look up 13 payments also; right?
14 A. That's correct.
15 ATTY. SNODGRASS: Just for the record,
16 this is also well outside of the scope of the witness' 17 designation.
18 ATTY. DRISCOLL: Not an objection, but -- 19 ATTY. SNODGRASS: Just for the record.
20 ATTY. HOLTZMAN: It is an objection. Because 21 the question is whether she's testifying in her personal 22 capacity or on behalf of the Defendants. And as to 23 these questions, you are taking a personal deposition. 24 ATTY. DRISCOLL: No, I'm not. But we don't 25 have to discuss this on the record.

Page 39 ends

Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com
PMQ: Erin Corvinova
July 10, 2023
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 3
4 I, MAXIMILLIAN A. CONTRERAS, CSR #13876,
5 Certified Shorthand Reporter, certify:
6 That the foregoing proceedings were taken
7 before me at the time and place therein set forth,
8 at which time the witness was put under oath by me;
9 That the testimony of the witness, the
10 questions propounded, and all objections and statements 11 made at the time of the examination were recorded
12 stenographically by me and were thereafter transcribed; 13 That the foregoing is a true and correct
14 transcript of my shorthand notes so taken.
15 I further certify that I am not a relative or 16 employee of any attorney of the parties, nor financially 17 interested in the action.
18 I declare under penalty of perjury under
19 the laws of California that the foregoing is true and 20 correct.
21 Dated this 26th day of July, 2023.
22 23
24 <%27291,Signature%>
MAXIMILLIAN A. CONTRERAS
25 CSR #13876

Page 57 ends

Atkinson-Baker, A Veritext Company
(818) 551-7300 www.veritext.com

PMQ Erin Corvinova
October 29, 2024
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
2 COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
3 4 JENNIFER TOY, )
)
5 Plaintiff and Petitioner, )
)
6 vs. )
) Case No.:
7 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ) CPF-22-517764

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES )
8 COMMISSION, and DOES 1 through 10, )
)
9 Defendants and Respondents.)
_____________________________________)
10 11
12 13
14 15 DEPOSITION OF
16 ERIN CORVINOVA, PERSON MOST QUALIFIED
17 FOR THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
18 TUESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2024
19 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
20 21
22 23
24 FILE NO.: AB 6985867
25 REPORTED BY: MAXIMILLIAN A. CONTRERAS, CSR 13876

Page 1 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Erin Corvinova
October 29, 2024
1 Q. Okay. So you understand all that?
2 A. Yes, I do.
3 Q. Okay. The City of San Francisco's fiscal year 4 runs from July 1st to June 30; right?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. And the residential rates in 23-0103 first 7 went into effect on July 1 in 2023?
8 ATTY. HOLTZMAN: Objection. Form.
9 I'm not sure I understand what the question is.
10 BY ATTY. DRISCOLL:
11 Q. The residential rate increase for water rates 12 for San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, that went 13 into effect July 1st, 2023; right?
14 A. There was a rate increase that went in effect 15 on that date, yes.
16 Q. Am I somehow misstating it?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Okay. And that rate resolution 23-0103 was 19 for three years?
20 A. Yes. The most recent rate increase adopted 21 three years' worth of rate increases -- resolution. 22 Q. That rate resolution, 23-0103, has a type of 23 service, 2W Fire Service?
24 A. That -- yeah, that's correct.
25 Q. And the rate resolution says -- and if you

Page 6 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Erin Corvinova
October 29, 2024
1 want, I can show it to you. If water is used for any 2 purpose other than extinguishing accidental fires,
3 the W1C rates -- or maybe it's "WIC." I think it's
4 "W1C," -- rates for water delivery shall apply?
5 A. To my recollection, yes, that's the wording of 6 that.
7 Q. Does that mean that private fire service
8 has a meter, so that it's possible to meter the water? 9 A. The customers that are charged under the -- 10 I don't know if it's W2 rate, the private fire service 11 rate -- are sprinklers and standpipes and separately 12 metered from the building usage. So that particular 13 technology and layout of piping, it is possible to meter 14 because it's built into the building.
15 Q. So the water goes through the city mains, 16 it goes through a meter, and then into the pipes of 17 the person who has private fire service?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And that's distinguished from public fire 20 service where there's no pipe connection to the person 21 or property receiving the water; right?
22 ATTY. HOLTZMAN: Objection. Form.
23 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I'm not quite certain what 24 you mean by "public fire service."
25 ///

Page 7 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Erin Corvinova
October 29, 2024
1 BY ATTY. DRISCOLL:
2 Q. I mean -- well, the Cost of Service Study
3 done in 2023, I believe, refers to it as "AWSS" and
4 hydrants. Is there something else it could be?
5 A. No --
6 ATTY. HOLTZMAN: Objection. Form.
7 THE WITNESS: So the auxiliary supply system 8 and the fire hydrants are connected to our city mains 9 but do not have subsequent downstream permanent
10 connections to customers -- or hydrants.
11 BY ATTY. DRISCOLL:
12 Q. So that's how you tell private service
13 from AWSS/hydrants?
14 A. I believe that would be one of the many
15 distinguishing factors between those two types of
16 service.
17 Q. Now, if you have private fire service,
18 are you actually prohibited from using it for a
19 purpose other than fire?
20 A. I'm not familiar with the regulations around 21 how those accounts are set up.
22 Q. And how would I find out?
23 A. I'm not sure.
24 ATTY. HOLTZMAN: Objection.
25 Outside of the scope.

Page 8 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Erin Corvinova
October 29, 2024
1 THE WITNESS: Yeah.
2 ATTY. HOLTZMAN: But Erin could answer if
3 she has knowledge.
4 THE WITNESS: I think we do have water service 5 rules and regulations. That would be my guess as to 6 where that information would be contained.
7 BY ATTY. DRISCOLL:
8 Q. Our last deposition, I talk asked you a
9 question about "Max Day," and I'm ooh a little confused 10 by the concept. What is -- how is Max Day measured? 11 ATTY. HOLTZMAN: Objection. Form.
12 THE WITNESS: So "Maximum Day" is one of the 13 concepts commonly used in a Cost of Service analysis for 14 water system that is used to advocate cost to customers 15 based on the amount of usage the bare customer class 16 takes up during the highest usage day of the year.
17 In this particular case, it's the maximum day of
18 water usage within the system.
19 BY ATTY. DRISCOLL:
20 Q. So the concept is to look at the maximum usage 21 within a year rather than the maximum theoretical usage 22 under extraordinary circumstances?
23 A. Different -- "Max Day" is used -- it's a broad 24 term. It can be applied in different methodologies 25 depending on purpose of the rate study. Typically you

Page 9 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Erin Corvinova
October 29, 2024
1 it is zeroed out and then spread across the direct
2 functional cost components.
3 Q. And specifically, it's spread between the
4 cost components in Columns D through K in proportion 5 to the numbers in Columns D through K in Row 287;
6 am I right?
7 A. Yes. So this particular "Indirect" number 8 is negative; which means it's reducing expenses,
9 just following where it came from. This is related
10 to revenues, so this is certain revenues received by 11 the SFPUC that are not water rate revenues. We reduce 12 our Cost of Service by offsetting revenues so that the 13 amount we collect through our water rates is only -- 14 is lower as a reflection of the fact that some of our 15 costs are covered by these indirect revenues.
16 So Row 287, where we have a negative
17 $21 million in this "Indirect" column is then
18 proportionately allocated out on Row 288. So that's 19 reducing the cost allocation to all of our cost
20 components that are listed in the table we're currently 21 looking at -- proportionately to their preliminary
22 Cost of Service numbers which were derived in the
23 prior table.
24 Q. So the amount, $1,524,829 found in Cell J-288 25 is computed as a fraction of the $26,574,727?

Page 30 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Erin Corvinova
October 29, 2024
1 Strike that.
2 A fraction is derived, the ratio of
3 $26,574,727 to the various other costs in Columns D
4 through K of Row 287. And the revenue offset is
5 proportionately allocated in Cell J-288 based on
6 that ratio?
7 A. That is what the formula shows.
8 Q. Okay. So if I were to divide meter cost
9 in J-287 into two numbers: $12,683,934 from "Meters," 10 plus $13,890,792 for "hydrants/AWSS," I could separately 11 compute the revenue offset for J-273 "Meters" and J-274 12 -- I'm sorry, J-273 "Meters" and J-274 "hydrants/AWSS"? 13 ATTY. HOLTZMAN: Objection. Form.
14 THE WITNESS: You could, if you wanted, take 15 the approximately $1.5 million -- negative $1.5 million 16 shown in Cell J-288 and proportionately allocate it 17 out to numbers that were subsequent in this workbook. 18 BY ATTY. DRISCOLL:
19 Q. And in particular, you could just divide
20 the $26,547,727 in J-287, you could divide it into
21 one component attributable to the $12,683,934 in J-273 22 and the $13,890,792 in J-274?
23 ATTY. HOLTZMAN: Objection. Form.
24 THE WITNESS: You could do that. You could do 25 any math in any work; right? This is an Excel spread-

Page 31 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Erin Corvinova
October 29, 2024
1 -sheet. You can do any kind of math.
2 I'm not necessarily saying that that
3 represents something. That is a formula you could do. 4 BY ATTY. DRISCOLL:
5 Q. Well, I'm asking you whether it represents 6 something. I'm asking you whether you could figure out 7 how much of J-288 is attributable to public fire service 8 very simply by separating out in the "Meters" the
9 $13,890,792 that attributable to public fire service. 10 ATTY. HOLTZMAN: Objection. Form.
11 THE WITNESS: That is a way you could get 12 at that number.
13 ATTY. DRISCOLL: Okay.
14 THE WITNESS: I'll just say any cost
15 allocation that's not actually shown in here, that we 16 haven't done and put in a table on its own, and you wish 17 to change that or do a different allocation or trace 18 something back, there are likely multiple ways you could 19 do it. And that's not something that we've done in this 20 workbook; so I can't necessarily speak to what is the 21 right way to do something that we have not done.
22 BY ATTY. DRISCOLL:
23 Q. Well, there are numerous equivalent ways of 24 reaching the same result; right? Changing numbers in 25 different cells or formulas in different cells. But I'm

Page 32 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Erin Corvinova
October 29, 2024
1 look at this simplest, most straightforward way to
2 explain how much of the meter charges attributable
3 to public fire service costs. And it seems --
4 doesn't it seem this is a straightforward way to do it? 5 ATTY. HOLTZMAN: Objection. Form.
6 THE WITNESS: Given that that's not something 7 we've done or a number we've essentially tried to reach 8 in this workbook, I don't have an opinion as to whether 9 that's the simplest way or the correct way.
10 BY ATTY. DRISCOLL:
11 Q. You don't have any opinion as to whether
12 it comes out with a correct answer?
13 ATTY. HOLTZMAN: Objection.
14 Correct answer to what?
15 ATTY. DRISCOLL: To what public fire service 16 costs are in the connection charge.
17 THE WITNESS: I think broadly, if our agency 18 was required to develop an estimate of what portion 19 total dollars of our expenditures are related to the 20 hydrants and AWSS, we could do that, but I'm not at 21 this time prepared to answer yes/no to a particular 22 methodology.
23 What you described is certainly a way to do 24 it, but there are probably multiple ways and that's 25 something that given that we have not produced that

Page 33 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Erin Corvinova
October 29, 2024
1 used inconsistently and to mean different things.
2 Q. So from your perspective, it's not a phrase 3 with a clear meaning?
4 A. I would want to understand what meaning
5 before -- yeah. It's not necessarily clear.
6 ATTY. DRISCOLL: I'm just about done.
7 So that's probably good news for you.
8 (Off the record at 11:37 AM.)
9 (On the record at 11:40 AM.)
10 BY ATTY. DRISCOLL:
11 Q. There's never been a vote of voters that
12 approved Rate Resolution 23-0103, has there been?
13 ATTY. HOLTZMAN: Objection. Form.
14 THE WITNESS: The rates that you refer to 15 were approved following the protest -- notice and
16 protest process.
17 BY ATTY. DRISCOLL:
18 Q. And by that, you're describing the process 19 where it's the majority protest, then the rate isn't 20 adopted?
21 ATTY. HOLTZMAN: Objection. Form.
22 THE WITNESS: That is the gist of how that 23 works. Yes.
24 BY ATTY. DRISCOLL:
25 Q. Is there something important I left out?

Page 44 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Erin Corvinova
October 29, 2024
1 A. There are many substantive and procedural
2 details around how that works.
3 Q. And one of them is if the majority protests, 4 then the resolution is not adopted?
5 ATTY. HOLTZMAN: Objection. Majority of whom? 6 ATTY. DRISCOLL: Majority of ratepayers.
7 THE WITNESS: I believe that it's the majority 8 of property owners, and it's 50% plus 1%, technically. 9 BY ATTY. DRISCOLL:
10 Q. At the meeting -- you were present when
11 23-0103 was done?
12 A. Was I? Yes.
13 Q. You spoke.
14 A. Yes, yes. Okay, making sure.
15 Q. Spoke articulately. And you were there for 16 the whole meeting; right?
17 A. I may have left before the last few agenda 18 items. But for the ones that were relevant to the
19 Rate Resolution.
20 Q. And you were there when the Rate Resolution 21 was adopted?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And it was adopted on the basis -- one of the 24 bases of adoption was that 50% had not -- 50% of
25 property owners had not protest?

Page 45 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Erin Corvinova
October 29, 2024
1 A. Correct.
2 Q. Now, some people spoke during the hearing. 3 Do you have an understanding of what they were 4 permitted to do during the hearing?
5 I mean members of the public.
6 A. The procedures around public comment?
7 Q. Yes.
8 A. That is also not the area that I'm -- you
9 know, I'm not the Commission Secretary who manages that. 10 I'm generally familiar with what rules are in place. 11 Q. And what rules are in place?
12 A. After each agenda item, there is a period for 13 public comment in which members of the public are
14 allowed to comment on agenda items.
15 Q. As far as you know, are they allowed to
16 cross-examine people who've spoken?
17 A. Who is "they"?
18 Q. I mean members of the public.
19 A. Are members of the public allowed to
20 cross-examine other people who have spoken?
21 Q. For instance, could members of the public 22 have cross-examined you after you spoke?
23 A. That's never happened at any Commission
24 meeting I've been at. But I'm not familiar with what 25 the Commission's procedures would allow such a thing

Page 46 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Erin Corvinova
October 29, 2024
1 if the Commission is directing it.
2 ATTY. DRISCOLL: Okay, thank you.
3 I have no further questions.
4 (Ending time: 11:43 AM.)
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25

Page 47 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Erin Corvinova
October 29, 2024
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 3
4 I, MAXIMILLIAN A. CONTRERAS, CSR #13876,
5 Certified Shorthand Reporter, certify:
6 That the foregoing proceedings were taken
7 before me at the time and place therein set forth,
8 at which time the witness was put under oath by me;
9 That the testimony of the witness, the
10 questions propounded, and all objections and statements 11 made at the time of the examination were recorded
12 stenographically by me and were thereafter transcribed; 13 That the foregoing is a true and correct
14 transcript of my shorthand notes so taken.
15 I further certify that I am not a relative or 16 employee of any attorney of the parties, nor financially 17 interested in the action.
18 I declare under penalty of perjury under
19 the laws of California that the foregoing is true and 20 correct.
21 Dated this 13th day of November, 2024.
22 23
24 <%27291,Signature%>
MAXIMILLIAN A. CONTRERAS
25 CSR #13876

Page 49 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com

PMQ City of San Francisco Erin Corvinova
January 3, 2025
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
3 4 JENNIFER TOY, et al., individually )
and on behalf of all others )
5 similarly situated, )
)
6 Plaintiffs/Petitioners, )
)
7 vs. ) Case No.:
) CPF-22-517764
8 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, )

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES )
9 COMMISSION, and DOES 1 through 10, )
)
10 Defendants/Respondents. )
___________________________________)
11 12
13 14
15 DEPOSITION OF ERIN CORVINOVA
16 PMQ FOR CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO
17 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
18 JANUARY 3, 2025
19 20
21 22
23 24 REPORTED BY: SANDRA S. PETRITSCH, CSR NO. 11684 25 FILE NO. 7095162

Page 1 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ City of San Francisco Erin Corvinova
January 3, 2025
1 by deleting the cells, as the prior testimony was asking, 2 is mechanical work.
3 But there is also more complicated steps about 4 figuring out what those are and implementing them.
5 Q (By Mr. Driscoll) My question was not what 6 deleting cells would do to rates. It was what deleting 7 costs associated with public fire service did to rates and 8 that's what you said was mechanical work.
9 MR. HOLTZMAN: Objection. Misstates prior 10 testimony.
11 Q (By Mr. Driscoll) Are you saying I'm misstating 12 prior testimony when I say that?
13 A I'm not sure what the goal of this line of 14 questioning is. I believed then, as I believe now, that 15 someone can go into a spreadsheet given a certain goal 16 such as the goal of figure out what portion of the rates 17 that were set in the spreadsheet are related to hydrants 18 and AWSS.
19 Someone could go into the spreadsheet and delete 20 cells in order to get to a change in the rates, you have 21 proposed a method by which someone could do that, which 22 was as discussed deleting two specific cells on the COS 23 sheet and seeing how the rates change. That is a valid 24 way to answer the question of what happens if you take 25 those costs out of the rates?

Page 50 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ City of San Francisco Erin Corvinova
January 3, 2025
1 I'm just saying it's not the only way, and I'm 2 not personally willing to commit to saying it's the way 3 that I would do it.
4 Q Is it your recollection that the water rate 5 model was an exhibit in your July 10 of 2023 deposition? 6 A Yes.
7 MR. HOLTZMAN: Objection. The transcript speaks 8 for itself. For what it's worth, it wasn't done; so why 9 are you misrepresenting that to the witness?
10 MR. DRISCOLL: I wasn't representing anything to 11 the witness. I'm trying to address a very simple point, 12 and I understand it's stressful for you.
13 Q (By Mr. Driscoll) So you're recollection is 14 that when I asked you whether you could determine what 15 deleting costs associated with public fire services did to 16 rates, you thought I only meant deleting numbers in two 17 cells?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And what lead you to that belief?
20 A The word delete which usually references
21 deleting things.
22 Q And there were alternative possibilities in your 23 mind as to which cells could be deleted to eliminate 24 public fire service costs. Right?
25 A I really don't think it makes sense to take one

Page 51 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ City of San Francisco Erin Corvinova
January 3, 2025
1 sentence out of that deposition and try and come back to 2 it as if it was super, super meaningful. I don't feel 3 like I've been unclear in my statements today, which are 4 consistent with what I believed in the prior two
5 depositions.
6 Which is you could delete cells from a workbook, 7 delete numbers from a workbook, change numbers in a
8 workbook and see what the impact that is on different 9 parts of the Excel workbook. A person who was doing this 10 could say, my goal in deleting these cells is to remove 11 costs, delete costs, associated with public fire service 12 or with the hydrants and AWSS. However you want to refer 13 to it as.
14 They could do that. You've proposed a way of 15 doing that. It gets to a certain number. I don't know 16 what more you want me to elaborate on that? I really feel 17 like I've repeated this several times.
18 Q So when you said in your earlier deposition that 19 you agreed that it was mechanical work, you meant if 20 somebody had preselected which cells to delete, then it 21 would just be mechanical work and use their judgment to 22 select which cells?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Now, have you read the declaration of Larry 25 Blank in this action?

Page 52 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ City of San Francisco Erin Corvinova
January 3, 2025
1 MR. HOLTZMAN: Objection. Outside the scope. 2 THE WITNESS: I was provided a copy of it. I 3 did read through it. I'm not familiar with it in detail. 4 Like I didn't memorize it and couldn't quote you sections 5 of it.
6 Q (By Mr. Driscoll) Was it your opinion that 7 Dr. Blank's analysis was incorrect?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And why was it incorrect?
10 A Because if I were to answer the question of how 11 would I remove the costs associated with hydrants and AWSS 12 in this model, I would apply a different methodology, 13 specifically I would go back to lower level detail
14 information and start from there and think about each 15 stage of the cost allocation processed wherever costs end 16 up in these functions are shown and how it would change if 17 I removed those costs, and I would probably get to a 18 different answer.
19 Q Have you attempted to do that?
20 A No.
21 Q Do you anticipate doing that?
22 A Only if I'm asked to. Only if I'm asked to by 23 someone who is allowed to tell me how to spend my work 24 time specifically.
25 Q And as you've indicated before, the reason you

Page 53 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ City of San Francisco Erin Corvinova
January 3, 2025
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 3
4 I, SANDRA S. PETRITSCH, CSR No. 11684, Certified 5 Shorthand Reporter, certify;
6 That the foregoing proceedings were
7 stenographically reported by me at the time and place 8 therein set forth and were thereafter transcribed;
9 That the foregoing is a true and correct
10 transcript of my shorthand notes so taken.
11 I further certify that I am not a relative or 12 employee of any attorney or any of the parties nor
13 financially interested in the action.
14 I declare under penalty of perjury under the 15 laws of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 16 Dated this 10th day of January, 2025.
17 18
19 20 <%6670,Signature%>
SANDRA S. PETRITSCH, CSR No. 11684
21 22
23 24
25

Page 68 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com

PMQ Darius O. Luttropp
December 18, 2024
1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
3 4 JENNIFER TOY, et al.,
individually and on behalf
5 of all others similarly
situated,
6 Plaintiffs and Petitioners,
7 vs. Case No. CPF-22-517764 8 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,
9 SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION, and DOES 1 through 10,
10 Defendants and Respondents.
11 __________________________________/
12 13
14 15 DEPOSITION OF
16 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
17 BY AND THROUGH DARIUS O. LUTTROPP,
18 PERSON MOST QUALIFIED
19 OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA
20 DECEMBER 18, 2024
21 22
23 24 REPORTED BY: MICHELE LEEBODY, CSR NO. 11783
25 FILE NO.: 7077932

Page 1 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Darius O. Luttropp
December 18, 2024
1 coordinated through the PUC, and it's likely that the 2 use of a high-pressure hydrant, which would be the other 3 phrasing people would be used would likely be reported 4 on the form. But I don't believe our records are better 5 than the PUC records for use of AFWS or EFWS.
6 Q. Are you familiar with how good the fire
7 department's records are in that regard?
8 MS. WILENSKY: Objection as to form.
9 THE WITNESS: It's an ongoing discussion of how we 10 could have better reporting across the board for
11 capturing information related to firefighting.
12 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: Are records kept of gallon 13 usage in each fire?
14 A. An estimate is made by the officer reporting 15 and kept, yes.
16 Q. Where is that report kept?
17 A. It would be in the NFIRS, or it would be in a 18 greater alarm report.
19 Q. Who does NFIRS reporting?
20 A. The officer responsible for the incident. So 21 depending on the size of the incident, it's the highest 22 ranking person assigned to the incident.
23 Q. When is the NFIRS report made?
24 A. For almost every incident we respond to, there 25 would be a generated NFIRS report, and they are supposed

Page 17 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Darius O. Luttropp
December 18, 2024
1 to be completed by end of day.
2 Q. And the fire department keeps a copy of the
3 NFIRS reports?
4 A. We keep our records, yes.
5 MR. DRISCOLL: Those haven't been produced.
6 MR. HOLTZMAN: They have.
7 MR. DRISCOLL: They have been?
8 MR. HOLTZMAN: That's what we produced to you.
9 MR. DRISCOLL: Those are NFIRS records?
10 MR. HOLTZMAN: That's correct. I believe it's
11 CCSF underscore 000820.
12 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: So each NFIRS record includes 13 an estimate of the number of gallons of water used?
14 A. NFIRS records are created for every incident. 15 So they are -- the bulk of incidents require no water. 16 Q. And the bulk of incidents that do require water 17 don't require connection to a hydrant; is that correct? 18 MS. WILENSKY: Objection as to form.
19 THE WITNESS: Yeah, likely.
20 Q. BY MS. DRISCOLL: Can you estimate what
21 percentage of the time water is used to extinguish a 22 structure fire that a connection is made at that time to 23 a fire hydrant?
24 MS. WILENSKY: Objection to form and calls for
25 speculation.

Page 18 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Darius O. Luttropp
December 18, 2024
1 MR. DRISCOLL: Could you please read back the
2 question?
3 (Record read.)
4 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: So I'm asking a yes or no
5 question whether you can make an estimate as to the
6 percentage of time when water is used to extinguish a 7 structure fire that a connection is made at that time to 8 a hydrant?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. What is your estimate?
11 A. Close to 100 percent.
12 Q. So what is a structure fire?
13 A. Structure fire is a fire of significant size 14 that would threaten the contents and the structure
15 itself that would require the use of an inch and three 16 quarter hand line to extinguish. A structure fire in a 17 common parlance is a building on fire.
18 Q. And that would be a working fire?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. And at least a two-alarm fire?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Could it be a one-alarm fire?
23 A. Easily, most commonly.
24 Q. There are also fires in the structures that are 25 not called structure fires; is that correct?

Page 19 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Darius O. Luttropp
December 18, 2024
1 A. Yes.
2 MR. DRISCOLL: I'm sorry. I have to take this
3 call.
4 (Recess.)
5 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: So what are fires that are 6 not structural fires that happen in structures called? 7 A. They usually just refer to the object on fire. 8 So if it was an appliance fire, if it was an elevator 9 motor fire, if it was an oven fire, those would be the 10 most common.
11 Q. And the vast majority of fires within a
12 structure are not structure fires; is that correct?
13 MS. WILENSKY: Objection as to form.
14 THE WITNESS: I don't know if I would go with vast 15 majority, and I don't have the numbers at hand, but the 16 majority.
17 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: And those are extinguished 18 without a connection to a fire hydrant?
19 A. Yes.
20 MS. WILENSKY: I'm sorry, objection. Was that a 21 question?
22 MR. DRISCOLL: That was a question, and it was
23 answered.
24 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: So in the majority of
25 instances in which water is used by the San Francisco

Page 20 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Darius O. Luttropp
December 18, 2024
1 Fire Department to extinguish a fire is a connection
2 made to a fire hydrant at that time?
3 MS. WILENSKY: Objection as to form.
4 THE WITNESS: Majority, no.
5 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: Is it your opinion that EFWS 6 serves as a primary source of fire protection in parts 7 of San Francisco?
8 MS. WILENSKY: Objection as to form, calls for an 9 opinion.
10 THE WITNESS: Again, the use of the word primary is 11 troubling me because the primary source of protection is 12 the firefighters and the apparatus that they ride and 13 then as a form of water supply, it's in general
14 secondary form of water supply.
15 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: Are there circumstances under 16 which the fire department expects that EFWS would be the 17 primary source of water for firefighting?
18 MS. WILENSKY: Objection as to form.
19 THE WITNESS: Just with an interruption of the
20 primary systems, which are the standard hydrant system. 21 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: And the fire department
22 expects that the standard hydrants in the municipal
23 water system would be disrupted in a major earthquake? 24 MS. WILENSKY: Objection as to form.
25 THE WITNESS: We value the secondary system in the

Page 21 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Darius O. Luttropp
December 18, 2024
1 event of, but yeah.
2 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: In the event of what?
3 A. A disruption in the regular water supply.
4 Q. Which has there been any discussion in the fire 5 department of when that disruption might happen?
6 MS. WILENSKY: Objection as to form.
7 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: What? I didn't hear his
8 answer.
9 A. Yeah, an earthquake, yeah. It's just that use 10 of primary.
11 Q. I understand.
12 A. The word auxiliary is in the name.
13 Q. And I thoroughly agree with you about the
14 importance of firefighters themselves.
15 Do you have any understanding as to how often 16 Emergency Fire Water System hydrants are actually used? 17 MS. WILENSKY: Objection to form, vague.
18 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: Are actually used to fight 19 fires?
20 MS. WILENSKY: Objection to form.
21 THE WITNESS: It's rare.
22 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: Some years it doesn't happen, 23 correct?
24 A. I would be speculating, but it's likely, yeah. 25 Q. Are you familiar with displays on the San

Page 22 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Darius O. Luttropp
December 18, 2024
1 Francisco websites regarding the use of -- regarding
2 fire incidents?
3 A. Not understanding.
4 MR. DRISCOLL: Let me show you. Please mark this as 5 Exhibit 1.
6 (Exhibit 1 was marked for identification.)
7 THE WITNESS: Yes.
8 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: Where does the data -- you 9 recognize this as a web page?
10 A. Yeah, I see the address, yeah.
11 Q. Where does the data from this web page come 12 from?
13 A. This is aggregated National Fire Incident
14 Reporting System data.
15 MR. DRISCOLL: Let's mark this as Exhibit 2.
16 (Exhibit 2 was marked for identification.)
17 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: Do you recognize Exhibit 2? 18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What is it?
20 A. It is a city SF gov maintain dashboard of fire 21 department incidents.
22 Q. Is that also the NFIRS data in a different
23 form?
24 A. This would be imported in NFIRS data, yes.
25 Q. Is the data obtained directly from firefighters

Page 23 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Darius O. Luttropp
December 18, 2024
1 entering the NFIRS data initially or --
2 A. The initial capture is on receipt of the phone 3 call, and the entry into our computer assisted dispatch, 4 computer=aided dispatch. So that's where, for instance, 5 the address, the incident number, incident date, call 6 number, all these things are generated without the input 7 of the firefighter or fire officer.
8 Q. When the firefighter enters NFIRS information, 9 is it automatically uploaded to the dashboard that I've 10 shown you as Exhibit 1?
11 A. That's my understanding.
12 Q. And to Exhibit 2 also?
13 A. Yes.
14 MR. DRISCOLL: Please mark this as Exhibit 3.
15 (Exhibit 3 was marked for identification.)
16 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: Do you recognize what Exhibit 17 3 is?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. What is it?
20 A. It's NFIRS codes for response time.
21 Q. Could you tell me which NFIRS codes correspond 22 to the fire department extinguishing a fire?
23 MS. WILENSKY: Objection as to form.
24 THE WITNESS: So the actual extinguishment of a fire 25 or the entire process of extinguishing a fire?

Page 24 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Darius O. Luttropp
December 18, 2024
1 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: I'm trying to find out which 2 NFIRS labels would reflect that the fire department had 3 extinguished the fire.
4 MS. WILENSKY: Objection as to form.
5 THE WITNESS: You could use 0 through 16; 50 is
6 vague. It could be in there; 62 is often used if a fire 7 was extinguished by a sprinkler system but would still 8 be in our estimation the fire department assisting in 9 the extinguishment of a fire, yeah.
10 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: And of those, which
11 potentially involved the use of fire department water in 12 extinguishing the fire?
13 MS. WILENSKY: Objection, vague.
14 THE WITNESS: The possessive fire department's
15 water, I'm unfamiliar with this.
16 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: Which of those codes are
17 consistent with the fire department having applied water 18 to the fire?
19 A. Zero would not be super appropriate, but easily 20 enter, 10, 11. The others are not commonly used in San 21 Francisco while the wild land codes, but they would also 22 require the use of water in the fire department. And, 23 again, 50 is vague enough that I can see somebody
24 getting confused and using it, and that might be water. 25 Q. Does the fire department attach importance to

Page 25 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Darius O. Luttropp
December 18, 2024
1 the accuracy of NFIRS records?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. For each of the categories you've named that 4 indicate the fire department may have applied water to a 5 fire, is there some way of telling whether a connection 6 to a hydrant was made?
7 MS. WILENSKY: Objection to form.
8 THE WITNESS: The entered narrative of the fire
9 officer who prepared the report.
10 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: How could I tell from that 11 entered narrative whether firefighters had applied water 12 to the fire?
13 A. So those are separate questions. Whether they 14 applied water or whether they connected to a hydrant? 15 Q. How could I tell whether they connected to a 16 hydrant?
17 A. The word hydrant would be used in the narrative 18 or the amount of water exceeds 500 gallons.
19 Q. How could I tell whether they applied water to 20 the fire?
21 A. It should be in the narrative as actions taken. 22 Q. Is the narrative on the dashboard?
23 A. I believe portions of the narrative are
24 available on the dashboard if you click on the incident. 25 Q. Are there portions of the narrative that are

Page 26 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com

A. Yeah.

Q. And so far in this deposition except when you
told me you were speculating, you've been telling me
what you know rather than what you are speculating
about, right?
A. Yes.

Q. During a working fire, what's the furthest away
a hydrant can be and be useful to make a connection?
A. If you had an unlimited amount of hose and an
unlimited amount of engines and an unlimited amount of
fuel and you wanted to pump water for thousand miles,
you could probably do it.

Q. As a practical matter, how does the fire
department choose which fire hydrant to connect to
during a fire?
PMQ Darius O. Luttropp
December 18, 2024
1 Q. Although I didn't mention it when we were
2 talking about how the format of the deposition, I want 3 answers where you know something. I'm not looking for 4 speculation.
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20 A. The closest operating hydrant is generally the 21 preferred.
22 Q. Who's authorized to use City of San Francisco
23 low-pressure fire hydrants?
24 A. San Francisco Fire Department.
25 Q. And who's authorized to use the EFWS fire

Page 32 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com

PMQ Darius O. Luttropp
December 18, 2024
1 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: Are you familiar with Exhibit 2 7?
3 A. Somewhat, yes.
4 Q. It says that the MWSS is not designed for
5 earthquake and is anticipated to have hundreds of water 6 main breaks and leaks in a major earthquake.
7 Is that what the fire department is
8 anticipating?
9 MS. WILENSKY: Objection to the extent you are
10 quoting a partial sentence of a document.
11 THE WITNESS: And it was not prepared by the fire 12 department, so why would that be a statement from the 13 fire department?
14 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: The fire department may
15 disagree. I'm trying to find out what the fire
16 department's position is?
17 A. So which is the sentence you are referring to 18 again?
19 Q. "The MWSS is not designed for earthquake and is 20 anticipated to have water main breaks and leaks in a 21 major earthquake, such that large portions will use
22 pressure, resulting in dry MWSS hydrants."
23 A. Sure, yeah, yes.
24 Q. So a property owner who has nearby Emergency 25 Fire Water System is better off in terms of earthquake

Page 38 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Darius O. Luttropp
December 18, 2024
1 protection because the Municipal Water Supply hydrants 2 may go dry; is that correct?
3 MS. WILENSKY: Objection to form.
4 THE WITNESS: The redundancy of the system is a
5 value to everyone in The City, yes.
6 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: To everyone who has the
7 advantage of that redundancy, right?
8 MS. WILENSKY: Objection, vague.
9 THE WITNESS: So the redundancy of the system
10 advantages the entire City because the likelihood of 11 extinguishment of a major fire is increased by having 12 redundant systems.
13 Q. BY MR. DRISCOLL: How does a redundancy in the 14 system in the mercantile area benefit somebody in the 15 part of The City that does not have EFWS?
16 MS. WILENSKY: Objection, misstates prior testimony. 17 THE WITNESS: It reduces the risk of a conflagration 18 that would expand to other neighborhoods of The City. 19 MR. DRISCOLL: I have no further questions. Thank 20 you for your time.
21 THE REPORTER: Julie, did you want a copy?
22 MS. WILENSKY: Yes, please.
23 (Whereupon the deposition was
24 concluded at 11:40 a.m.)
25 ---o0o---

Page 39 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com PMQ Darius O. Luttropp
December 18, 2024
1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
2 3
4 I, Michele Leebody, CSR No. 11783, Certified 5 Shorthand Reporter, certify:
6 That the foregoing proceedings were taken
7 before me at the time and place therein set forth, at 8 which time the witness was put under oath by me;
9 That the testimony of the witness, the
10 questions propounded, and all objections and statements 11 made at the time of the examination were recorded
12 stenographically by me and were thereafter transcribed; 13 That the foregoing is a true and correct
14 transcript of my shorthand notes so taken.
15 I further certify that I am not a relative or 16 employee of any attorney of the parties, nor financially 17 interested in the action.
18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the 19 laws of California that the foregoing is true and
20 correct.
21 Dated this 8th day of January, 2025
22 23
24 <%27415,Signature%>
25 MICHELE LEEBODY, C.S.R. NO. 11783

Page 41 ends

Veritext Legal Solutions
[email protected] 818-551-7300 www.veritext.com

EXHIBIT 17
LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 1 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
3 --oOo--
JENNIFER TOY, et al., ) Case No.
4 individually and on behalf ) CPF-22-517764
of all others similarly )
5 situated, )
Plaintiffs, )
6 )
vs. ) Volume I
7 )

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN )
8 FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO )

PUBLIC UTILITIES )
9 COMMISSION, and DOES 1 )
through 10, )
10 Defendants. )
___________________________) Pages 1 - 85
11 12
13 Remote Videotaped Deposition of
14 LARRY BLANK, PhD
15 December 3, 2024
16 17
18 Reported by:
19 CYNTHIA F. DAMMANN, CSR # 10610
20 ------------------------------------------------------ 21 JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES
22 WORLDWIDE DEPOSITION, VIDEOGRAPHY & TRIAL SERVICES 23 701 Battery St., 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 24 (415) 981-3498 or (800) 522-7096
25 [email protected]
LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 25 1 document it is.
2 MR. HOLTZMAN: Counsel, I'm not sure I
3 quite heard you, but I --
4 MR. DRISCOLL: My objection is this is a
510:36:49 spreadsheet. It doesn't appear that the witness 6 could possibly answer whether this is identical with 7 something he's seen.
8 MR. HOLTZMAN: Sure.
9 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
1010:37:00 Q. I guess I'll represent that it is a copy -- 11 a true and correct copy of CCSF_000529 which was
12 produced to plaintiffs.
13 With that in mind, do you recognize this
14 document?
1510:37:21 MR. DRISCOLL: So if I can just
16 summarize -- this is the copy of the financial plan 17 and cost of service rate model Excel spreadsheet
18 that the City produced to the plaintiffs?
19 MR. HOLTZMAN: That's correct. It is a
2010:37:41 correct copy of CCSF_0000529.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, it appears to be what
22 you have described, and I have seen it before, yes. 23 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
24 Q. And this is the, quote, City's Excel
2510:38:03 Workbook that you referenced in your declaration? LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 26 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. And this is the workbook that you modified
3 to generate Exhibits 3 and 4 to your declaration
4 which we looked at as Exhibit 2. Is that right?
510:38:24 A. Yes.
6 Q. So to generate Exhibits 3 and 4 to your
7 declaration, you made two changes to this workbook,
8 right?
9 A. We --
1010:38:47 MR. DRISCOLL: Let me just say --
11 (Court reporter clarification.)
12 MR. DRISCOLL: I said to the witness take
13 all the time you need to answer that question.
14 THE WITNESS: Within the electronic
1510:39:10 workbook, the modified version that I produced, I 16 made two changes which impacted the rates
17 calculations, but I also had some additional inserts 18 on resulting rates that were provided within the
19 electronic version. But in terms of changes that
2010:39:46 impact the rate calculations, yes, there were two 21 changes.
22 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
23 Q. And just to walk through those -- and if
24 it's helpful, I'm happy to pull up the spreadsheet
2510:40:00 onto the screen.

LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 27 1 On the COS sheet, you changed the cell J274 2 to 0?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And then also on the COS sheet you changed
510:40:53 the cell J289 to 0?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Did you make any other changes to the
8 workbook to generate Exhibits 3 and 4 to your
9 declaration?
1010:41:15 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, vague. Do you 11 mean did he make any other changes that impacted
12 Exhibits 3 and 4?
13 MR. HOLTZMAN: Counsel, I don't know if the 14 court reporter could hear you, but I couldn't make
1510:41:30 out your objections.
16 MR. DRISCOLL: Oh. I'm saying were you
17 asking did he -- he's already testified he --
18 (Court reporter clarification.)
19 MR. DRISCOLL: He already testified as to
2010:41:45 some other changes he made. Are you asking for any 21 other changes that impacted Exhibits 3 and 4?
22 MR. HOLTZMAN: No. He testified that he
23 made the two changes, and I'm asking him if he made 24 any other changes. I understand that those changes 2510:42:08 resulted -- sorry. Let's strike the question. I'll LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 28 1 try it again.
2 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
3 Q. Did you make any modifications to the
4 spreadsheet -- to the workbook to generate
510:42:32 Exhibits 3 and 4 to your declaration?
6 A. No.
7 MR. DRISCOLL: Was the question any other
8 modifications, or are you asking him about the two
9 he's already testified? Objection, vague.
1010:42:55 MR. HOLTZMAN: Counsel, I don't think I 11 could make out your objections.
12 MR. DRISCOLL: My objection is it's
13 unclear, vague whether you're asking him whether he 14 made any additional modifications that affect 3 and 1510:43:10 4 or whether you're asking him whether he made the 16 two modifications he's already testified to.
17 MR. HOLTZMAN: Okay. Counsel, I think it
18 might be helpful, consistent with the deposition
19 notice, if you had a separate computer.
2010:43:29 MR. DRISCOLL: I'm fine with this
21 arrangement.
22 MR. HOLTZMAN: Yeah, I think the problem is 23 that I can't hear you and I -- -
24 MR. DRISCOLL: Okay. I'll speak louder -- 2510:43:40 more loudly, and I think we can hear --
LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 29 1 (Court reporter clarification.)
2 MR. DRISCOLL: I think I can take care of
3 the problem simply by talking more loudly.
4 MR. HOLTZMAN: Okay. We can keep trying.
510:44:02 All right. I'm going to mark as Exhibit 4 what 6 we've labeled as tab C.
7 (Whereupon Exhibit 4 was marked for
8 identification.)
9 THE WITNESS: I have it open.
1010:44:54 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
11 Q. Do you recognize this document?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. What is it?
14 A. It is the 20 -- well, the title is
1510:45:48 "San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 2023 16 Water and Wastewater Rate Study Final Report, May
17 15, 2023."
18 Q. Great. And this is the 2023 rate study
19 that's referenced in your declaration, right?
2010:46:14 A. Actually, this is the report on the study, 21 so -- I'm sorry, Counsel. Could you reference where 22 in my declaration, which paragraph?
23 Q. Paragraph 9, "I was also provided with a
24 copy of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
2510:46:37 2023 Water and Wastewater Rate Study Final Report, LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 30 1 May 15, 2023."
2 A. Yes. That -- this would be the same then,
3 yes.
4 Q. You say in Paragraph 8 of your declaration
510:46:53 that you were "asked to identify the costs of public 6 fire service in City's Excel Workbook and impact of
7 those costs on water rates," right?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What is your understanding of "public fire
1010:47:11 service" in that sentence?
11 A. My understanding is public fire service.
12 Q. So would -- does "public fire service," as 13 you used the term, refer to salary costs for
14 firefighters?
1510:47:51 A. No. It would be those costs that have been 16 identified within the cost -- the rate study.
17 Q. Okay. Does it -- does it refer to water
18 treatment plants that are part of the water system? 19 A. I would have to look at the Excel model to 2010:48:30 answer that question.
21 Q. Okay. Does it refer to water mains that
22 are connected to both the hydrants and the -- and to 23 private homes?
24 A. Yes. It includes a portion of that,
2510:48:56 correct.

LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 31 1 Q. In Paragraph 10 of your declaration, you 2 use the term "public fire costs."
3 What is your understanding of "public fire
4 costs" in that sentence?
510:49:36 A. Meaning costs that have identified within 6 the rate study and Excel Workbook and cost model.
7 Q. The Excel Workbook and cost model
8 identified more than just public fire costs, right?
9 A. Yes.
1010:50:19 Q. What is your understanding of which -- of 11 how -- of public fire costs within the Excel
12 Workbook?
13 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, vague.
14 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
1510:50:55 Q. You can answer.
16 A. So it includes all the costs within the
17 model that have been either directly assigned or
18 allocated to the public fire function.
19 Q. Does the 2020 -- does the Public Utilities 2010:51:28 Commission 2023 Water and Wastewater Rate Study 21 Final Report identify a function named "public fire 22 costs"?
23 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, the document
24 speaks for itself. Did you hear that? Objection,
2510:51:44 the document speaks for itself.

LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 32 1 THE WITNESS: I don't recall. I would have 2 to go back through this entire document, but I can
3 say that the cost model -- the Excel Workbook cost
4 model that was provided does separately identify
510:52:14 those.
6 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
7 Q. Under the title "public fire costs"?
8 A. I believe the term "public fire" is used as 9 well as "hydrants" as well as the "AWSS."
1010:53:06 Q. Would you understand the term "public fire 11 costs" to mean the same thing as public fire
12 service, as you've used those two terms?
13 A. Could you point to where I've used the term 14 "public fire service"? Is that Paragraph 10 of my
1510:53:26 declaration?
16 Q. I believe that's Paragraph 8 of your
17 declaration.
18 A. So the costs and the service are two
19 separate terms. The costs associated with the
2010:53:51 service are one in the same.
21 Q. Okay. Great. And what were the steps that 22 you went through in identifying the costs of public 23 fire service?
24 A. I reviewed the cost of service model, the
2510:54:12 Excel Workbook model to identify those costs that LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 33 1 have been separately computed related to public
2 fire.
3 Q. Okay. And turning back to the Excel
4 Workbook -- and again I'm happy to put this up on
510:54:37 the screen if it's helpful -- you determined that 6 the values in cells J274 and J289 reflected costs of 7 public fire service?
8 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, asked and
9 answered.
1010:54:59 THE WITNESS: Yes.
11 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
12 Q. And how did you determine that the values
13 in those two cells reflected costs of public fire
14 service?
1510:55:21 A. Based on my review of the model, that was 16 the understanding that I developed.
17 Q. What -- when you say "based on my review of 18 the model," what steps did you take in reviewing to 19 find those two cells?
2010:55:50 A. Well, I worked through the entire model 21 step by step, which concludes with the COS tab.
22 Q. Okay. Did you communicate or collaborate
23 with anyone in determining that those cells
24 reflected the costs of public fire service?
2510:56:24 A. No.

LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 34 1 Q. Did you discuss how to determine the costs 2 of public fire service with plaintiffs' attorneys?
3 A. No.
4 Q. In the course of your analysis, did you
510:56:53 have or develop an understanding of the term 6 "hydrant/AWSS" in cell J274?
7 A. The understanding I developed was that term 8 "hydrant/AWSS" represents public fire.
9 Q. And how did you develop that understanding? 1010:57:26 A. I believe based on inputs and steps within 11 the cost of service model.
12 Q. What were you -- when -- what were you
13 looking for in those inputs and steps to determine
14 whether they represented public fire service costs? 1510:57:59 A. Which costs fed into those values. 16 Q. In the course of your analysis, did you
17 have or develop an understanding of the term
18 "reallocation of public fire capacity to public
19 fire" in cell J289?
2010:58:55 A. No.
21 Q. Did you develop an understanding in the
22 course of your analysis about the function titled
23 "indirect - general" in the SF PUC's functional
24 utilization of operating and programmatic expenses? 2510:59:22 A. I did not understand the last part of your LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 35 1 question. Maybe you could restate the question.
2 Sorry.
3 Q. Are you aware that one of the functions
4 under "operating and programmatic expenses" is
510:59:49 titled "indirect - general"?
6 A. Yes. That's a function that is listed.
7 Q. Did you develop an understanding in the
8 course of your analysis about that function?
9 A. I took it to mean the common use of that
1011:00:36 term within cost modeling.
11 Q. Great. And what's that common meaning?
12 A. That there are general costs that fall
13 outside of other operating functions.
14 Q. So if I could ask you to turn to Exhibit 4, 1511:01:14 at Page 50 to 51 of the PDF, which I think is 16 Page 38 to 39 in the pagination of the exhibit. I
17 can also pull it up on the screen if that's helpful. 18 A. Is that what is labeled tab C?
19 Q. That is what's labeled tab C, exactly.
2011:01:45 A. I have it open.
21 Q. Great.
22 A. And you said Page 38?
23 Q. 38 to 39, exactly.
24 A. I'm at Page 38.
2511:02:23 Q. Great. So under heading 4.3, this is a LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 36 1 list of water system functions for the water revenue 2 requirement functionalization in the 2023 rate
3 study, right?
4 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, vague.
511:02:56 THE WITNESS: It appears to be as you 6 described.
7 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
8 Q. And one of those functions is titled
9 "Hydrants/Alternative Water Supply System (AWSS)"?
1011:03:08 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, the document 11 speaks for itself.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes. That's one of the
13 functions.
14 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
1511:03:20 Q. And another function is titled "Indirect - 16 General"?
17 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, the document
18 speaks for itself.
19 THE WITNESS: Yes.
2011:03:33 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
21 Q. And this is defined as "relating to general 22 administration and overhead as well as any
23 activities not directly attributable to one of the
24 above functions," right?
2511:03:45 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, the document LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 37 1 speaks for itself.
2 THE WITNESS: Yes. And this is consistent
3 with my earlier answer.
4 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
511:03:56 Q. Is your -- is it your understanding that a 6 portion of these "indirect - general costs" are
7 reallocated to the hydrant/AWSS function as part of
8 the analysis reflected in the rate model?
9 A. Yes. Which is appropriate.
1011:04:17 Q. And does your declaration reflect an 11 opinion that these indirect - general costs that are 12 reallocated to the hydrant/AWSS function would be
13 eliminated entirely if the SF PUC was not
14 responsible for hydrants in San Francisco?
1511:04:33 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, vague.
16 THE WITNESS: Counsel, that was a long
17 question. Can you say it again, please?
18 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
19 Q. Does your declaration reflect an opinion
2011:04:55 that these indirect - general costs that are 21 reallocated to the hydrant/AWSS function would be
22 eliminated entirely if the SF PUC was not
23 responsible for hydrants in San Francisco?
24 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, vague.
2511:05:12 Objection, calls for speculation.

LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 38 1 THE WITNESS: My declaration does not
2 specifically speak to that, but it was part of my
3 analysis.
4 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
511:05:35 Q. Can you say more about what was part of 6 your analysis?
7 A. Yes. One thing I checked for was to be
8 certain that indirect general costs had been
9 allocated to the hydrants/alternative water systems
1011:05:55 supply system.
11 Q. If we could turn to Exhibit 3, the O&M
12 function tab or sheet, row 67. And again I'm happy 13 to pull it up if that's easier.
14 A. I have it open.
1511:06:26 Q. Great. So looking at that row, the title 16 which is in Column E is "Perm Salaries - Misc -
17 Regular," right?
18 A. I'm sorry, Counsel. Which row are you on? 19 Q. Row 67.
2011:07:08 A. I see it. What was your question? 21 Q. The account title which is in Column E is
22 "Perm Salaries - Misc - Regular."
23 A. Yes. That's what it says.
24 Q. Do you have an understanding of what that
2511:07:26 cost is?
LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 39 1 A. Of course we'd have to check with the
2 accountants, but my understanding would be these are 3 miscellaneous salaries related to permanent workers. 4 Q. So it looks like from cell S67 as though
511:08:01 9.7 percent of this cost is assigned to the function 6 hydrants/AWSS, right?
7 A. Yes. Which is appropriate.
8 Q. Sorry. I don't think I could quite hear
9 the first part of your answer there.
1011:08:18 A. I said yes, that's what it says, and as a 11 general administrative cost, it's appropriate that
12 hydrants/AWSS receive such an allocation, as is done 13 in the model.
14 Q. Great. And then W67 reflects that
1511:08:44 39 percent of this cost is assigned to the function 16 "indirect - general," right?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. DRISCOLL: Counsel, it's been an hour. 19 Can we take a brief break?
2011:09:04 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
21 Q. Do you have an opinion about the amount -- 22 MR. DRISCOLL: Counsel, did you hear me? I 23 asked for a break.
24 MR. HOLTZMAN: I still can't hear you,
2511:09:14 Counsel.

LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 40 1 MR. DRISCOLL: I asked for a break. It's 2 been an hour.
3 MR. HOLTZMAN: Okay. I -- why don't we
4 answer -- I guess, no, there wasn't -- I don't think 511:09:26 there was a question pending. Yeah. A break is 6 fine. Ten minutes. Let's come back at 11:20, if
7 that's works for folks.
8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: All right. Off the
9 record. The time is 11:09 a.m.
1011:09:42 (Break, 11:09 a.m. to 11:21 a.m.)
11 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record. The 12 time is 11:21 a.m.
13 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
14 Q. So before the break, we were looking at
1511:21:13 Row 67 in the O&M funct sheet.
16 Are you still with us there, Dr. Blank?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Do you have an opinion about the amount of 19 the costs under this line item for accounts that are 2011:21:34 associated with hydrants and the AWSS?
21 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, vague.
22 THE WITNESS: Which amount? What's the
23 cell reference?
24 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
2511:22:11 Q. The cell -- the test year amount is LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 41 1 $6,471,778 under Column F.
2 Do you see that?
3 A. Yes, I see that number. But what was your
4 question?
511:22:41 Q. Do you have an opinion about the amount of 6 the costs under this line item or account that are
7 associated with hydrants and the AWSS?
8 A. I believe that's a total amount. That's
9 not an amount specific to hydrants and AWSS.
1011:23:10 Q. Okay. Do you have an opinion about the 11 portion of that amount that is attributable to
12 public fire service?
13 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, vague.
14 THE WITNESS: For the portion that we
1511:23:30 discussed earlier, the 9.7 percent seems -- I mean, 16 I don't have a particular opinion. It is what it
17 is.
18 MR. HOLTZMAN:
19 Q. All right. Let's go down to Row 70 in the 2011:24:11 same sheet.
21 Do you see under Column E -- so this is
22 E70 -- dental coverage?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And then do you see in Column F the test
2511:24:41 year amount is $63,030?
LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 42 1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you have an opinion about the amount of
3 that roughly $63,000 that constitutes public fire
4 service costs?
511:25:05 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, vague.
6 THE WITNESS: Yes, I have an opinion on
7 that. Dental coverage is an example of a general
8 support cost for employees, and a portion should be
9 allocated to hydrants as of -- or fire -- public
1011:25:38 fire service.
11 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
12 Q. And do you -- based on your analysis in
13 this case, do you have an opinion on what that --
14 what that amount should be?
1511:25:54 A. No. I don't have an opinion on the exact 16 amount. 9.7 percent is not necessarily
17 unreasonable.
18 Q. Okay. How about we look at Row 85. We'll 19 do something similar.
2011:26:36 So in Column E, you see that the title is 21 "Fuels and Lubricants"?
22 A. Yes, I see that.
23 Q. And the test year amount is $324,162?
24 A. Yes.
2511:26:56 Q. So in the course of your analysis in this LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 43 1 case, do you have an opinion about the amount of
2 that roughly $320,000 that constitute public service 3 costs?
4 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, vague.
511:27:21 THE WITNESS: So the question's referring 6 to the 9.7 percent, fuels and lubricants. It's a
7 little unclear whether these are related to utility
8 trucks or are they related to maybe pumps, water
9 pumps. But again insofar as they support the system 1011:27:57 as a whole, a portion of that should be allocated to 11 hydrants or public fire service.
12 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
13 Q. And you're not sure whether that line item 14 refers to -- I think you said utility trucks?
1511:28:18 A. It's unclear from the descriptor as to 16 precisely where these fuels and lubricants are being 17 used. It's probably not pumping since pumping is a 18 separate function. So it's a little unclear. But
19 if it's -- if it's related to general support for
2011:28:38 the system as a whole, then it is appropriate, as 21 the model has done, to allocate a portion to public 22 fire.
23 Q. Maybe we'll do -- maybe we'll do one more. 24 Go to Row 87.
2511:29:05 Under Column E, do you see where it says LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 44 1 "Other Building" -- sorry, I -- I'm going to expand 2 the contractions, but "Other Building Maintenance
3 Supplies"?
4 A. Yes.
511:29:18 Q. And the test year amount there listed is 6 $389,420?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Do you have an opinion about the amount of
9 those costs that are associated with the public fire 1011:29:39 service?
11 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, vague, ambiguous. 12 THE WITNESS: Again it's appropriate to
13 allocate a portion to public fire.
14 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
1511:29:54 Q. And is 9.7 percent the appropriate portion? 16 A. I don't disagree with it, but I would have 17 to study your analyst's workpapers to render an
18 opinion on the specific 9.7 percent.
19 Q. And you haven't -- you haven't done that
2011:30:33 analysis yet, right? That's something you would 21 have to do. It's not something you've done so far. 22 A. Well, my opinion is it's correct to
23 allocate a portion to public fire. You're asking me 24 now about the 9.7 percent precisely, and I do not
2511:30:58 recall reviewing the 9.7 -- the derivation of the LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 45 1 9.7 percent specifically.
2 Q. And did you review the derivation of any of 3 the accounts from Rows, say, 66 through about 119
4 that are under the department title "CDD Program and 511:31:34 Maintenance"?
6 A. I reviewed it to be certain that a portion
7 was allocated to public fire.
8 Q. Did you review it for any other purpose?
9 A. That's the subject of this case, so that
1011:32:06 was the extent of my review.
11 Q. And did you -- never mind. Strike that.
12 In the course of your analysis, did you
13 have or develop an understanding of whether other
14 public utilities in California, other than the
1511:32:32 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, include 16 or exclude the costs of what you call "public fire
17 service" from the costs recovered through rates?
18 MR. DRISCOLL: This has nothing to do with 19 the witness's declaration or his opinion in this
2011:32:49 case.
21 MR. HOLTZMAN: Counsel, I'm not sure if the 22 court reporter could hear you, but I couldn't make
23 out your objections.
24 MR. DRISCOLL: I object on relevance
2511:33:01 grounds.

LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 46 1 THE WITNESS: I did not review other
2 California water utilities in preparation for this.
3 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
4 Q. Okay. And do you -- do you know whether
511:33:22 other public water utilities in California include 6 or exclude what you call "public fire service" from
7 the costs recovered through rates?
8 A. No.
9 Q. In the course of your analysis, did you
1011:33:42 have or develop an understanding of whether the 11 California legislature has provided guidance on
12 whether water utilities can include costs of what
13 you call public fire service from the costs
14 recovered through rates?
1511:33:55 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, calls for a legal 16 conclusion.
17 THE WITNESS: No.
18 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
19 Q. Do you know whether the California
2011:34:10 legislature has provided guidance on whether water 21 utilities can include the cost of what you call
22 "public fire service" from the costs recovered
23 through rates?
24 A. No.
2511:34:30 Q. I'm going to mark as Exhibit 5 what we've LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 47 1 labeled for identification as tab L.
2 (Whereupon Exhibit 5 was marked for
3 identification.)
4 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
511:34:59 Q. Let me know when you've got it pulled up. 6 MR. DRISCOLL: Okay. We're going to go off 7 the record for a minute.
8 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Counsel, are we going
9 off the record?
1011:35:10 MR. DRISCOLL: We are.
11 MR. HOLTZMAN: Sure. Let's go off the
12 record.
13 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: All right. Off the
14 record. The time is 11:35 a.m.
1511:35:16 (Break, 11:35 a.m. to 11:36 a.m.)
16 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on. The time is
17 11:36 a.m.
18 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
19 Q. So after I sent over tab L, marked as
2011:36:57 Exhibit 5, Dr. Blank, did we go off the record? 21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And did you mute your computer during the
23 off-the-record?
24 A. It was muted.
2511:37:16 Q. And did you -- did you turn off your video? LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 54 1 mean, based on the words that I'm reading here, I do 2 not agree with it because fire service -- hydrants
3 are -- you know, play into fire service, and fire
4 service is a -- typically a stand-alone service and
511:46:55 as are hydrants. Based on my experience, water 6 utilities have separate charges for hydrants.
7 Q. And are you thinking of any particular
8 jurisdiction when you say that, that they typically
9 have separate charges?
1011:47:18 A. Well, I'm just thinking back to water cases 11 I've worked on in which there were separate charges 12 for hydrants.
13 Q. And who was charged for the hydrants in -- 14 well, I guess, strike that.
1511:47:35 Where -- where geographically were these 16 cases that you've worked on that you're thinking
17 of?
18 A. I can recall in New Mexico. In New Mexico, 19 the water utilities that I've looked at have
2011:48:03 separate charges for hydrants.
21 Q. And in those cases, who pays the separate
22 charges for the hydrants?
23 A. It was either the municipality or a
24 subdivision of the municipality, such as the fire
2511:48:32 department. I don't recall which, but it was the LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 55 1 municipality.
2 Q. And these were not examples within
3 California, right?
4 A. No.
511:48:42 Q. Okay. Okay. I'm going to mark for -- as 6 Exhibit 6 the document that we've labeled for
7 identification as tab F.
8 (Whereupon Exhibit 6 was marked for
9 identification.)
1011:49:35 THE WITNESS: I have it open.
11 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
12 Q. And you can take the time that you need to 13 review, but I'm going to -- I'll represent to you
14 that this is a complaint in a lawsuit filed by
1511:49:45 plaintiffs represented by Mr. Driscoll, and I'll -- 16 I'll draw your attention particularly to the list of 17 the defendants in the lawsuit on Pages 4 and 5 and
18 then to the statements in Paragraph 177 on Page 18. 19 Let me know when you've visited those places as
2011:50:18 least.
21 A. What was the other page?
22 Q. Paragraph 177, which is on Page 18.
23 A. Okay. I'm at Paragraph 177.
24 Q. Great. So having reviewed those sections, 2511:50:56 does that indicate to you that many water providers LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 56 1 in California include the costs of hydrants and
2 associated infrastructure and flows in their water
3 rates?
4 A. It doesn't say that. Paragraph 177 does
511:51:18 not say that.
6 Q. Okay. Having reviewed those sections, does 7 this indicate to you that many water providers in
8 California include the costs of public fire hydrant
9 service in their water rates?
1011:51:49 A. So it sounds like you're referring to the 11 list of plaintiff -- I mean, I'm sorry, defendants? 12 Q. Yes.
13 A. If that paragraph applies to all these
14 defendants, then perhaps that is the case that
1511:52:15 they -- perhaps that's the case.
16 Q. But you did not review this complaint in
17 the course of preparing your declaration in this
18 case?
19 A. No.
2011:52:32 Q. And you did not consult resources on 21 whether other California jurisdictions include
22 public fire service costs in water rates, right?
23 A. No.
24 Q. I'm going to mark as Exhibit 7 a document
2511:53:04 that we have labeled for identification as tab M.

LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 57 1 Unfortunately, it is a somewhat sizable document, 2 but let me know when you've received it.
3 (Whereupon Exhibit 7 was marked for
4 identification.)
511:53:48 THE WITNESS: I have it open.
6 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
7 Q. Great. This is, just for identification, a 8 document that plaintiffs produced as labeled
9 PLF 1015 through PLF 1455.
1011:54:07 Do you recognize this document,
11 Dr. Blank?
12 A. Yes. I recognize this document, not from
13 this case.
14 Q. So this is the American Water Works
1511:54:20 Association Manual of Water Supply Practices M1 16 Manual, titled "Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and 17 Charges, Seventh Edition," right?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And this is an authoritative manual in the 2011:54:38 area of water rate setting?
21 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, vague. Do you
22 mean it's often used? Do you mean it's created
23 by --
24 (Court reporter clarification.)
2511:54:59 MR. DRISCOLL: Do you mean it's often used? LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 80 1 public for hydrants only if the hydrants are used to 2 put out a fire on that individual's property, right? 3 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, compound. Would
4 you please restate the question? If the court
512:48:36 reporter could read back the question.
6 MR. HOLTZMAN: Sure.
7 (Court reporter clarification.)
8 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
9 Q. It's not consistent with broadly accepted
1012:48:50 rate setting principal to charge members of the 11 public for hydrants only if the hydrants are used to 12 put out a fire on that individual's property,
13 correct?
14 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, vague and
1512:49:06 ambiguous.
16 THE WITNESS: Again, based on my
17 experience, fire service hydrants are a separate
18 service charge to the municipality or maybe to the
19 fire department. So there's a premise in your
2012:49:24 question that --
21 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
22 Q. Sure.
23 A. Yeah.
24 Q. So to the extent that the public is charged 2512:49:35 for the use of hydrants -- for the -- for -- strike LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 81 1 that.
2 To the extent that the water rates include
3 the cost of hydrants, it is not consistent with
4 broadly accepted rate setting principles to charge
512:49:57 those members of the public for hydrants only if the 6 hydrants are used to put out a fire on that
7 individual's property, right?
8 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, vague as to what
9 principles --
1012:50:13 THE WITNESS: I'm not aware of rates for 11 fire protection based on where fires occur.
12 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
13 Q. And so you haven't advised any jurisdiction 14 to implement rates in that way, right?
1512:50:35 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, vague.
16 THE WITNESS: No. The premise in the
17 question is -- no.
18 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
19 Q. That would be surprising if we delivered a 2012:50:49 bill for hydrants to someone after they had a fire 21 on their property for the per usage basis cost of
22 the hydrant, right?
23 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, vague.
24 THE WITNESS: I have not made such a
2512:51:04 recommendation. I've never made such a
LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 82 1 recommendation. Quite frankly, it's such an extreme 2 hypothetical I don't understand the relevance.
3 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
4 Q. So you don't know of any jurisdiction in
512:51:15 which hydrants are funded that way, right?
6 A. No.
7 Q. Are differences in proximity of ratepayers
8 to particular hydrants within the city a basis you
9 would recommend for including or not including the
1012:51:28 costs associated with those specific hydrants and 11 rates?
12 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection, vague. Are you
13 talking about San Francisco?
14 THE WITNESS: Are you speaking about a city 1512:51:50 in general or San Francisco?
16 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
17 Q. I guess a city in general.
18 A. So, okay, if we accept your premise that
19 the cost recovery related to hydrants is subsidized 2012:52:10 or embedded in the water rates, then -- if that were 21 the case, then I think it would be reasonable to
22 explore alternative rates for those customers who
23 maybe are not served. They may be in a portion of
24 the water distribution system that does not have
2512:52:35 hydrants, for example. It would be inappropriate LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 83 1 that they would be contributing for the cost of
2 those hydrants.
3 Q. Do you know any jurisdiction in which rates 4 are differentiated in that way?
512:52:54 A. I believe I -- yes. I'm trying to recall 6 whether it was Delaware or Connecticut. I'd have to 7 go and check, Counsel, in which the water utility
8 actually knows which customers are in the portion of 9 their system that has hydrants and which customers
1012:53:22 are outside of that. So I've seen that one time. 11 Q. All right. I think we're almost done, but 12 I would like to take a 5-minute break to consult my 13 notes and then maybe we can come back and have a
14 last on-the-record time.
1512:53:51 MR. DRISCOLL: Okay, thank you.
16 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
17 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: All right. Off the
18 record. The time is 12:53 p.m.
19 (Break, 12:53 p.m. to 1:00 p.m.)
2013:00:10 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on. The time is 21 1:00 p.m.
22 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
23 Q. Dr. Blank, I appreciate you taking the time 24 to talk with me today, and I don't have any further 2513:00:28 questions at this time.

LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 84 1 THE WITNESS: Thank you, sir.
2 COURT REPORTER: Before we go off the
3 record, Mr. Driscoll, would you like a copy of the
4 transcript?
513:00:38 MR. DRISCOLL: Yes, I would.
6 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: All right. This marks
7 the end of today's deposition of Larry Blank. All
8 media used to be stored with Jan Brown & Associates. 9 Officially off the record at 1:00 p.m.
10 11 (Whereupon the deposition concluded
12 at 1:00 p.m.)
13 14 --oOo--
15 16 I have read my deposition transcript, made 17 those changes and corrections that I deem necessary, 18 and approved the same as true and accurate.
19 20 Dated the_____day of_________________, 2024 21 22 _______________________________ LARRY BLANK, PhD
23 24
25 LARRY BLANK, PhD - December 3, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 85 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS
2 3 I do hereby certify that the statement was 4 taken at the time and place therein stated; that the 5 statements were reported by me, a certified
6 shorthand reporter and a disinterested person, and
7 was under my supervision thereafter transcribed into 8 typewriting.
9 And I further certify that I am not of
10 counsel or attorney for either or nay of the parties 11 to said statement nor in any way interested in the 12 outcome of the case named in said caption.
13 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 14 hand and affixed my seal of office this 16th day of 15 December, 2024.
16 17
18 19 ____________________________ CYNTHIA F. DAMMANN
20 Certified Shorthand Reporter
21 22
23 24
25 EXHIBIT 18
SWETHA RAMESH - December 20, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 1 1 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2 SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY
3 ---oOo---
4 5 JENNIFER TOY, et al., ) Case No.
individually and on behalf of ) CPF-22-517764
6 all others similarly situated, )
)
7 Plaintiffs and Petitioners, )
)
8 vs. )
) Volume I
9 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN )

FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO )
10 PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION, )
and DOES 1 through 10, )
11 )
Defendants and Respondents. )
12 ________________________________) Pages 1 - 42
13 14 VIDEOTAPED REMOTE DEPOSITION OF
15 SWETHA RAMESH
16 December 20, 2024
17 18 Reported by:
19 ELIZABETH O'KANE, CSR #5678
20 ------------------------------------------------------ 21 JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES
22 WORLDWIDE DEPOSITION, VIDEOGRAPHY & TRIAL SERVICES 23 701 Battery St., 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 24 (415) 981-3498 or (800) 522-7096
25 [email protected]
SWETHA RAMESH - December 20, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 14 110:19:49 A. Yes. So I used the fire_incidents.csv file and 210:19:55 I took the different values in the different "Action 310:20:00 Taken" columns, and I cleaned them up a bit because some 410:20:03 of the names were inconsistent. So I created this file 510:20:07 by hand.
610:20:12 Q. Okay. And could you describe how you created 710:20:16 the file -- the .CSV file actions -- sorry. The .CSV 810:20:25 file property_use_names?
910:20:29 A. Similarly for the action --
1010:20:30 actions_taken_names.csv file, I also created this by hand 1110:20:39 by using the different values in the "Property Use" 1210:20:41 column and cleaned them up a bit.
1310:20:43 Q. Okay. And you -- did you create that file by 1410:20:47 hand as well?
1510:20:48 A. Yes.
1610:20:50 Q. Did you write a Python script to do that 1710:20:53 cleanup? Or was it more of a manual process? 1810:20:58 A. This was more of a manual process. 1910:21:01 Q. Okay. And other than the Python code and the 2010:21:05 five .CSV files that we just discussed, did you create 2110:21:09 any documents in the course of preparing your declaration 2210:21:12 in this case?
2310:21:13 A. No.
2410:21:16 Q. Okay. Is the .CSV file titled
2510:21:23 "fire_incidents.csv" that you provided to counsel for SWETHA RAMESH - December 20, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 15 110:21:28 Plaintiffs the same file that they provided to you? 210:21:31 A. Yes.
310:21:32 Q. And did you make any changes to that file? 410:21:35 A. No.
510:21:36 Q. Okay. What did you do to prepare for your 610:21:40 deposition today?
710:21:43 A. I looked over the files that I sent to the 810:21:46 counsel, and I also looked over another file of data 910:21:53 and -- yeah. I just looked over what I created. 1010:22:02 Q. When you said looked over another file with 1110:22:05 data, what file is that?
1210:22:08 A. It is a file of data very similar to the 1310:22:12 fire_incidence.csv file. The file is titled 1410:22:16 "CCSF_000820.csv."
1510:22:24 Q. Okay. Cool.
1610:22:27 Did you meet with counsel to prepare for your 1710:22:30 deposition?
1810:22:30 A. Yes.
1910:22:32 Q. How many times did you meet?
2010:22:34 A. Once.
2110:22:37 Q. And who was present for that meeting? 2210:22:42 A. Don here, as well as Adryane Driscoll. 2310:22:47 Q. Anyone else?
2410:22:47 A. No.
2510:22:49 Q. When did that meeting happen?
SWETHA RAMESH - December 20, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 16 110:22:51 A. Today.
210:22:53 Q. Okay. And how long did it last, approximately? 310:22:58 A. About 15 to 20 minutes.
410:23:00 Q. Okay. Did you take any notes during the 510:23:03 meeting?
610:23:04 A. No.
710:23:06 Q. Okay. Were you shown any documents in 810:23:09 preparation for your deposition?
910:23:10 A. No.
1010:23:14 Q. Including the dot -- the -- you had mentioned 1110:23:20 the CCSF_000820?
1210:23:25 A. Yes. I did look at that.
1310:23:27 Q. Okay.
1410:23:27 A. That was not today. That was before today. 1510:23:30 Q. Okay. All right. Have you talked with anyone 1610:23:38 else other than counsel about your deposition? 1710:23:42 A. No.
1810:23:46 Q. And have you done anything else to prepare for 1910:23:49 your deposition today?
2010:23:50 A. No.
2110:23:51 Q. Okay. Since signing your declaration, are there 2210:23:55 any ways that you have found in which you would like to 2310:24:01 update or correct or change your -- about your 2410:24:04 declaration or analysis?
2510:24:05 A. No.

SWETHA RAMESH - December 20, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 26 110:37:59 variations on the word "extinguish"?
210:38:01 A. Yes.
310:38:01 Q. Okay. Do you recall whether the -- either of 410:38:06 the documents that you were given had a column titled 510:38:11 "Prime Sit," or "Primary Situation"?
610:38:17 A. No. I don't recall these files having that 710:38:23 column.
810:38:24 Q. Okay. If you look back at Exhibit 1 of your 910:38:31 declaration, which is Exhibit 2 in this deposition, is 1010:38:38 that a list of the columns or fields in the 1110:38:48 fire_incidence file?
1210:38:50 A. Yes.
1310:38:53 Q. Does the fact that the column title "Primary 1410:39:01 Situation" is in that list suggest that the document 1510:39:07 fire_incidence had a column with that title? 1610:39:13 A. I don't see it listed here.
1710:39:22 MR. DRISCOLL: Line 22.
1810:39:24 THE WITNESS: Ah. I see.
1910:39:32 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
2010:39:33 Q. Does that -- does that perhaps refresh your 2110:39:35 recollection that fire_incidence had a column labeled 2210:39:40 "Primary Situation"?
2310:39:43 A. Yes.
2410:39:48 Q. Is it possible to analyze the contents of the 2510:39:51 "Primary Situation" field to determine the number of each SWETHA RAMESH - December 20, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 27 110:39:55 type of entry?
210:39:56 A. Yes.
310:39:57 Q. Okay. Do you remember if the fire_incidence 410:40:03 file had a column titled "Address"?
510:40:08 A. I don't -- oh, yes. It does.
610:40:13 Q. Did you consider the contents of the "Primary 710:40:16 Situation" field in your declaration?
810:40:20 A. No.
910:40:21 Q. And how about the contents of the "Address" 1010:40:24 field?
1110:40:24 A. No.
1210:40:31 Q. So in paragraph 10 of your declaration, which is 1310:40:38 this same document but up a bit, you state that of the 1410:40:42 679,856 records that you analyzed, 47,592 records 1510:40:54 included the word "extinguish" or "extinguishment" in one 1610:40:57 of the three "Action Taken" fields, right?
1710:41:00 A. Yes.
1810:41:03 Q. Did you -- in this declaration did you express 1910:41:06 an opinion about the number of fires extinguished by the 2010:41:09 San Francisco Fire Department from January 1, 2023 to 2110:41:15 October 8, 2024?
2210:41:17 A. No.
2310:41:21 Q. So in paragraph 11 of your declaration, you 2410:41:27 state that of the 47,581 records that included the word 2510:41:43 "extinguish" or "extinguishment" in one of the three SWETHA RAMESH - December 20, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 28 110:41:46 "Action Taken" fields and have an entry in the "Property 210:41:49 Use" field, 9,901 have one of eight listed property uses, 310:41:57 right?
410:41:58 A. Yes.
510:42:00 Q. Did you reach an opinion in your declaration 610:42:05 about the number of fires extinguished by the San 710:42:08 Francisco Fire Department involving residential property 810:42:11 between January 1, 2003 and October 8, 2024? 910:42:17 A. No.
1010:42:18 Q. Did you reach an opinion about the total number 1110:42:22 of fires extinguished by the San Francisco Fire 1210:42:24 Department from January 1, 2003 to October 8, 2024? 1310:42:32 A. No.
1410:42:34 Q. Okay. Did you analyze whether fires were 1510:42:42 extinguished on or near property owned or occupied by 1610:42:47 residential water ratepayers of the San Francisco Public 1710:42:51 Utilities Commission?
1810:42:52 A. Sorry. Could you repeat that question? 1910:42:54 Q. Sure. I'm sorry. Did you analyze whether fires 2010:42:57 were extinguished on or near property owned or occupied 2110:43:00 by residential water ratepayers of the San Francisco 2210:43:04 Public Utilities Commission?
2310:43:08 A. I don't know.
2410:43:11 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection. Vague.
25 /// /// ///
SWETHA RAMESH - December 20, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 29 110:43:12 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
210:43:12 Q. All right. You wrote at the end of paragraph 8 310:43:17 of your declaration: "It is not determinable from any 410:43:21 field whether a fire occurred at a property with water 510:43:25 service or whether a fire was extinguished with hydrant 610:43:29 water," right?
710:43:32 A. Yes.
810:43:33 Q. Looking at paragraph 14 of your declaration, 910:43:37 which is near the end, you also said: "I also analyzed 1010:43:43 9,901 records described in paragraph 11. Of those 1110:43:48 records, 438 have a date in the 'Incident Date' field 1210:43:53 from July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2024."
1310:43:59 I think -- is the correct date July 1, 2023? 1410:44:04 A. Yeah.
1510:44:05 Q. That first date? Okay. And that's the date you 1610:44:07 meant to include, right?
1710:44:08 A. Yes.
1810:44:09 Q. Great. All right.
1910:44:18 Turning to "extinguishment," one of the analyses you 2010:44:27 described conducting is to count the total number of 2110:44:31 incidents and the total number of incidents in -- where 2210:44:34 one of the fields -- one of the "Action Taken" fields 2310:44:38 includes the words "extinguish" or "extinguishment," 2410:44:40 right?
2510:44:41 A. Yes.

SWETHA RAMESH - December 20, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 30 110:44:42 Q. And then in paragraph 6, you found that there 210:44:45 were 679,856 total records?
310:44:51 A. Yes.
410:44:53 Q. All right. And of those, 47,592 include the 510:44:58 word "extinguish" or "extinguishment" in one of the three 610:45:00 "Action Taken" fields?
710:45:02 A. Yes.
810:45:04 Q. Why did you decide to look at the "Action Taken" 910:45:07 fields for this analysis?
1010:45:09 A. I was told to look at it by the counsel. 1110:45:14 Q. Did you offer an opinion in your declaration 1210:45:16 about the difference between incidents where one of the 1310:45:20 "Action Taken" fields included the word "extinguish" or 1410:45:25 "extinguishment" and other incidents where that was not 1510:45:29 the case?
1610:45:29 A. No.
1710:45:30 Q. You mentioned communicating with Plaintiffs' 1810:45:33 counsel about using the words "extinguish" or 1910:45:37 "extinguishment" in one of the "Action Taken" fields, 2010:45:41 right?
2110:45:42 A. Yes.
2210:45:42 Q. Could you describe that communication or 2310:45:45 collaboration?
2410:45:47 A. Yes. Don here asked me how many records in the 2510:45:52 file contain the word "extinguish" or "extinguishment." SWETHA RAMESH - December 20, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 31 110:45:55 And I calculated that using my Python script and reported 210:45:59 the numbers to him.
310:46:01 Q. Great. And how -- do you have a sense of how or 410:46:06 why the words "extinguish" or "extinguishment" were 510:46:10 chosen?
610:46:10 A. No.
710:46:13 Q. Do you have a sense of what counting the number 810:46:15 of incidents involving the words "extinguish" or 910:46:19 "extinguishment" means with respect to an incident? 1010:46:23 A. Sorry. Could you repeat that?
1110:46:25 Q. Yeah. Do you have a sense of how incidents that 1210:46:30 include the words "extinguish" or "extinguishment" and 1310:46:33 ones that don't differ?
1410:46:35 A. No.
1510:46:39 Q. All right. If an incident did not involve an 1610:46:45 action taken with the words "extinguish" or 1710:46:47 "extinguishment," could it still have involved the San 1810:46:50 Francisco Fire Department putting out a fire? 1910:46:54 A. I don't know.
2010:46:56 Q. Okay. Does the fact that the words "extinguish" 2110:47:01 and "extinguishment" do not appear in one of the "Action 2210:47:04 Taken" fields mean that there was not a fire associated 2310:47:08 with that incident?
2410:47:11 A. I don't know.
2510:47:13 Q. Do you think the "Narrative" field in the CCSF SWETHA RAMESH - December 20, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 32 110:47:17 file might illuminate whether the fire department 210:47:22 extinguished a fire associated with an incident? 310:47:24 A. I don't know.
410:47:27 Q. Okay. I'm going to mark as Exhibit 3 a file I'm 510:47:40 going to send over at this point. It's an Excel file. 610:47:49 (File named "CCSF_000820 (excerpt)" marked 710:47:49 Exhibit 3 for identification.)
810:48:03 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
910:48:03 Q. I'm going to represent to you that this exhibit 1010:48:05 is an excerpt from the spreadsheet produced by the City 1110:48:09 to Plaintiff as CCSF_000820. It has the header row and 1210:48:15 ten other rows.
1310:48:18 If you prefer, we can work with the original document 1410:48:21 produced by the City, and it sounds like you have it. 1510:48:24 But because that is -- has a large file size, this one 1610:48:28 was easier to transfer on Zoom and to navigate in our 1710:48:33 discussion.
1810:48:34 Is it all right with you if we work with this 1910:48:38 excerpt?
2010:48:39 A. Yes.
2110:48:40 Q. So looking at column AB, which is a little ways 2210:48:44 over, the primary situation in row 2 is "100 Fire, 2310:48:57 Other"?
2410:49:00 A. Yes.
2510:49:02 Q. And then if we move over to column BL -- and I SWETHA RAMESH - December 20, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 33 110:49:09 apologize. There are many columns in this spreadsheet -- 210:49:13 the narrative is "Milici, comma, Robert P., November 3, 310:49:22 2018, 1:23 p.m. Small fire involving ordinary 410:49:27 combustibles. No structure damage. Possible numerous 510:49:31 fire code violations. DBI and EFP notified. Red Cross 610:49:36 responded and 35 residents were displaced from 710:49:41 preexisting living conditions. SFPD number 180-816-888," 810:49:47 right?
910:49:48 A. Yes.
1010:49:49 Q. So it seems from this narrative like there was a 1110:49:51 fire?
1210:49:54 MR. DRISCOLL: Objection. Calls for speculation. 1310:49:59 THE WITNESS: Yes.
1410:49:59 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
1510:50:03 Q. But looking at columns AD, AE and AF, the 1610:50:13 "Action Taken" fields do not include the words 1710:50:16 "extinguish" or "extinguishment," right?
1810:50:19 A. Yes.
1910:50:23 Q. The one "Action Taken" entry is "86 2010:50:29 Investigate"?
2110:50:30 A. Yes.
2210:50:31 Q. So this would not be an incident that was 2310:50:33 included in your analysis, right?
2410:50:36 A. Yes.
2510:50:37 Q. And that's because it doesn't include the word SWETHA RAMESH - December 20, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 34 110:50:40 "extinguish" or "extinguishment" in one of the "Action 210:50:43 Taken" fields?
310:50:44 A. Yes.
410:50:47 Q. Okay. We can set aside this spreadsheet for a 510:50:57 second. I think we're going to probably come back to it 610:51:00 in a bit.
710:51:01 But another analysis you described conducting is to 810:51:05 count of the 47,581 records that include the word 910:51:10 "extinguish" or "extinguishment," and an entry in the 1010:51:13 "Property Use" field how many had one of the following 1110:51:18 property uses: Day care, in residence, licensed; 1210:51:23 residential, other; one or two-family dwelling; 1310:51:26 multifamily dwellings; boarding/rooming house; 1410:51:31 residential hotels; residential board and care, dormitory 1510:51:35 type residence, other; or parking garage, detached 1610:51:40 residential garage," right? That's paragraph 11? 1710:51:45 A. Yes.
1810:51:46 Q. And you found there were 9,901 of those records? 1910:51:50 A. Yes.
2010:51:51 Q. How did you choose those values to look for in 2110:51:53 the "Property Use" field?
2210:51:55 A. The counsel told me to look for those specific 2310:51:58 values.
2410:52:01 Q. And do you have a sense of why those values were 2510:52:04 chosen?
SWETHA RAMESH - December 20, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 35 110:52:04 A. No.
210:52:08 Q. And you don't -- do you offer an opinion in your 310:52:11 declaration about the difference between records with one 410:52:15 of those property uses and other property uses? 510:52:19 A. No.
610:52:24 Q. Do you have a sense of what those property 710:52:26 use -- how those property uses, what they -- strike that. 810:52:30 I'm sorry.
910:52:31 Do you have a sense of what these "Property Use" 1010:52:34 categories mean with respect to an incident versus other 1110:52:37 "Property Use" categories?
1210:52:38 A. No.
1310:52:44 Q. So is there a reason, for example, another -- 1410:52:47 strike that. I'm sorry.
1510:52:51 Is another of the "Property Use" categories 256, "Day 1610:52:56 care, in residence, unlicensed"?
1710:53:00 A. I don't know.
1810:53:10 Q. If you look at Exhibit 3 of your declaration, do 1910:53:28 you -- never mind. Strike that.
2010:53:43 Is there a reason you did not include 962, 2110:53:45 "Residential street, road or residential driveway"? 2210:53:52 A. I don't know.
2310:54:03 Q. Do we know based on the "Property Use" entry 2410:54:07 whether the people living at a particular address are 2510:54:11 residential ratepayers of the SFPUC?
SWETHA RAMESH - December 20, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 36 110:54:16 A. I don't know.
210:54:17 Q. All right. Let's -- let's go back to -- if it's 310:54:30 all right with you, back to the Exhibit 3, the 410:54:34 spreadsheet. If we look at -- I guess it's row 3. It's 510:54:41 the next one down. The incident number in column A is 610:54:46 18134031. Are you at that row?
710:55:00 A. Yes.
810:55:01 Q. Great. If you scroll over to column AB, is the 910:55:10 primary situation "111, Building Fire"?
1010:55:14 A. Yes.
1110:55:17 Q. And in column BL, is the narrative -- I'll give 1210:55:24 you a second to get over to BL.
1310:55:32 The narrative, "Crane, comma, Charles, Nov 15, 2018, 1410:55:39 10:53 p.m. Initial call was for FIB. E32 was on the 1510:55:47 scene. They encountered and extinguished fire on the 1610:55:52 main floor of the house. Plumbers had started a small 1710:55:59 fire in the bathroom while sweating pipe."
1810:56:02 A. Yes.
1910:56:03 Q. So it seems like there was a fire associated 2010:56:05 with this incident?
2110:56:06 A. Yes.
2210:56:06 Q. And it seems like the San Francisco Fire 2310:56:08 Department worked to extinguish that fire based on the 2410:56:12 narrative?
2510:56:16 A. No. Sorry. I don't know.

SWETHA RAMESH - December 20, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 37 110:56:31 Q. Okay. Does the part of it that says E32, quote, 210:56:34 "encountered and extinguished fire on the main floor of 310:56:38 the house," suggest that the fire department worked to 410:56:43 extinguish the fire?
510:56:44 MR. DRISCOLL: I object that you've misread that. 610:57:00 THE WITNESS: I don't know.
710:57:02 BY MR. HOLTZMAN:
810:57:09 Q. Okay. If we go to columns AD, AE and AF, 910:57:31 there's no "extinguish" or "extinguishment" in one of the 1010:57:34 "Action Taken" fields, right?
1110:57:36 A. Yes.
1210:57:39 Q. So this would not be an incident included in 1310:57:43 your initial analysis of the number of incidents that 1410:57:46 included the words "extinguish" or "extinguishment" in 1510:57:49 one of the "Action Taken" fields, right?
1610:57:51 A. Yes.
1710:58:12 Q. All right. Let's skip a bit, maybe, and go -- 1810:58:14 if you go back to the incident numbers. If we go to 1910:58:23 incident 20051515, which I think is row 9 in the 2010:58:30 spreadsheet.
2110:58:33 A. Yes.
2210:58:38 Q. So let's just go, if you could, straight over to 2310:58:42 column BL, which is the "Narrative" column. I'm not -- 2410:58:50 this is a long narrative and I'm not going to read it 2510:58:54 all.

SWETHA RAMESH - December 20, 2024
JAN BROWN & ASSOCIATES | [email protected] 42 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2 3 I, ELIZABETH O'KANE, CSR, License No. C-5678, 4 State of California, do hereby certify:
5 6 That the witness in the foregoing deposition was 7 by me first duly sworn to testify the truth, the whole 8 truth and nothing but the truth in the within-entitled 9 cause;
10 11 That said deposition was reported at the time 12 and place therein stated by me, a Certified Shorthand 13 Reporter, and thereafter transcribed into typewriting; 14 15 I further certify that I am not interested in 16 the outcome of said action, nor connected with, nor 17 related to, any of the parties of said action or to their 18 respective counsel.
19 20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my 21 hand this 23rd day of December, 2024.
22 23 ____________________________________________ 24 ELIZABETH O'KANE, CSR, License No. C-5678, 25 State of California.

City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

JENNIFER TOY, ROSE AQUILINA, MARK
ROH, and TED LOEWENBERG individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs and Petitioners,

vs.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION, and DOES 1 – 10,

Defendants and Respondents.

Lead Case No. CPF-22-517764
(Consolidated with Case No. CPF-23-518342)

DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT CITY
AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO’S
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN

AQUILINA

Hearing Date: February 13, 2025
Hearing Judge: Judge Andrew Y.S. Cheng
Time: 9:30 a.m.

Place: Dept. 613

Date Action Filed: May 17, 2022
Trial Date: December 1, 2025

ELECTRONICALLY

F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
01/13/2025
Clerk of the Court
BY: YOLANDA TABO
Deputy Clerk

2 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................................................................................3 OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ......................................................7 I. Introduction ..............................................................................................................7 II. Constitutional and Statutory Background ................................................................8 III. Factual and Procedural Background ........................................................................9 IV. Legal Standard .......................................................................................................11 V. Argument ...............................................................................................................11 A. Plaintiffs’ Failure to Follow Reverse Validation Procedures Bars Their Claims. .......................................................................................................11 B. Plaintiffs’ Claims Challenging the Inclusion of Hydrant Costs in Water Rates Misinterpret Proposition 218. ..........................................................12

1. Under the Government Code, Water Services Include Hydrants, Cisterns, and Associated Infrastructure and Water Flows. ............13

2. Given Government Code Section 53750.5, Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Their Claims. ..........................18

3. Plaintiffs’ Arguments About the Scope of Government Code Section 53750.5 and the City’s Legislative Advocacy Fail. ..........19

4. Plaintiffs’ Arguments About Individual Provisions of Section 6, Subdivision (b) As Specifically Applied to Hydrant Costs Similarly All Fail. ..........................................................................20

C. If Any Change to Rates Is Required by Proposition 218, There Are Factual Disputes About the Amount of the Change and Any Damages. ...24

VI. Conclusion .............................................................................................................26

3 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
(2001) 25 Cal.4th 826 ................................................................................................................11 Barratt American, Inc. v. City of San Diego
(2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 809 ......................................................................................................14 Beutz v. County of Riverside
(2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1516 ....................................................................................................15 Bidart Bros. v. Elmo Farming Co.
(1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 248 .........................................................................................................14 Building Industry Assn. v. Marin Mun. Water Dist.
(1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1641 .....................................................................................................17 Campana v. East Bay Municipal Utility Dist.
(2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 494 ........................................................................................................12 Capistrano Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. City of San Juan Capistrano (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1493 .................................................................................16, 18, 22, 24 Crawley v. Alameda County Waste Management Authority
(2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 396 ......................................................................................................13 Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil
(2006) 39 Cal.4th 205 ................................................................................................................22 Carlson v. Cory
(1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 724 .......................................................................................................15 Citizens for Fair REU Rates v. City of Redding
(2018) 6 Cal.5th 1 ......................................................................................................................22 City and County of San Francisco v. County of San Mateo (1995) 10 Cal.4th 554 ................................................................................................................15 City of Azusa v. Cohen
(2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 619 ......................................................................................................14 City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation Dist. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1191 ................................................................................................................21 County of Sonoma v. Com. on State Mandates
(2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1264 ......................................................................................................14

4 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Davis v. City of Berkeley
(1990) 51 Cal.3d 227 .................................................................................................................14 Dept. of Finance v. Com. on State Mandates
(2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 535 ........................................................................................................15 Dept. of Industrial Relations v. UI Video Stores, Inc.
(1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1084 ......................................................................................................25 Greene v. Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation Dist. (2010) 49 Cal.4th 277 ..............................................................................................14, 15, 16, 20 Glendale Coalition for Better Government, Inc. v. City of Glendale (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 27, 2018, No. B282410) 2018 WL 6804360 ......................................16, 17 Golden Gate Hill Development Co., Inc. v. County of Alameda (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 760 ......................................................................................................12 Hershey v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108
(1927) 200 Cal. 550 ..................................................................................................................14 Hindin v. Rust
(2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1247 ....................................................................................................12 Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Assn. v. City of Salinas
(2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1351 ......................................................................................................15 Jones-Hamilton Co. v. Franchise Tax Bd.
(1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 343 .......................................................................................................14 Kessner v. City of Santa Clara
Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 20CV364054 .................................................................20 Larson v. Duca
(1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 324 .......................................................................................................15 Methodist Hospital of Sacramento v. Saylor
(1971) 5 Cal.3d 685 .............................................................................................................14, 17 Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego
(1980) 26 Cal.3d 848, 885 .........................................................................................................14 Moore v. City of Lemon Grove
(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 363 ......................................................................................................19 Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v. McGrath
(2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1093 ....................................................................................................25 Paland v. Brooktrails Township Community Services Dist. Bd. of Directors (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1358 ....................................................................................................22

5 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court
(2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226 ................................................................................................11, 25 People v. Jacinto
(2010) 49 Cal.4th 263 ................................................................................................................15 Richmond v. Shasta Community Services Dist.
(2004) 32 Cal.4th 409, 427 ........................................................................................................21 Silicon Valley Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (2008) 44 Cal.4th 431 ................................................................................................................15 Delano Guardians Committee v. City of Delano
(Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 2, 2018, No. F074509) 2018 WL 5730155 ..............................................17 Wyatt v. City of Sacramento
(2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 373 ........................................................................................................24

Constitutional Provisions
Proposition 218 ...................................................................................................................... passim California Constitution, article XIII C .............................................................................................8 California Constitution, article XIII D
section 6 ............................................................................................................................. passim

Statutes and Bills
Code of Civil Procedure
§ 437c .........................................................................................................................................11 § 860–869 ..................................................................................................................................12 Government Code
§ 53750.5 ........................................................................................................................... passim § 53758.5 ...................................................................................................................................26 § 53759 ..........................................................................................................................11, 12, 26 California Water Code
§ 353 ..........................................................................................................................................17 § 354 ..........................................................................................................................................17 § 525 ..........................................................................................................................................18 California Senate Bill
SB 1386 (2020) ..............................................................................................................16, 17, 20

6 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

Regulations
California Code of Regulations
Title 24, pt. 2, § 2902 .................................................................................................................18 Title 24, pt. 9, § 507 ...................................................................................................................17 Title 24, pt. 9, § 507.1 ................................................................................................................10

7 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Defendants and Respondents the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (together, the “City”) respectfully submit this opposition to the Motion for Summary Judgment (Aquilina) (“Motion”) filed by Plaintiffs and Petitioners Rose Aquilina, Mark Roh, and Ted Loewenberg (“Plaintiffs”).

I. Introduction
Plaintiffs correctly recognize in the Motion that the definition of “water services” under Proposition 218 is an issue of law for the Court. But the definition they propose—excluding from water services the water from hydrants in San Francisco—is contrary to the law and facts. T he City is therefore entitled to summary judgment for the reasons in the Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication (“Cross-Motion”) filed by the City and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”). The Court should deny the Motion for three independent reasons:

First, as explained in the concurrently filed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings in Aquilina, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. CPF-23-518342 (“Aquilina”), Plaintiffs did not follow the required reverse-validation summons procedures to challenge the 2023 water rates. The water rates adopted in 2023 are therefore conclusively valid, and the Court should dismiss Aquilina and deny Plaintiffs’ request for summary judgment.

Second, Plaintiffs are wrong that costs associated with hydrants fall outside of the scope of water services for purposes of Proposition 218. To the contrary, Government Code section 53750.5 establishes that the SFPUC may include hydrant costs in water rates and forecloses Plaintiffs’ claims.

Plaintiffs waived any challenge to this statute by not including it in their complaint or government claims and additionally have not met the demanding standard to establish the statute’s unconstitutionality. The City’s unrebutted evidence shows that hydrants in San Francisco provide water services under Proposition 218. Plaintiffs’ primary argument, focusing on the relative infrequency of fires in San Francisco, is irrelevant to whether hydrants are part of water service, and Plaintiffs’ purported analysis of that issue is incorrect even if it were relevant.

Third, even if Plaintiffs could establish the City’s liability on their Proposition 218 claims, material factual disputes would remain regarding any appropriate remedy. Plaintiffs’ purported

8 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
damages expert failed to consider key aspects of the City’s water rate structure with his blunderbuss methodology. The Court should deny the Motion and grant the Cross-Motion.

Under the relevant portions of Proposition 218, fee increases must satisfy five requirements:
(1) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property related service.
(2) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed.
(3) The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel.
(4) No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately ava ilable to, the owner of the property in question. Fees or charges based on potential or future use of a service are not permitted. Standby charges, whether characterized as charges or assessments, shall be classified as assessments and shall not be imposed without compliance with Section 4. (5) No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services, where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners. (Section 6, subd. (b).)
The California Legislature has addressed the treatment of hydrants for Proposition 218 purposes, as it has many other aspects of public infrastructure, in statutes implementing Proposition 218. (See Gov. Code, § 53750.5.) Declaring its understanding of the existing law, the Legislature recognized that “[f]ire service” as used in Section 6, subdivision (b)(5), “is a different and distinct service from water service, which is one of several other property-related services that aids in the provision of fire service provided to properties.” (Gov. Code, § 53750.5, subds. (a)(1), (d).) Hydrants

9 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
are among the “system of public improvements intended to provide for the production, storage, supply, treatment, or distribution of water from any source” that constitute “water” services. (Id., § 53750, subd. (n); id., § 53750.5, subd. (a)(2).) Thus, “[h]ydrants and the water distributed through them are part of the property-related water service provided to all property owners served by a water service provider.” (Id., § 53750.5, subd. (a)(6).) And “fees or charges for the aspects of water service related to hydrants and the water distributed through them may be . . . included in the other water rates and charges fixed and collected by a public agency.” (Id., § 53750.5, subd. (b).) “[W]ater service costs may include, but are not limited to, any costs associated with constructing, maintaining, repairing, upgrading, and replacing hydrants, and costs associated with obtaining, treating, and distributing adequate volumes of water to meet the water demands of properties served by the water service provider, including water supplied for firefighting purposes.” (Id., § 53750.5, subd. (a)(7).) The Legislature also made factual findings regarding the design, installation, and use of hydrants particularly relevant to Section 6, subdivisions (b)(3) through (b)(5), including recognizing that “[h]ydrants are generally designed, installed, and used to provide an immediately available water service to aid in extinguishing fires that threaten property served by a water service provider . . . [and] are also used by a water service provider for water system operations and maintenance.” (Id., § 53750.5, subd. (a)(3).) The Legislature further found that “[t]hrough hydrants, water is immediately available to those properties to aid in extinguishing a fire that directly threatens them. The cost associated with this aspect of water service is proportionately allocable among properties that may receive a reasonably similar level of service from the immediate availability of water to aid in extinguishing fires that directly or indirectly threaten those properties.” (Id., § 53750.5, subd. (a)(6); see also id., § 53750.5, subd. (a)(4)–(5) [additional factual findings regarding attributes of hydrants and water distributed through them].)
III. Factual and Procedural Background
The SFPUC builds, maintains, and operates an extensive infrastructure of hydrants, pipes, pumps, valves, water mains, and reservoirs to provide water that may be used in firefighting. San Francisco has two primary types of hydrants—lower -pressure hydrants connected to the same water mains that provide potable water to homes and businesses and higher-pressure hydrants connected to

10 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
the non-potable Auxiliary Water Supply System (“AWSS”). (Declaration of Bill Teahan (“Teahan Decl.”) [Declaration of Alexander Holtzman (“Holtzman Decl.”), Ex. 1], Exs. A–C.)1 Plaintiffs all live and receive service from the SFPUC within a block and a half of an AWSS hydrant. (Id., Exs. E– G; Aquilina Decl. ¶ 6 [Holtzman Decl., Ex. 9]; Roh Decl. ¶ 6 [Holtzman Decl., Ex. 10]; Loewenberg Decl. ¶ 6 [Holtzman Decl., Ex. 11].) And the high-pressure hydrant system is continually expanding. (See, e.g., Teahan Decl., Ex. H [regulations requiring new AWSS hydrants with development].) These hydrants “are located and designed to protect developed properties, such as buildings, facilities, and other structures within the City, which receive water service from the SFPUC.” (Declaration of Deputy Chief Darius Luttropp (“Luttropp Decl.”) ¶ 2 [Holtzman Decl., Ex. 2].) The Fire Code requires that hydrants be located near facilities or buildings, and the Fire Department oversees the sufficiency of hydrant infrastructure for development. (Ibid.; Code Regs., tit. 24, pt. 9, § 507.1.) “The Fire Code does not require the installation of hydrants near vacant land.” (Luttropp Decl. ¶ 5.) “The essential purpose of hydrants is to provide water service to suppress fires that threaten developed properties. Any other use of hydrants within the City is incidental to the primary purpose of providing water to suppress fires on developed properties.” (Id. ¶ 3.) To set water rates under Proposition 218, the City engages outside expert consultants to conduct detailed studies of the projected costs of the water system and allocation of the costs to ratepayers. (See Nov. 12, 2024 Declaration of Erin Corvinova (“Corvinova Decl.”) [Holtzman Decl., Ex. 3], Ex. D at pp. 1, 23.) The City most recently conducted a rate study in 2023. (Ibid.) Rate setting is based on cost of service principles, meaning rates are set to exactly cover costs for services, with no excess. (See, e.g., id. at p. 1.) “The cost of service analysis evaluates each customer class’s cost burden on the water system, and then proportionally allocates the overall retail rate revenue requirement to each customer class.” (Id. at p. 6.) The costs associated with hydrants and their infrastructure and flows are part of fixed monthly charges for water services based on the equivalent meter size, which is a measure accounting for differences in demand on the system from different customers. (Id. at pp. 38–39, 45.) In advance of establishing new water rates, the SFPUC sent out

1 For ease of reference, prior filings are attached as exhibits to the Holtzman Declaration.

11 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
notices to all ratepayers. (See id., Ex. E.) On May 23, 2023, following a hearing, the SFPUC adopted water rates for July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2026. (Id., Ex. F.) On October 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed Aquilina. (See Holtzman Decl., Ex. 4 (“Compl.”).) In Aquilina, Plaintiffs challenge the City’s water rates from July 2023 through the present. (Compl. ¶¶ 4–5, 18.) “Plaintiffs allege that [the] City has improperly included costs associated with public fire service in calculating its cost of service to plaintiffs and class members, resulting in rates that violate Proposition 218 because they are more than the actual cost of service.” (Compl. ¶ 15.) Plaintiffs challenge the rates established by Resolution 23-0103. (Compl. ¶¶ 4–5.) Plaintiffs “seek a refund, an accounting, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandate.” (Compl. ¶ 30.) IV. Legal Standard
A motion for summary judgment must be denied unless “all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).) In moving for summary judgment, Plaintiffs “bear[] the burden of persuasion that ‘each element of’ the ‘cause of action’ in question has been ‘proved,’ and hence that ‘there is no defense’ thereto.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850, as mod. (July 11, 2001) [citation omitted].) Plaintiffs must satisfy the summary judgment standard as to both liability and any damages or other remedy. (See Paramount Petroleum Corp. v. Superior Court (2014) 227 Cal.App.4th 226, 241 (Paramount Petroleum) [“May a plaintiff seek summary adjudication of liability only, leaving the resolution of damages to a later trial? The statutory language mandates the question be answered in the negative.”].) V. Argument
A. Plaintiffs’ Failure to Follow Reverse Validation Procedures Bars Their Claims.

As described in the City’s concurrently filed Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Government Code section 53759 required Plaintiffs to comply with California’s “reverse validation” procedures for challenging government actions in their Proposition 218 challenges in Aquilina.

Aquilina is a “judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, validate, or annul an ordinance, resolution, or motion . . . modifying or amending an existing fee or charge for water . . . service” adopted after January 1, 2022. (Gov. Code, § 53759.) Under the mandatory procedures in

12 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
the cross-referenced portion of the Code of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs therefore needed to file an in rem action within 120 days of the adoption of the SFPUC’s rate resolution and, within 60 days of filing the complaint, file a proof of service of an approved summons by publication, with specific required information, on all persons interested in the constitutionality of water rates adopted in SFPUC Resolution 23-0103. (See Code Civ. Proc., §§ 860–869; Campana v. East Bay Municipal Utility Dist. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 494, 501, as mod. on den. of rehg. (June 15, 2023), rev. den. (Sept. 13, 2023).) Plaintiffs complied with none of these requirements.

Based on Plaintiffs’ failure to follow these mandatory requirements, the Court should dismiss Aquilina and deny the Motion. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 869 [“No contest except by the public agency or its officer or agent of any thing or matter under this chapter shall be made other than within the time and the manner herein specified.”]; Gov. Code, § 53759 [“Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, validate, or annul an ordinance, resolution, or motion . . . modifying or amending an existing fee or charge for water or sewer service . . . shall be brought pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 860) of Title 10 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, except that the time limits of subdivision (a) shall apply.” (italics added)]. The rates in Resolution 23-0103 are now conclusively valid, and Plaintiffs challenges therefore fail. (Golden Gate Hill Development Co., Inc. v. County of Alameda (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 760, 769 [holding a special tax conclusively valid given the plaintiff’s failure to challenge it in a reverse validation proceeding].) B. Plaintiffs’ Claims Challenging the Inclusion of Hydrant Costs in Water Rates Misinterpret Proposition 218.

Even if Plaintiffs may proceed in Aquilina notwithstanding their failure to comply with the reverse validation procedures, Plaintiffs cannot obtain summary judgment because their claims rest on a mistaken interpretation of the scope of water services under Proposition 218 as excluding the costs of what they call “public fire water”— costs associated with water from hydrants. 2 Plaintiffs’ claims

2 Although Plaintiffs describe their case as bringing a single omnibus claim, their arguments address five distinct causes of action under each subpart of Section 6, subdivision (b). (See Hindin v.

Rust (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1247, 1257.) The dispute about the number of claims by Plaintiffs is irrelevant, however, with respect to the Motion except to the extent it affects the amount of any potential damages, as addressed in Part V.C.

13 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
under Section 6, subdivisions (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4), and (b)(5) depend on showing that water flows from hydrants are not part of “water services” under Proposition 218 and that the City therefore must raise taxes to pay for water from hydrants. (Section 6.) But this contention conflicts with Government Code section 53750.5, which forecloses Plaintiffs’ claims. Including water from hydrants as part of water services is consistent with Proposition 218. (Cf. Crawley v. Alameda County Waste Management Authority (2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 396, 409 [reflecting the broad interpretation of categories of services under Proposition 218 in holding annual hazardous waste charge was for “refuse collection services” under Proposition 218 rather than narrower proposed “recyclable material” collection service potentially requiring vote].)

1. Under the Government Code, Water Services Include Hydrants, Cisterns, and Associated Infrastructure and Water Flows.

In Government Code section 53750.5, the Legislature explained that water flows from hydrants are a part of “water services” under Proposition 218 and found that this interpretation reflected existing law. This statute forecloses Plaintiffs’ claims as a matter of law. To prevail, Plaintiffs would have to show that section 53750.5 is unconstitutional. They have not alleged this, and even if they had, they do not come close to satisfying the heavy burden to prove the statute’s unconstitutionality.

The Legislature concluded in Government Code section 53750.5 that hydrants are among the “system of public improvements intended to provide for the production, storage, supply, treatment, or distribution of water from any source.” (Id., § 53750, subd. (n); id., subd. (a)(2).) “Hydrants and the water distributed through them are part of the property-related water service provided to all property owners served by a water service provider.” (Id., subd. (a)(6); see also id., subd. (a)(4).) And “fees or charges for the aspects of water service related to hydrants and the water distributed through them may be . . . included in the other water rates and charges fixed and collected by a public agency.” (Id., subd. (b); see also id., subd. (a)(7).)
Plaintiffs waived any challenge to the constitutionality of these statutory provisions by not including the provisions or any allegation of their unconstitutionality in any version of their complaint or in the claim letters they submitted before filing Aquilina under the Government Claims Act. (See Holtzman Decl., Exs. 5–7 [never mentioning Government Code section 53750.5].) “‘It is the general

14 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
rule applicable in civil cases that a constitutional question must be raised at the earliest opportunity or it will be considered as waived.’ [Citation.]” (Bidart Bros. v. Elmo Farming Co. (1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 248, 263; see also Hershey v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108 (1927) 200 Cal. 550, 564 [holding constitutional question not raised in initial protest document was waived].) Moreover, courts do not consider matters outside the pleadings at summary judgment, including regarding the invalidity of statutes and ordinances. (See Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego (1980) 26 Cal.3d 848, 885, revd. on other grounds (1981) 453 U.S. 490 [holding a plaintiff that failed to raise the invalidity of an ordinance in the pleadings waived the issue at summary judgment].) “On motion for summary judgment the pleadings define the issues; thus ‘“[I]n the absence of some request for amendment there is no occasion to inquire about possible issues not raised by the pleadings.”’ [Citations.]” (Ibid.) If the Court nonetheless reaches the Motion’s challenge to the constitutionality of this statutory provision, the “Legislature’s interpretation of uncertain constitutional terms, as reflected in subsequently enacted legislation, is entitled to great deference by the courts.” (Davis v. City of Berkeley (1990) 51 Cal.3d 227, 242; see Methodist Hospital of Sacramento v. Saylor (1971) 5 Cal.3d 685, 692 (Saylor); City of Azusa v. Cohen (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 619, 629 [upholding constitutionality of statute in Proposition 218 challenge in light of Saylor]; Barratt American, Inc. v.

City of San Diego (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 809, 817 [upholding provision of Code of Civil Procedure over Proposition 218 challenge, citing high standard for unconstitutionality]; County of Sonoma v.

Com. on State Mandates (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1264, 1284, as mod. on den. of rehg. (Dec. 19, 2000) [explaining “if the Legislature has by statute adopted” one of multiple possible interpretations of a constitutional provision, “its action in this respect is well nigh, if not completely, controlling”].) “[T]he presumption is always in favor of the constitutionality of a statute, and the invalidity of an act of the Legislature must be clear and unquestionable before the statute will be declared unconstitutional.” (Jones-Hamilton Co. v. Franchise Tax Bd. (1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 343, 349.) In the Motion, Plaintiffs do not engage at all with this demanding standard for unconstitutionality.

Judicial deference to the Legislature’s interpretation extends to situations in which the Legislature has acted with judgment as to a constitutional provision passed by a voter initiative, including Proposition 218. (See Greene v. Marin County Flood Control and Water Conservation Dist.

15 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
(2010) 49 Cal.4th 277, 291 (Greene) [Proposition 218 challenge].) In cases of ambiguity of constitutional provisions passed by ballot initiative, including Proposition 218, “the presumption of constitutionality accorded to legislative acts is particularly appropriate when the Legislature has enacted a statute with the relevant constitutional prescriptions clearly in mind.” (Ibid.) In arguing that hydrants provide a standby service, Plaintiffs quote general principles regarding the independent judgment exercised by courts in interpreting constitutional provisions (see, e.g., Mot. at pp. 17–19), but the quoted decisions are entirely consistent with the principles of deference to interpretations of constitutional provisions by the Legislature described above. (See People v. Jacinto (2010) 49 Cal.4th 263, 269 [not addressing the Legislature’s interpretation of constitutional provisions]; Silicon Valley Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (2008) 44 Cal.4th 431, 448 [addressing whether deference is due to the weighted majority of local voters to pass an assessment clearly inconsistent with Proposition 218’s substantive requirements, not deference to a statute enacted by the Legislature]; City and County of San Francisco v. County of San Mateo (1995) 10 Cal.4th 554, 572 [addressing construction by the Legislature consistent with the court’s analysis]; Beutz v. County of Riverside (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1516, 1524 [addressing local government interpretation, not a state statute]; Larson v. Duca (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 324, 333 [addressing potentially inapplicable statute that, if applied as an interpretation of the constitutional provision, would be clearly inconsistent with the constitutional text]; Carlson v. Cory (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 724, 728 [addressing whether a constitutional provision was an unconstitutional limitation on the Legislature’s taxation power, not a legislative interpretation of a constitutional provision.) And Plaintiffs highlight the deference afforded to the Legislature’s interpretation of ambiguous constitutional provisions in discussing the interpretation of “sewer services” in Howard Jarvis Taxpayers’ Association v. City of Salinas (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1351 (City of Salinas) and Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 535 (Department of Finance). (Mot. at p. 14 & fn. 5.) City of Salinas recognized that the definition of “sewer services” under Proposition 218 was ambiguous. (City of Salinas, supra, 98 Cal.App.4th at p. 1357.) Department of Finance then concluded the Legislature had “overruled City of Salinas and changed the law” when it enacted Government Code provisions, resolving that ambiguity prospectively. (See Dept. of Finance, supra, 85 Cal.App.5th at p. 574.)

16 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Especially given the broad deference afforded to Legislature’s interpretations of ambiguous constitutional provisions, Government Code section 53750.5 is constitutional and demonstrates that inclusion of water from hydrants and the associated costs in water rates complies with Proposition 218. (See Capistrano Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. City of San Juan Capistrano (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1493, 1502, as mod. (May 19, 2015) (Capistrano) [“In the present case, there is a Government Code definition of water, which shows water to be part of a holistic distribution system that does not distinguish between potable and nonpotable water[.]”].) The Legislature considered the appropriate definition of “water services” with respect to hydrants for purposes of Proposition 218, resulting in the detailed findings in section 53750.5. It enacted these provisions “with the relevant constitutional prescriptions clearly in mind.” (Greene, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 291; see Holtzman Decl., Ex. 8 [Legislative Intent Service compilation of the legislative history of Gov. Code, § 53750.5].) This is reflected in the text of section 53750.5, which mirrors the subdivisions of Section 6. It is evident from the Legislative Counsel’s Digest for the enacting bill, SB 1386. (Id. at LIS - 1e [describing requirements for fees and charges under Proposition 218 and effect of the legislation].) And it is clear in the legislative history. (See id. at LIS – 3 [Senate Committee on Governance and Finance Analysis, describing Proposition 218, the relevant history, related litigation, and the purpose of the legislation].) Prominent in the legislative analysis in both the Senate and Assembly of SB 1386 is that it was closely patterned after and intended to codify the Court of Appeal’s unpublished opinion in Glendale Coalition for Better Government, Inc. v. City of Glendale (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 27, 2018, No. B282410) 2018 WL 6804360 (Glendale). (See Holtzman Decl., Ex. 8 at LIS - 3, LIS - 4, LIS - 5.) 3 Contrary to

3 Plaintiffs also argue in passing that Glendale solely addressed Section 6, subdivision (b)(5). (Mot. at p. 20.) But the opinion also undermines Plaintiffs’ claims under Section 6, subdivisions (b)(3) and (b)(4). (Glendale, supra, 2018 WL 6804360, at *7 [“Common sense dictates that fire hydrants are located and available to extinguish fires that threaten property damage.”].) Subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2) were likely inapplicable given the absence of a dispute there, as here, that the revenues from the fee or rate were used to provide the service at issue. In any event, the issue here is not the (non-existent) binding scope of the unpublished decision in Glendale but rather the validity of Government Code section 53750.5. Nor does the California Supreme Court’s decision not to grant publication of Glendale does not undermine its support for the constitutionality of Government Code section 53750.5, particularly given the absence of binding authority to the contrary (see Mot. at p. 19).

Finally, the facts as to the use of hydrants here closely mirror those in Glendale, further supporting the appropriateness of the City’s rate setting. (Compare Luttropp Decl. ¶¶ 2–6, with Glendale, supra, 2018 WL 6804360, at *7 [describing attributes of Glendale’s use of hydrants].)

17 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Plaintiffs’ assertion (Mot. at p. 19), there was no split in unpublished Court of Appeal authority at the time of SB 1386’s passage given that Delano Guardians Committee v. City of Delano (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 2, 2018, No. F074509) 2018 WL 5730155 (Delano) did not discuss the treatment of costs associated with water from fire hydrants under Proposition 218 apart from observing in the procedural history that the trial court had vacated a portion of the water rates attributable to fire suppression services while otherwise ruling for the defendant city. (Id. at p. *3.) Because only the plaintiff, and not the defendant city, appealed the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeal did not address costs for fire suppression services. Even if Glendale and Delano reflected inconsistent analysis, though, that would serve to reinforce that an ambiguity existed as to application of Proposition 218 has now been resolved by the Legislature’s guidance. The Legislature’s interpretation is certainly “plausible,” and there is no “plain and unmistakable conflict between the statute[s] and the Constitution.” (Saylor, supra, 5 Cal.3d at p. 693.) Government Code section 53750.5 therefore demonstrates that the City provides water services with hydrants and the associated infrastructure and flows.

Other state statutes similarly recognize that providing water for potential use in firefighting is a core function of water service providers. (See, e.g., Water Code, § 353 [identifying “domestic use, sanitation, and fire protection” as the areas of the “greatest public benefit” to be protected by water providers during shortage]; id., § 354 [prioritizing other water uses less than “domestic use, sanitation, and fire protection” for water providers during shortage]; Building Industry Assn. v. Marin Mun. Water Dist. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1641, 1647 [“The clear import of section 354 is that when a district does decide to impose rationing, it must first allocate or set aside the amount of water needed for domestic use, sanitation, and fire protection . . . .”].) The California Fire Code likewise requires water systems serving developed properties to be designed and maintained to provide sufficient water volume and pressure to support fire suppression. (Code Regs., tit. 24, pt. 9, § 507.1 [“An approved water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to premises on which facilities, buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction.”]; id., § C101.1 [stating “fire hydrants shall be provided in accordance with this appendix for the protection of buildings, or portions of buildings”].) Absent water from hydrants, no development is allowed. Meanwhile, the same properties protected by the use of water for firefighting

18 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
are responsible for payment for that water service. All buildings with a water connection must have water meters. (Water Code, § 525, subd. (a).) And a water connection is required for almost all types of buildings. (See Code Regs., tit. 24, pt. 2, § 2902 [setting forth minimum plumbing facilities for different types of buildings].)
Plaintiffs offer no meaningful response in the Motion to the conclusion that water from hydrants is a component of water services under Proposition 218, focusing instead on arguments discussed below incorrectly assuming that what Plaintiffs call “Public Fire Water Service” is a distinct service from other water services under Proposition 218.

2. Given Government Code Section 53750.5, Plaintiffs Are Not Entitled to Summary Judgment on Their Claims.

Because the costs for water services include costs associated with water from hydrants, Plaintiffs cannot prevail on their claims under Section 6, subdivision (b). Plaintiffs have provided no evidence that the City charges more for water services than they cost or uses revenues from water services to fund other purposes. To the contrary, the evidence shows that the City has carefully calculated the costs of water service and set water rates to specifically match those costs. (See Corvinova Decl., Ex. D at pp. 1–2, 37–54.) Plaintiffs’ claims under Section 6, subdivisions (b)(1) and (b)(2) therefore cannot succeed.

As to Section 6, subdivision (b)(3), Plaintiffs have not argued and have submitted no evidence that water rates overall disproportionally allocate the costs of water service. The City meanwhile has submitted evidence showing it has properly allocated those costs as a component of water services. (See, e.g., Corvinova Decl., Ex. D at pp. 55–63.)
As to Section 6, subdivision (b)(4), Plaintiffs similarly do not contend that water services, including hydrants and the associated infrastructure and flows, are unavailable to them. (See Capistrano, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at p. 1502 [“since water service is already immediately available to all customers of City Water, there is no contravention of subdivision (b)(4) in including charges to construct and provide recycled water to some customers”].) They are available to Plaintiffs and the Class. (See, e.g., Corvinova Decl., Ex. D at pp. 25–26.) As to Section 6, subdivision (b)(5), Plaintiffs do not and cannot assert in the Motion that water

19 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
services, if they include hydrant costs, are general government services accessible in the same way to the general public. As the Legislature has recognized, “[h]ydrants and the water distributed through them are not available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as they are to property owners served by a water service provider because hydrants are designed, installed, and used to serve properties receiving water service, and the public at large does not generally have access to water through those hydrants.” (Gov. Code, § 53750.5, subd. (a)(5).) “Viewed in conjunction with section 6(b)(1) and (2), the purpose of section 6(b)(5) is to require that a fee or charge collected from ratepayers be used to pay for the service for which the fee or charge was imposed and not general governmental services.” (Moore v. City of Lemon Grove (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 363, 376.) Water rates including costs associated with hydrants are indisputably used to pay for water services including the provision of water from those hydrants. (See Corvinova Decl., Ex. D at pp. 1–2, 37–54.)

3. Plaintiffs’ Arguments About the Scope of Government Code Section 53750.5 and the City’s Legislative Advocacy Fail.

Instead of engaging with the demanding standard to invalidate the Legislature’s interpretation of Proposition 218 in Government Code section 53750.5 or addressing the fact that, consistent with the Government Code, the costs of hydrants are a component of water service under Proposition 218, Plaintiffs make two central arguments about Government Code section 53750.5: (1) that it does not address Proposition 218 provisions prohibiting standby fees; and (2) that it emerged from advocacy by local governments including the City. The first argument is wrong and the second is irrelevant.

Plaintiffs incorrectly argue that Government Code section 53750.5 did not address whether water rates including costs associated with water from hydrants constitute standby fees prohibited by Section 6, subdivision (b)(4). (Mot. at p. 20.) That subdivision of Section 6 requires that a service be “actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question” to be eligible for inclusion in a rate, contrasting such services with “standby charges.” (Section 6, subd. (b)(4).) Government Code section 53750.5 expresses the Legislature’s conclusion that water from hydrants is immediately available and recovery of costs associated with that water does not constitute a standby charge. (Gov. Code, § 53750, subd. (a)(3) [stating hydrants “provide an immediately available water service to aid in extinguishing fires that threaten property served by a water service provider” (italics

20 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
added)]; id., § 53750.5, subd. (a)(6) [“Through hydrants, water is immediately available to those properties to aid in extinguishing a fire that directly threatens them. The cost associated with this aspect of water service is proportionately allocable among properties that may receive a reasonably similar level of service from the immediate availability of water to aid in extinguishing fires that directly or indirectly threaten those properties.” (italics added)].) Plaintiffs also contend that Government Code section 53750.5 is somehow rendered constitutionally suspect by the support by public agencies for SB 1386, the bill enacting Government Code section 53750.5. (Mot. at pp. 16–20.) While it is correct that two other local government sponsored SB 1386 and the SFPUC co-signed letters as part of a large coalition supporting SB 1386, that has no bearing on the statute’s constitutionality. The legislative record provides no basis to believe that the SFPUC’s support affected the bill’s passage. (See Holtzman Decl., Ex. 8.) In any event, the SFPUC’s inclusion in a large coalition urging passage of SB 1386 in no way supports the bill’s unconstitutionality. Plaintiffs identify no authority suggesting that it does. Any such authority would invalidate nearly every new statute given the ubiquity of interested individuals supporting and opposing legislation, and would raise freedom of speech concerns. If anything, the large number of organizations supporting SB 1386 and lack of any registered opposition to the bill supports its constitutionality given the vigorous engagement by taxpayer advocacy organizations on other Proposition 218 issues. (See id. at LIS - 3, LIS - 4, LIS - 5.) Plaintiffs relatedly assert that their counsel’s filing of a later-dismissed case, Kessner v. City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. 20CV364054 (Kessner), precipitated SB 1386. But there is nothing constitutionally suspect about clarifying legislation emerging from issues raised in litigation. To the contrary, Plaintiffs’ arguments about Kessner reinforce that the Legislature enacted SB 1386 with the relevant constitutional limitations in mind. (See Greene, supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 291.)

4. Plaintiffs’ Arguments About Individual Provisions of Section 6, Subdivision (b) As Specifically Applied to Hydrant Costs Similarly All Fail.

Plaintiffs’ remaining arguments in the Motion depend on the assumption that “Public Fire Water Service” is a distinct service, not an aspect of water services. As described above, that assumption is incorrect. But even if the Court treats hydrant costs as a separate service, Plaintiffs’

21 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
arguments all fail based on both Government Code section 53750.5 and the factual record in this case. a. Water from Hydrants Is a Property-Related Service.

Plaintiffs argue as to Section 6, subdivision (b)(1), that the provision of water from hydrants is not property related (Mot. at pp. 8–10), but the evidence shows it is. Consistent with state law, hydrants are “located and designed to protect developed properties, such as buildings, facilities, and other structures within the City, which receive water service from the SFPUC.” (Luttropp Decl. ¶ 2; see id. ¶ 3.) Unlike the compliance by a water conservation district with its statutory functions in City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation District (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1191, as mod. on den. of rehg. (Feb. 21, 2018), the availability of water from hydrants is connected with property ownership, and hydrants are not “managed for the benefit of the public.” (Id. at p. 1208.) 4 Plaintiffs are incorrect to suggest that, like a connection charge, hydrant availability is contingent on the creation by property owners of a new connection to the water system and is therefore not property related. Water is available via the hydrants to fight property fires as an incident of property ownership, and the protection property owners receive from the availability of water from hydrants “requires nothing other than normal ownership and use of property.” (Richmond v. Shasta Community Services Dist. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 409, 427.)
Plaintiffs’ comparison of the availability of water via hydrants to “private fire service” is misleading. “Private fire service” refers to a type of metered water connection and rate for sprinklers and standpipes at an individual property. (Corvinova 10/29/24 Dep. Tr. [Holtzman Decl., Ex. 12] at p. 7:7–14.) The SFPUC does not generally use the term “public fire service,” and hydrants are not like a publicly available sprinkler or standpipe but rather a component of water services intended and used to fight fires on and threatening developed property. (See id. at pp. 7:7–8:16; infra Parts V.B.4.b–c.) b. Water from Hydrants Is Immediately Available, and Rates Incorporating Costs for that Water Are Not Standby Charges.

As to Section 6, subdivision (b)(4), Plaintiffs assert that the availability of water from hydrants is not a service used by or immediately available to properties with water service and is instead a

4 This is distinct from firefighting services, which are not funded by water rates and relatively rarely involve use of hydrants. (See Luttropp Dep. Tr. at pp. 18:16–19, 20:11–21:4; also Gov. Code, § 53750.5, subd. (a)(1) [stating water from hydrants is part of water service, not fire service].)

22 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
“standby service.” (Mot. at pp. 11–12, 14–15.) Not so. “Through hydrants, water is immediately available to those properties to aid in extinguishing a fire that directly threatens them.” (Gov. Code, § 53750.5, subd. (a)(6).) “Hydrants are generally designed, installed, and used to provide an immediately available water service to aid in extinguishing fires that threaten property served by a water service provider[.] (Id., § 53750.5, subd. (a)(3).) Similarly, San Francisco “hydrants are designed to provide an immediately available water service to aid in extinguishing fires that threaten this developed property,” as reflected in SFFD review of building plans. (Luttropp Decl. ¶ 2.) Hydrants are located throughout the City, including low-pressure and AWSS hydrants near all Plaintiffs. (Teahan Decl., Exs. A, E–G.) “As a whole, the City’s low-pressure hydrant system and [AWSS] provide immediate availability of water to aid in extinguishing fires on or threatening properties across the City.” (Luttropp Decl. ¶ 7; see Luttropp Dep. Tr. [Holtzman Decl., Ex. 16] at p. 39:6–18.) Because including costs associated with water from hydrants in water rates is not a standby charge and was properly approved under Section 6, Plaintiffs’ discussion of California Constitution, Article XIII D, section 4, is irrelevant.

Plaintiffs’ primary argument on the use or immediate availability of water from hydrants is that the number of fires extinguished by the SFFD demonstrates that costs associated with hydrants are not constitutionally includable in water rates, but the number of fires in San Francisco is irrelevant to Proposition 218’s application. The water service is the availability of water from hydrants throughout San Francisco. (Ibid.)
5 Paland v. Brooktrails Township Community Services District Board of Directors (2009) 179 Cal.App.4th 1358, cited by Plaintiffs, supports the City, given the tangible service provided by hydrants through the immediate availability of water to extinguish property fires.

In any event, Plaintiffs’ sole basis for the number of fires in San Francisco is the declaration of Swetha Ramesh, who disclaimed that her analysis calculated the number of fires in San Francisco, number of fires extinguished by the San Francisco Fire Department (“SFFD”), or number of fires

5 The City’s water rates are therefore consistent with Capistrano, Bighorn-Desert View Water Agency v. Verjil (2006) 39 Cal.4th 205 and Citizens for Fair REU Rates v. City of Redding (2018) 6 Cal.5th 1 in calculating the costs of service. Plaintiffs do not argue the City has miscalculated the cost.

They say the cost is misallocated, but Plaintiffs’ own purported expert on rates described imposing the costs of water from hydrants on those who have a fire on their property extinguished using a hydrant as an “extreme hypothetical” and not recommended. (Blank Dep. Tr. at pp. 81:19–82:6.)

23 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
extinguished on residential property. (See Ramesh Dep. Tr. [Holtzman Decl., Ex. 18] at pp. 27:18–21, 28:5–23.) All Ms. Ramesh did was conduct searches of an online spreadsheet of data regarding fire incidents as specifically requested by Plaintiffs’ counsel. (See id. at pp. 30:24–31:2 [“Don here asked me how many records in the file contain the word ‘extinguish’ or ‘extinguishment.’ And I calculated that using my Python script and reported the numbers to him.”]; id. at p. 30:8–10 [“Q. Why did you decide to look at the ‘Action Taken’ fields for this analysis? A. I was told to look at it by the counsel.”].) No competent evidence illuminates the meaning of the results of those searches. (See id. at p. 31:11–19 [“Q. Yeah. Do you have a sense of how incidents that include the words ‘extinguish’ or ‘extinguishment’ and ones that don’t differ? A. No. Q. All right. If an incident did not involve an action taken with the words ‘extinguish’ or ‘extinguishment,’ could it still have involved the [SFFD] putting out a fire? A. I don’t know.”]; see also Luttropp Dep. Tr. at p. 25:1–9 [reflecting methodology regarding coding of actions taken inconsistent with that assumed by Plaintiffs’ counsel].) And Plaintiffs did not even provide Ms. Ramesh with the fire incident data produced by the City, which included narrative information, to review until the day before her deposition. (Ramesh Dep. Tr. at pp. 15:5–13, 25:7–13; see Holtzman Decl., Ex. 19 [reflecting production to Plaintiffs on October 23, 2024, well in advance of Ms. Ramesh’s declaration].) These narratives reflect many more extinguished fires even using Plaintiffs’ flawed methodology of searching just for variations on the word “extinguish.” (Holtzman Decl. ¶ 20; id., Ex. 20.) Plaintiffs’ counsel also excluded consideration of the Primary Situation field, which reflects extinguished fires and was unduly narrow with respect to counting fires listed as originating in specific property types. (See Ramesh Dep. Tr. at pp. 27:6–8, 34:20–36:1; Holtzman Decl., Ex. 20 [reflecting other residential categories including “899 Residential or self-storage units,” “808 Outbuilding or shed, and “962 Residential street, road or residential driveway”].)
Plaintiffs otherwise contend that water from hydrants is not properly included in water rates because customers usually cannot lawfully use water from hydrants themselves (Mot. at p. 12), but many components of water services are inaccessible to customers and nonetheless indisputably used by customers as part of water services under Proposition 218, including reservoirs, treatment plants, valves, pipes, offices, vehicles, computer servers, and maintenance facilities. Decisions regarding the

24 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
scope of services under Proposition 218 reject the argument that an aspect of water services must be directly accessible by customers to be a part of the water rates. (See Capistrano, supra, 235 Cal.App.4th at p. 1502; Wyatt v. City of Sacramento (2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 373, 383 [“Of course, what it costs to provide such services includes all the required costs of providing service, short-term and long-term, including operation, maintenance, financial, and capital expenditures.”].) Just because homeowners typically cannot lawfully access water from the hydrants themselves does not mean that the water from the hydrants is unavailable to assist in extinguishing a fire on their property or that the costs associated with that water fall outside of water services. (See Luttropp Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4.) c. The Provision of Water from Hydrants Is Not a General Governmental Service Equally Available to the General Public.

As to Section 6, subdivision (b)(5), Plaintiffs contend that water from hydrants is a general governmental service equally available to the general public as property owners and occupants (Mot. at pp. 12–13), but this assertion is again contradicted by the evidentiary record and the Legislature’s findings. “The essential purpose of hydrants is to provide water service to suppress fires that threaten developed properties.” (Luttropp Decl. ¶ 3; see Gov. Code, § 53750.5, subd. (a)(5) [finding “hydrants are designed, installed, and used to serve properties receiving water service, and the public at large does not generally have access to water through those hydrants.”].) Plaintiffs assert that water from hydrants is either a general government service apart from fire service (Mot. at p. 13 [arguing the list of general government services is not exclusive]) or a component of fire service (ibid. [arguing hydrants are integral to fire services].) But the unrebutted evidence is to the contrary—the Fire Department’s response to most fires does not involve the use of a hydrant, and those that do are disproportionately fires on or threatening property with water service. (See Luttropp Decl. ¶¶ 3, 6; Luttropp Dep. Tr. at pp. 18:16–19, 20:11–21:4; Gov. Code, § 53750.5, subd. (a)(1) [“Fire service is a different and distinct service from water service, which is one of several other property-related services that aids in the provision of fire service provided to properties.”].) C. If Any Change to Rates Is Required by Proposition 218, There Are Factual Disputes About the Amount of the Change and Any Damages.

Even if Plaintiffs were correct about the need for the SFPUC to change its water rates under

25 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Proposition 218, and they are not, factual disputes about the proper corrected rates would preclude summary judgment for Plaintiffs. To obtain summary judgment, Plaintiffs must demonstrate the absence of material disputed facts regarding the amount of any refund owed to class members as damages and their other requested remedies. (See Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency v.

McGrath (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1093, 1110 [“We conclude that the Agency failed to establish its damages as a matter beyond controversy and therefore failed to establish an entitlement to summary judgment.”]; accord. Paramount Petroleum, supra, 227 Cal.App.4th at p. 243; Dept. of Industrial Relations v. UI Video Stores, Inc. (1997) 55 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1097.) To develop the remedies on which Plaintiffs seek summary judgment, Plaintiffs’ purported rate expert, Dr. Larry Blank, simply deleted the values in two cells near the end of the SFPUC’s detailed rates model and reported what those deletions did to rates via formulas in the Excel model. He did not independently evaluate the rates, consider the allocation of line items, address how other California jurisdictions treat similar costs, or weigh whether costs he deleted would remain even if the SFPUC were not responsible for hydrants. (Blank Dep. Tr. [Holtzman Decl., Ex. 17] at pp. 26:6–27:6, 45:11– 46:23, 55:5–56:23; see Jan. 3, 2024 Declaration of Erin Corvinova (“Corvinova 1/3/25 Decl.”) [Holtzman Decl., Ex. 15] ¶ 4.) At a minimum, there are material factual disputes about whether Dr. Blank’s blunt deletion approach correctly measures refunds or future rates if Plaintiffs prevail.

Dr. Blank had no meaningful explanation for how he applied his expertise to the water rates. (See Blank Dep. Tr. at p. 33:12–21 [“Q. And how did you determine that the values in those two cells reflected costs of public fire service? A. Based on my review of the model, that was the understanding that I developed. Q. What – when you say ‘based on my review of the model,’ what steps did you take in reviewing to find those two cells? A. Well, I worked through the entire model step by step, which concludes with the COS tab.”]; see also id. at pp. 32:21–33:2.) Merely deleting the values in two cells in the “COS” sheet in the rate model, as Dr. Blank did, does not accurately reflect how a court decision prohibiting the SFPUC from using rate revenue to support the costs of hydrants would affect San Francisco’s water rates. (See Corvinova 1/3/25 Decl. ¶ 4.) Dr. Blank’s approach of simply deleting buckets of costs at the end of the rates model precipitated errors in his analysis. “[A] portion of the expenses he purported to exclude are indirect

26 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
general costs of the water system, rather than direct costs associated with hydrants. Indirect general costs are general administrative and overhead expenses not associated with specific functions in the cost of service study. Those costs will exist for the San Francisco water system, regardless of the inclusion of hydrants in that system, and would properly be reallocated to other functions of the water system.” (Corvinova 1/3/25 Decl. ¶ 5; see also id. ¶ 6 [highlighting additional error in excluding operating costs such as staffing].) For example, the costs of SFPUC information technology are indirect general costs that do not have a direct relationship with hydrants. (See Corvinova Decl., Ex. D, at p. 128.) Proposition 218 does not call for excluding a portion of indirect general costs from water rates as Dr. Blank did, when those are costs of water services as reflected in the rates study.

When he was asked to go to a specific line item and explain how much of the costs were attributable to hydrants such that they would be excluded from water rates if Plaintiffs prevail, Dr. Blank pointed only to the portion allocated specifically to hydrants and the AWSS and not the portion allocated to indirect general costs that he also excluded. (See Blank Dep. Tr. at p. 39:4–13 [stating that an allocation of 9.7 percent of a specific line item to hydrants and the AWSS was appropriate, when his declaration proposed removing more than that from the water rates because of the proposed removal of a percentage of indirect general expenses].) As to other costs, Dr. Blank conceded that he did not consider and does not have an opinion about the amount of the costs allocated to hydrants and the AWSS, despite his declaration reflecting a conclusion about that for purposes of his alterations to the water rates. (See id. at pp. 41:10–17, 42:12–17, 44:8–18.) Finally, even if Plaintiffs could prove the City’s liability and the amount of damages and other remedies as a matter of law, and they can do neither, they are not entitled to the refund they request.

Any damages would be awarded as an offset from future rates rather than as the refund Plaintiffs demand. (See Gov. Code, § 53758.5.) For the reasons above, no remedies are appropriate in any event, given that the City adopted water rates that are consistent with Proposition 218 and now conclusively valid under Government Code section 53759.

VI. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the Motion and grant the Cross-Motion. ///
27 City Opp. to Pltfs’ MSJ (Aquilina); Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2025\221061\01812018.docx 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Dated: January 13, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
DAVI
D CHIU
City Attorney
SARA J. EISENBERG
ALEXANDER J. HOLTZMAN

JULIE WILENSKY
Deputy City Attorneys
By: /s/ Alexander J. Holtzman
ALEXANDER J. HOLTZMAN
At
torneys for Defendants and Respondents

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES

COMMISSION

1 B. Teahan Decl. ISO MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01798454.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
DAVID CHIU, SBN 189542
City Attorney
SARA J. EISENBERG, SBN 269303
ALEXANDER J. HOLTZMAN, SBN 311813
Deputy City Attorneys
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-5408
Telephone: (415) 554-3999
Facsimile: (415) 554-3837
E-Mail: [email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

JENNIFER TOY, ROSE AQUILINA, MARK
ROH, and TED LOEWENBERG individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs and Petitioners,

vs.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION, and DOES 1 – 10,

Defendants and Respondents.

Lead Case No. CPF-22-517764
(Consolidated with Case No. CPF-23-518342)

DECLARATION OF BILL TEAHAN IN

SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS AND

RESPONDENTS CITY AND COUNTY OF

SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY

ADJUDICATION

Hearing Date: February 13, 2025
Hearing Judge: Judge Andrew Y.S. Cheng
Time: 9:30 a.m.

Place: Dept. 613

Date Action Filed: May 17, 2022
Trial Date: December 1, 2025

ELECTRONICALLY

F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
11/14/2024
Clerk of the Court
BY: VERA MU
Deputy Clerk

2 B. Teahan Decl. ISO MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01798454.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

DECLARATION OF BILL TEAHAN
I, Bill Teahan, declare as follows:

1. I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to this action. If called as a witness, I can competently testify to all of the facts set forth in this declaration from personal knowledge except where otherwise noted. I make this declaration in support of Defendants and Respondents the City and County of San Francisco and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication.

2. I am the Division Manager for the City Distribution Division (“CDD”) at the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”). As CDD Division Manager, I oversee staff responsible for maintaining a database of the location of SFPUC infrastructure in San Francisco involved in distribution of water including hydrants and associated infrastructure. This database is maintained using Geographic Information Systems (“GIS”) software, allowing for the creation of maps depicting the location of SFPUC assets. I am also familiar with regulations regarding the location of water infrastructure in San Francisco.

3. Attached to my declaration as Exhibit A is a map generated by CDD staff at my direction depicting the location of potable water system hydrants, Auxiliary Water Supply System (“AWSS”) hydrants, and cisterns in San Francisco.

4. Attached to my declaration as Exhibit B is a map of water mains that are a part of San Francisco’s low-pressure potable water system.

5. Attached to my declaration as Exhibit C is a map depicting the water mains that are part of the AWSS with a 1500-foot bubble overlaid, reflecting the portions of San Francisco reachable from an AWSS hydrant with 1500 feet of hose attached.

6. Attached to my declaration as Exhibit D is a map depicting the San Francisco Chinatown neighborhood and the locations of nearby AWSS hydrants.

7. Attached to my declaration as Exhibit E is a map depicting 1239 Hollister Avenue, San Francisco, CA, and the location of nearby AWSS hydrants.

8. Attached to my declaration as Exhibit F is a map depicting 1108 Rhode Island Street, San Francisco, CA, and the location of nearby AWSS hydrants.

3 B. Teahan Decl. ISO MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01798454.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

9. Attached to my declaration as Exhibit G is a map depicting 1562 Waller Street, San Francisco, CA, and the location of nearby AWSS hydrants.

10. Attached to my declaration as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of the currently effective Subdivision Regulations.

11. Exhibits A through G to my declaration were made by and within the scope of duties of SFPUC employees. They were made at or near the time of the acts, conditions, and events described in those documents based on data maintained by the SFPUC in the regular course of its business recording the location of SFPUC infrastructure.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 12th day of November, 2024 in San Francisco, California.

BILL TEAHAN

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

EXHIBIT C

EXHIBIT D

EXHIBIT E

EXHIBIT F

EXHIBIT G

EXHIBIT H

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. PURPOSE ...........................................................................................................................1 II. APPLICABLE LAWS .........................................................................................................1 III. DEFINITIONS ....................................................................................................................2 A. EXCEPTIONS ..............................................................................................................2 B. DESIGN MODIFICATION ..........................................................................................2 C. SUBDIVISION CODE ................................................................................................. 2 D. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ...............................................................................2 E. SURVEYOR .................................................................................................................3 F. CITY ............................................................................................................................3 G. GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM (GNSS) ..........................................3 H. RECORD MAP ............................................................................................................3 I. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS ..4 J. DPW WEBSITE ...............................................................................................................4 IV. GENERAL PROCEDURES ................................................................................................4 A. SUBMISSION OF TENTATIVE MAP .........................................................................5

1. Vesting Tentative Maps .............................................................................................5

2. Required Tentative Maps ...........................................................................................6

3. Multiple Phased Final Maps Must be Requested in Application ................................. 6

4. Transfer Maps ...........................................................................................................7 B. CITY AGENCY REVIEW............................................................................................7 C. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND TENTATIVE MAP DECISION ...................8

1. 300-Foot Radius Map ................................................................................................8

2. Address List ..............................................................................................................8

3. Mailing Envelopes .....................................................................................................9

4. Mailing Envelopes for a Public Hearing on the Tentative Subdivision .......................9 D. ACTIONS ON TENTATIVE MAP ............................................................................. 10

1. Appr oval, Conditional Appr oval, or Denial of Map ................................................. 10

2. Director’s Hearing ................................................................................................... 10

3. Notification in Writing ............................................................................................ 10 E. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ................................................................................. 11

1. Availability of Sufficient Water Supply ................................................................... 11

2. Public Easements ..................................................................................................... 12

3. Substantial Compliance with Tentative Map ............................................................ 12

4. Vesting Tentative Map ............................................................................................ 12

5. Timing of Submittals for Multiple Phased Final Maps ............................................. 13

6. Other Conditions ..................................................................................................... 13 F. DEFERRED MATERIALS SUBMITTAL ..................................................................... 13 G. SUBMISSION OF FINAL MAP ................................................................................. 14 H. ACTION ON FINAL MAP ......................................................................................... 15 I. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS, AND SECURITY ... 15

1. Form of Dedications ................................................................................................ 15 ii

2. Security. .................................................................................................................. 16 V. TENTATIVE MAP REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................ 19 A. GENERAL ................................................................................................................. 19 B. APPLICATION PACKET .......................................................................................... 20 C. CONTENTS OF TENTATIVE MAP .......................................................................... 20

1. Cover Sheet ............................................................................................................. 21

2. Existing Site Conditions .......................................................................................... 22

3. Proposed Parcelization (Lots, Parcels, or Units) ....................................................... 23

4. Proposed Street Improvements ................................................................................ 24

5. Proposed Underground Utilities ............................................................................... 24

6. Proposed Grading Plan ............................................................................................ 25 D. ENGINEERING PLANS AND DOCUMENTS .......................................................... 26

1. Appendix B ............................................................................................................. 26

2. Other Appendices .................................................................................................... 26 VI. DEFERRED MATERIALS SUBMITTAL .................................................................... 27 VII. FINAL MAP ................................................................................................................. 27 VIII. PARCEL MAP .............................................................................................................. 29 IX. RECORD OF SURVEY MAP ....................................................................................... 29 X. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... 30 XI. SETTING MONUMENTS ............................................................................................ 31 XII. REVISIONS AND CERTIFICATES OF CORRECTION ............................................. 32 XIII. SEVERABILITY .......................................................................................................... 32 XIV. EFFECTIVE DATE ...................................................................................................... 32

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS APPENDIX A

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS RELATED TO SURVEYS PERFORMED IN SAN

FRANCISCO

I. GENERAL ........................................................................................................................ 33 II. RETRACEMENT SURVEY POLICY .............................................................................. 33 A. SURVEYS PRESUMED TO REFLECT DEED ......................................................... 33 B. EXCEPTIONS ............................................................................................................ 34

1. Deed Calls at Variance From Long Occupation ....................................................... 34

2. Unwritten Rights ..................................................................................................... 36

3. Defective Deeds ...................................................................................................... 36 III. SURVEYS AND COMPUTATIONS ................................................................................ 37 IV. DETAILS OF RECORD MAPS ........................................................................................ 38 V. MONUMENTATION ....................................................................................................... 40 VI. MONUMENT DESTRUCTION AND PROCEDURES FOR PRESERVATION .............. 41 A. LOCATING MONUMENTS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ..................................... 41 B. REPLACING MONUMENTS AFTER CONSTRUCTION ........................................ 42 VII. STANDARD FORMS AND AGREEMENTS FOR EASEMENTS AND FEE DEDICATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 43 A. PRIVATE EASEMENTS BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES ...................................... 43 B. QUASI PUBLIC EASEMENTS ................................................................................. 43 C. PUBLIC EASEMENTS .............................................................................................. 44 D. PUBLIC DEDICATIONS IN FEE .............................................................................. 45

1. COMPLETENESS OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE ........................................... 45

2. FORM AND PROCESS OF DEDICATIONS ......................................................... 46 VIII. EXEMPT CONVEYANCES ........................................................................................... 47

TABLE OF CONTENTS – APPENDIX B

TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS RELATED TO ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS

XII. RECOMMENDED DESIGN OF STREETS, BLOCKS, AND LOTS ................................ 48 A. PUBLIC STREETS..................................................................................................... 51

2. Definitions............................................................................................................... 51 B. CONSTITUENT PARTS ............................................................................................ 54

1. Traffic Lane............................................................................................................. 54

2. Sidewalks. ............................................................................................................... 54

3. Fire Department Operations. .................................................................................... 56

4. Bicycle Lanes .......................................................................................................... 58

5. Parking Lane ........................................................................................................... 58

6. Curb Intersection Radii and Turning Movements ..................................................... 58

7. Sidewalk Extensions or Bulbs .................................................................................. 59

8. Median .................................................................................................................... 59

9. Dead End Streets ..................................................................................................... 59

10. Utility Separation .................................................................................................... 59 C. STREET GUIDELINES ............................................................................................. 62

1. Alignment ............................................................................................................... 62

2. Intersecting Streets .................................................................................................. 62

3. Naming ................................................................................................................... 62

4. Street Grades ........................................................................................................... 62

5. Surface Drainage ..................................................................................................... 63 D. PRIVATE STREETS .................................................................................................. 63 E. BLOCKS .................................................................................................................... 63

1. Length ..................................................................................................................... 64

2. Mid-Block Pedestrian Way ...................................................................................... 64

3. Corners .................................................................................................................... 64

4. Block Numbers ........................................................................................................ 64 F. LOTS ............................................................................................................................. 65

1. Dimensions ............................................................................................................. 65

2. Side Lines................................................................................................................ 65

3. Setback Lines .......................................................................................................... 65

4. Lot Numbers ........................................................................................................... 65 G. STREET NETWORK DESIGN .................................................................................. 65 XIII. STREET IMPROVEMENT REQUIRED .......................................................................... 66 XIV. RECOMMENDED TYPES OF PAVEMENTS ........................................................... 67 A. FOR LIGHT TRAFFIC ............................................................................................... 67

1. Grades over 17% (when approved) .......................................................................... 67

2. Grades 17% to 0.5% ................................................................................................ 67

3. Also on grades 1.0% - 0.5% ..................................................................................... 67 B. FOR HEAVY TRAFFIC ............................................................................................. 68 v

C. COMMERCIAL AREAS ............................................................................................ 68 D. CURBS ....................................................................................................................... 68 XV. RECOMMENDED STANDARDS OF DESIGN FOR SEWER SYSTEMS ...................... 68 A. GENERAL ................................................................................................................. 68 B. SEWERS .................................................................................................................... 68

1. Location .................................................................................................................. 68

2. Depth and Cover...................................................................................................... 69

3. Types and Sizes ....................................................................................................... 69

4. Joints ....................................................................................................................... 70

5. Alignment and Curves ............................................................................................. 70

6. Easement, Bedding and Piling ................................................................................. 71 C. MANHOLES .............................................................................................................. 71 D. TAPERS AND JUNCTION STRUCTURES .............................................................. 72 E. CULVERTS................................................................................................................ 72

1. Catchbasins ............................................................................................................. 72

2. Sewer Connections .................................................................................................. 73

3. Side Sewers ............................................................................................................. 73 XVI. CAPACITY OF STORM AND COMBINED SEWERS DESIGN .............................. 74 A. Minimum Size ............................................................................................................ 75 B. Velocity and Invert Lining .......................................................................................... 75 C. Hydraulic Considerations ............................................................................................ 75 D. RUN-OFF ................................................................................................................... 76

1. Rainfall Rate ........................................................................................................... 76

2. Area ........................................................................................................................ 76

3. Coefficient of Run-off (C) ....................................................................................... 76

4. Time of Concentration and Inlet Time ..................................................................... 77 E. SELECTION OF SEWER SIZES ............................................................................... 79 XVII. SANITARY FLOW CRITERIA IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO DESIGN BASIS ................................................................................................. 80 A. MINIMUM SIZE ........................................................................................................ 80 B. VELOCITY ................................................................................................................ 80 C. DEPTH ....................................................................................................................... 80 D. SELECTION OF SEWER SIZES ............................................................................... 80 E. QUANTITY OF FLOW .............................................................................................. 81

1. Infiltration ............................................................................................................... 82

2. Sanitary Diversions ................................................................................................. 82 F. AUXILIARY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM ................................................................... 83 XVIII. POST CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS ...................................................................... 74 A. AS-BUILTS ................................................................................................................ 80 B. RECORD DRAWINGS .............................................................................................. 81

1 I. PURPOSE
These regulations are established pursuant to the Subdivision Code Section 1311, together with Public Works Code Section 147.2(b)(2) and Section 1204(b)(2) and other applicable Municipal Codes and City regulations to serve as general guidelines for the planning, development, design and improvement of subdivisions in the City and County of San Francisco, and also to supplement said Code.1
II. APPLICABLE LAWS

Subdivision maps and all procedures in connection with the subdivision of land within the City and County of San Francisco shall conform to all applicable laws of the State of California and ordinances of the City and County of San Francisco, and all amendments thereto. The principal laws and ordinances in effect governing subdivisions and related public improvements are as follows:
• Subdivision Map Act (State of California), Government Code Sections 66410 et.seq. • San Francisco Subdivision Code
• San Francisco Public Works Code
• San Francisco Administrative Code

1 Department of Public Works Order No. 171,379 adopted separate Subdivision Regulations on November 18, 1998 that apply to the development of property in Mission Bay North and South Redevelopment Areas pursuant to Subdivision Code Section 1411; Department of Public Works Order No. 182,651 adopted separate Subdivision Regulations on June 5, 2014 that apply to the development of property in Candlestick Point and Hunters Point Shipyard pursuant to Subdivision Code Section 16 11. 2 III. DEFINITIONS
Terms used shall have the meanings defined herein except where an alternate definition already exists in the applicable Codes or State Law in which case the Code or State Law definition shall prevail.

A. EXCEPTIONS
Exceptions as that term is used within these Regulations shall refer to Section 1712.

Exceptions, inclusive, as defined in the San Francisco Subdivision Code.

B. DESIGN MODIFICATION
Design Modification shall refer to the process under which the Director of DPW in consultation with any affected City agencies may review a proposed alternative design, and for good cause and as consistent with customary engineering practices, approve such alternative design. A Design Modification may be requested by a Subdivider at any time prior to the decision to approve, conditionally approve or deny a tentative map application.

C. SUBDIVISION CODE
Subdivision Code shall refer to the applicable Code referenced in Section I. Purpose, of these Regulations.

D. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
Director of Public Works or Director shall mean the Director of Public Works, City and County Surveyor or City Engineer where these Regulations refer to the processes 3 governed under the Subdivision Map Act and as further promulgated under these Regulations; provided however, that where these Regulations specify the City and County Surveyor or the City Engineer, only such individual is authorized to take the action identified.

E. SURVEYOR
Surveyor shall mean a Professional Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying, and who is currently licensed by the Californi a Board for Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists.

F. CITY
City as used herein shall mean the City and County of San Francisco.

G. GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM
Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) , including the Global Positioning Sys tem (GPS), shall refer to the satellite surveying methods employed by Surveyors as consistent with the applicable Public Resources Code.

H. RECORD MAP
Record Map shall refer to any map prepared by a Surveyor and required to be recorded pursuant to the Professional Land Surveyors Act Section 8762 or the Subdivision Map Act.
4 I. IMPROVEMENT, PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, AND

SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENTS
Improvement Agreement, Public Improvement Agreement and Subdivision Improvement Agreement shall be synonymous for the purposes of these regulations and refer to the agreements entered into pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (SMA) and applicable City Code for completion of public improvements pursuant to a condition of approval of a tentative subdivision map.

J. DPW WEBSITE
DPW Website shall refer to the internet page maintained by the Department of Public works for dissemination of information regarding the subdivision and mapping process.

The site address is
http://www.sfdpw.org/index.aspx?page=1710. Or,
http://www.sfdpw.org, then select “Services A-Z”, and select “Subdivisions”. The DPW Bureau of Street Use and Mapping is physically located at 1155 Market Street, 3rd Floor, San Francisco, CA.

IV. GENERAL PROCEDURES
The procedures described herein conform with State and local laws and with such additional procedures that the Director of Public Works has found necessary and desirable for the expeditious handling of Subdivision Maps. These Regulations supersede the 1982 Regulations and amendments thereto. DPW’s Standard Plans and Specifications, Project Manual and Reference Documents, and Departmental Procedures Manual, shall be viewed as supplemental to these Regulations; provided, however, that if there is a conflict between these Regulations and the Standard Plans and Specifications in regard to subdivision specific requirements, these Regulations shall prevail. In 5 addition, these regulations shall apply to all street or public improvement construction projects that occur independent of or in advance of a subdivision map.

A. SUBMISSION OF TENTATIVE MAP
The initial official act to obtain the approval of a subdivision is the formal submission of a Tentative Map and other application materials to the City and County Surveyor. Either a Registered Civil Engineer or a Licensed Land Surveyor may prepare and submit an application. This application shall include all of the documents that the Subdivision Code and the Application Packet require. The "Application Packet" is available at DPW’s offices or on the DPW website. The Subdivider shall collate and submit the required number of copies specified within the Application Packet 2 1. Vesting Tentative Maps
. The City and County
Surveyor shall then submit a copy of the map and application materials to the Planning Department and other appropriate governmental agencies for review and recommendations.

The Subdivider may submit a Tentative Map or Vesting Tentative Map. Because a Vesting Tentative Map vests the Subdivider with rights to proceed with development, subject to the laws, ordinances, and standards in effect at the time of application submittal, the requirements of an application for Vesting Tentative Map are more extensive as set forth in the ap plicable Subdivision Codes. Of chief concern is the necessity of a Site Plan that a Surveyor prepares. Such Site Plan need not constitute a

2 The Department of Public Works anticipates acceptance of electronic application submittals. A pplicants should check the DPW website for the most current application instructions.
6 final boundary survey, but it must show actual property boundary lines and any title gaps or physical encroachments that would necessarily impact the subdivision process.

2. Required Tentative Maps
A Tentative Map is required for all Final Maps (consisting of five or more units or lots), and all Parcel Maps (consisting of four or less units or lots) except as provided for otherwise in the applicable Subdivision Code. In cases where the Subdivision Code permits submittal of an application without a Tentative Map, the content requirements of such application shall be consistent with the content requirements of the applicable Parcel Map Application to the extent consistent with, and as set forth in the applicable Subdivision Code.

3. Multiple Phased Final Maps must be requested in Application a. A Subdivider may request to submit multiple phased Final Maps when permitted by the applicable Subdivision Code or with prior authorization do so from the Director of Public Works. Such a request shall be made at the time of application and affirmed in the conditions of approval for the Tentative Map.
3 b. Where authorized by the Subdivision Code, and because multiple phased final maps typically record over the span of several years, it is not uncommon that the Subdivider may request a deferral of certain required items when such information will necessarily change, be refined or become outdated during the time before the submittal of phased Final Maps or associated Improvement Plans. Any such request for deferral shall be in writing and identify each item being requested for deferral. In such case, the Director of Public Works, in his or her sole discretion, may defer such items, in accordance with the Subdivision

3 Gov. Code Sec. 66452.6 requires DPW to determine the number of phased final maps in conditions of approval when a Tentative Map application is pursuant to a development agreement with the City. 7 Code, and condition the deferral in a manner that he or she deems appropriate. The Subdivider shall include all deferred information as part of the submission of a Deferred Materials Submittal.
c. The Subdivider may request in writing waivers of items required in a Tentative Map application only in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Code.

The Director of Public Works, in his or her sole discretion, may grant such waivers in writing and condition the waivers in a manner that he or she deems appropriate.

4. Transfer Maps
Where authorized by the Subdivision Code, a Subdivider may submit a Tentative Transfer Map. Transfer Maps are meant to create legal parcels for the purpose of financing and conveyancing only, but do not grant any development rights. Because no development rights are granted, a Subdivider may request in writing the waiver or deferral of many items generally required in a Tentative Map Application Packet in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Subdivision Code for Conveyancing or Finance Maps. The Director of Public Works, in his or her sole discretion, may grant such deferrals and/or waivers in writing and condition the deferrals and/o r waivers in a manner that he or she deems appropriate.

B. CITY AGENCY REVIEW
As required by the State Subdivision Map Act, the Subdivision Code and other applicable local laws, all proposed subdivisions shall be reviewed by the Planning Department for consistency with the General Plan and any applicable Area Plan. 4 4
Subdivision Map Act (SMA) Sec. 66473.5
The Planning Department
8 also shall review the application to determine consistency with the priority policies of Planning Code Section 101.1 and in accordance with the applicable environmental law s including the California Environmental Quality Act and Administrative Code Chapter 31 and report its determination to DPW. In order to be informed of the various policies applicable to a particular subdivision, DPW recommends that the Subdivider consult with the Planning Department prior to submittal of a Tentative Map application.

Other City Agencies and interested persons may also review and comment on the Tentative Map as provided for in the applicable State law and Subdivision Code.

C. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTICE OF

TENTATIVE MAP DECISION
The Subdivider shall submit the following materials with the Application Packet.

1. 300-Foot Radius Map
A map drawn to scale showing the property that is the subject of the application and all other properties within a radius of 300 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property, the Assessor's Block number on each block and Assessor's Lot number on each lot, and the names of all streets shown. The drafting scale shall be sufficiently sized to show and identify individual properties. The Subdivider shall show the 300’ Radius line in a bold dashed linetype and shall annotate in several places with leaders from the offset perimeter to the subject development boundary.

2. Address List
The Subdivider shall submit a printed and electronic list, showing in numerical order by Assessor's block and lot, the names and mailing addresses of the last known 9 owners of all properties touching or within the 300- foot radius of the subdivision shown on the map. These names and addresses are available at the Tax Collector's Office and are shown on the latest city -wide assessment roll. The list also shall include the names of the residents within the subdivision itself. In addition, the Subdivider shall include on the list names and addresses of the persons, organizations or any other agencies that have made a formal request to DPW to receive notification concerning the subdivision. The electronic copy of the list shall be in *.xls or *.txt format or other format acceptable to the Director of Public Works.

3. Mailing Envelopes
The Subdivider shall submit one set of #10 regular envelopes with rounded gummed flap, stamped and addressed to the parties in the Address List and printed with the DPW return address. Envelopes are available upon request from the City and County Surveyor’s office.

4. Mailing Envelopes for a Public Hearing on the Tentative Subdivision In the case of vesting tentative maps or multiple phased final maps or when the DPW Director elects to hold a public hearing, the applicant shall submit an additional set of Mailing Envelopes.
10 D. ACTIONS ON TENTATIVE MAP

1. Approval, Conditional Approval, or Denial of Map
After the determination that a Tentative Map application is deemed complete and the Planning Department issues its determination under the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA), the Director of Public Works shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application within 50 days (or other time period as specified in the Subdivision Code) unless such time sha ll have been extended by mutual agreement.

2. Director’s Hearing
In advance of the Tentative Map decision, the Department may hold a Director’s Hearing, as determined in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Subdivision Code. DPW and the Subdivider may hold a Subdivision Conference, as determined in accordance with the applicable Subdivision Code or the request of the Subdivider.

3. Notification in Writing
The Director shall notify the Subdivider in writing of his or her findings and decision with regard to said Tentative Map. The Director also shall mail notice of the decision to all parties listed on the 300’ Radius Map.
11 E. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Conditions of Approval (COA) on a Tentative Map allow for the Director to approve and record a Final Map subject to the satisfactory completion of necessary and important tasks related to the subdivision and construction of improvements for the subdivision.

Compliance with the COA are an important link in a long chain of tasks that culminate in a complete and successful development. COA typically include the requirement for the submission of materials or the completion of tasks by specified deadlines, various improvement plans, and construction permit s
5 • Improvement Agreements
. If the Subdivider may not complete
required public infrastructure at the time of Final Map Approval, the COA also shall address the following:
• Submission to the City of Irrevocable Offers of Real Property in Fee and/or Improvements (or rarely, Offers of Easements and Easement Agreements) • Bonds to guarantee completion of and payment to contractors for future public improvements

1. Availability of Sufficient Water Supply
Unless a statutory exception applies or the Subdivider has previously satisfied this requirement as part of environmental review, subdivisions involving a proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units shall require proof to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works that a sufficient water supply shall be

5 See Section V. Tentative Map Requirements, (D) Engineering Plans and Documents. 12 available.6

2. Public Easements
The Subdivider shall request proof from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and submit to the Department written verification from the PUC within 90 days of the request.

To the extent that the design or improvements of a subdivision will conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, DPW shall condition approval to provide for alternate easements substantially equivalent to the ones previously acquired by the public along with any associated City actions necessary to accomplish this. 7 3. Substantial Compliance with Tentative Map

Final Maps shall be in substantial compliance with an approved Tentative Map and any conditions of approval issued thereto.8
To assist the Department in confirming this requirement, the Subdivider shall submit to DPW a tra cking document in spreadsheet form as pre- approved by the City and County Surveyor. The spreadsheet shall address how each COA has been or will be satisfied. The spreadsheet shall be submitted with the Final Map Checkprint. In the case of Phased Final Maps, the Subdivider also shall submit a tracking spreadsheet with any Deferred Materials Submittal, if and when such a Submittal is required.

4. Vesting Tentative Map
A condition for Vesting Tentative Maps shall be that the Subdivider provides a date- stamped copy of the Subdivision Regulations in effect on the date of approval of the

6 SMA Sec. 66473.7; see also subsection (i), excluding certain urbanized areas 7 SMA Sec. 66474
8 SMA Sec 66474.2
13 Vesting Tentative Map. DPW shall maintain a copy of this document in its files on the Subdivision.

5. Timing of Submittals for Multiple Phased Final Maps
Where a Subdivider has requested and obtained approval to submit multiple phased final maps, the Director of Public Works shall condition and address the timing of interim submittals such as Deferred Materials Submittals and Improvement Plans, to provide for efficient review by the various City agencies.

6. Other Conditions
Other concerns associated with the proposed subdivision shall be addressed through additional conditions as the Director of Public Works deems necessary. The City Engineer or the City and County Surveyor shall revie w conditions related to engineering or land surveying, as appropriate, to determine compliance with generally accepted engineering or surveying practices.

F. DEFERRED MATERIALS SUBMITTAL
Where Phased Final Maps are allowed under the Subdivision Code, the Subdivider shall submit to the Director of Public Works a Deferred Materials Submittal at the same time as and concurrent with each application for phase approval in accordance with local laws and rules related to phased approvals. The Deferred Materials Subm ittal shall update the Tentative Map with all items previously deferred and an explanation of any materially changed site conditions that would affect the Conditions of Approval.

The Subdivider shall prepare and submit a tracking spreadsheet addressing each condition 14 of approval, the estimated date and method of satisfaction, and what if any conditions are being satisfied, through the submittal of the Deferred Materials Submittal.

The Director of Public Works shall review the Deferred Materials Submitt al and if the previously deferred information affects the prior Conditions of Approval, the Director of Public Works reserves the right to impose reasonable conditions necessary for the development and to refine, adjust, supplement, modify, and/or delete the Conditions of Approval to the extent consistent with the earlier approval. 9 If the Subdivider fails to timely submit any deferred item in the Deferred Materials Submittal, the Director of Public Works shall return the Submittal to the Subdivider with a statement that identifies what materials are absent. As consistent with the applicable Subdivision Code, the Subdivider may request in writing the continued further deferral of these materials. The Director of DPW, in his or her sole discretion, may grant such additional deferral in writing and condition the deferral in a manner that he or she deems appropriate.

G. SUBMISSION OF FINAL MAP
Within 24 months10

9 See also SMA Sec. 66474.3(f) which provides that, “[a]n approved or conditionally approved tentative map or vesting tentative map shall not limit a legislative body from imposing reasonable conditions on subsequent required approvals or permits ne cessary for the development…”
after the approval or conditional approval of the Tentative Map or maps, and as that time may be e xtended according to applicable provisions of the 10 Refer to provisions of the applicable City Subdivision Code. In some cases, the Subdivision Code extends the initial life of a tentative map to 36 months.
15 Subdivision Map Act, the Subdivider shall prepare a Final Map in accordance with the Tentative Map as approved, and submit it to the Director of Public Works in the form of a Final Map Checkprint. Upon wri tten request of the Subdivider, the Director of Public Works may grant an extension of time, in his or her sole discretion, and within the limits prescribed by the Subdivision Map Act. The Subdivider’s failure to submit a Final Map within the applicable t ime limits shall result in the Tentative Map being automatically denied.

H. ACTION ON FINAL MAP
The Director shall forward all Final Maps or Parcel Maps associated with a Public Improvement Agreement to the Board of Supervisors for approval. After all required City approvals are completed, DPW shall record the Final Map in the County Recorder's Office.

I. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, IMPROVEMENT

AGREEMENTS, AND SECURITY

1. Form of Dedications
As set forth in the Subdivision Code and pursuant to the longstanding policy of the City, if the Subdivider constructs public right-of-way on private property, the Subdivider shall dedicate such property to the City in fee simple through a grant deed. The Director of Public Works may waive such a requirement and accept a public easement in lieu of fee ownership only for good cause and after consultation with the City Attorney’s Office and any affected City department. The Subdivider shall request such a waiver in writing as early as possible in the subdivision process.

The property underlying the right-of-way proposed for dedication to the City for public 16 use within a subdivision shall be clearly labeled on the Tentative Map as “to be dedicated in fee to the City” or “to be dedicated as a public easement." Where the property underlying improvements will remain privately owned but used for public purposes, the Subdivider, in consultation with DPW, shall determine whether the easement can be dedicated solely on the face of the map or requires an additional easement agreement with the City. If an easement agreement is required, the Board of Supervisors shall approve such easement agreement unless local law provides for an alternate form of approval.

Privately owned improvements and other encroachments are generally precluded from occupying the public right -of-way. When such use is required, the Subdivider shall obtain a separate approval or permit from the appropriate City agency, board or commission in accordance with local law.

If required public improvements are not complete at the time of parcel map or final map approval, the Subdivider shall enter into a Public Improvement Agreement with the City in accordance with the applicable procedures of Subdivision Code Section 1651.

2. Security
a. The requirements of this Section apply to all Public Improvement Agreements. b. The Director shall not sign or record a Final Map or Parcel Map until DPW has received and approved all improvement securities required herein in the form prescribed by the City pursuant to Government Code Section 66499 et seq.
c. DPW shall require a performance bond or other acceptable security as provided in Section 66499 of the Government Code in the amount of 100 percent of the estimated cost of completion of the construction of the unfinished public improvements, as determined by the City Engineer, or installation of all public improvements, as determined by the City 17 Engineer, for all subdivisions to secure satisfactory performance of those obligations. As a guarantee of payment for the labor, materials, equipment and services required, a payment bond or other acceptable security shall be required for 50 percent of the estimated cost of completion of unfinished public improvements as the City Engineer determines. For purposes of the preceding sentences, the "estimated cost of completion" shall include all costs of remediating any hazardous materials as necessary to permit completion of the required public improvements.
d. DPW shall release or reduce security upon completion of construction as follows:
i. DPW shall reduce security to 10 percent of the original amount for the purpose of guaranteeing repair of any defect in the improvements which occurs within one year of when:
1) the Subdivider has completed the public improvements to the satisfaction of the Director; and
2) the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors certifies that no claims by any contractor, subcontractor or person furnishing labor, materials or equipment for the required public improvements have been filed against the City prior to or within a 100-day period following completion of the public improvements. ii. If any claims by any contractor, subcontractor or person furnishing labor, materials or equipment to the Subdivider have been filed against the City, then DPW shall reduce the performance security only to an amount equal to the amount of all such claims filed or to 10 percent of the original amount whichever is greater. 18 iii. DPW may reduce security in conjunction with completion of a portion of the public improvements to the satisfaction of the Director, to an amount that the Director determines; however, in no event shall DPW reduce the amount of the security below the greater of
1) the amount required to guarantee the completion of the remaining portion of public improvements and any other obligation imposed by the SMA, this Code or the Public Improvement Agreement; or
2) below 10 percent of the original amount of the security. iv. DPW shall release security when all of the following have occurred:
1) One year has passed since the date of acceptance by the Board of Supervisors, or one year has passed since the date that all deficiencies that the Director identifies in the required public improvements have been corrected or waived in writing; and
2) If any claims identified in Subsection (d)(i)(2) have been filed against the City, all such claims have been satisfied or withdrawn, or otherwise secured.
19 V. TENTATIVE MAP REQUIREMENTS
A. GENERAL
It is the longstanding policy of the City that if the Subdivider constructs public improvements on private property, the Subdivider shall dedicate such property to the City in fee simple through a grant deed. The Director of Public Works may waive such a requirement and accept a public easement in lieu of fee ownership only for good cause and after consultation with the City Attorney’s Office and any affected City department.

The Subdivider shall request such a waiver in writing as early as possible in the subdivision process.

The property underlying the improvements proposed for dedication to the City for public use within a subdivision shall be clearly labeled on the Tentative Map as “to be dedicated in fee to the City” or “to be dedicated as a public easement." Where the property underlying improvements will remain privately owned but used for public purposes, the Subdivider, in consultation with DPW, shall determine whether the easement can de dedicated solely on the face of the map or requires an additional easement agreement with the City. If an easement agreement is required, the Board of Supervisors shall legislatively approve such easement agreement unless local law provides for an alternate form of approval. Privately owned improvements and other encroachments are generally precluded from occupying the public right -of-way. When such use is required, the Subdivider shall obtain a separate approval or permit from the appropriate City agency, board or commission in accordance with local law.
20 B. APPLICATION PACKET
The Application Packet containing detailed instructions, checklists and requirements for each particular type of subdivision of land is available in the most current and updated form is available at DPW’s offices or on the DPW website.

C. CONTENTS OF TENTATIVE MAP
The following items are arranged in a checklist format for sheets in a typical Vesting Tentative Map submittal.

Refer to the applicable Subdivision Code for additional items such as architectural plans that may be required for Vesting Tentative Maps or other requirements below that may be omitted from a Tentative Map that is not a “vesting” tentative map.

The contents of the Tentative M ap application do not substitute for any required engineering documents such as grading plans, improvement plans or utility plans, but should be consistent with the design criteria for such documents as set forth in greater detail in the applicable engineering-specific Appendix attached hereto.

The Tentative Map shall be neatly drawn at a scale sufficiently large to present the required information clearly and accurately. All lettering and numerals on the drawings shall be legible from the bottom or right -hand side. In general, a tentative map shall contain the following information.
21 1. Cover Sheet
a. Title stating: “Tentative Subdivision Map” or “Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map” or “Tentative Parcel Map” or “Vesting Tentative Parcel Map” or other title as authorized by the applicable Subdivision Code
11 b. Title stating the location, “San Francisco, California." .
c. Include “condominium purposes” in Title if applicable and include the number of residential and/or commercial units proposed.
d. Vicinity Map showing the project location within the region. e. Location Map showing the project extents.
f. Project Data including:
i. Street address of project
ii. Assessor’s block and lot numbers
iii. Owner/Subdivider’s name and contact information
iv. Existing and proposed land use zoning
v. Project area in acres to the nearest hundredth acre
vi. Existing and proposed utility providers and contact information g. Legend showing abbreviations, symbology, and linetypes h. Name, address, “wet” seal and signature of the Surveyor (wet seal required on printed copy – electronic seal and signature acceptable for pdf copies - 16 CCR 411). i. Surveyor’s and/or Engineer’s Statement.

11 a “Vesting” Tentative Map is subject to the requirements of SFSC§1333.2 and Gov. Code §66452. 22 Note: actual boundary survey only required for “vesting” maps. If the tentative map contains the work of more than one licensed professional, the map should indicate their respective responsibilities and portions of the map completed under their supervision. j. A notation superimposed over the Surveyor’s seal stating “preliminary” or “for examination only.”
k. Sheet numbers: “Sheet ___ of ___” in the lower right corner of each sheet. l. Sheet size: 24” x 36” or 30” x 42” with a marginal line drawn 1” from all borders. m. Index containing a description of each sheet in the plan set. n. Basis of bearings, units of measurement, vertical and horizontal datum. o. Statements regarding existing use of property, proposed development, proposed improvements, design modifications and exceptions, retention of ownership in common areas, and whether use of multiple phased final maps is planned. p. A reference to environmental evaluation data on the appropriate Planning Department forms.

2. Existing Site Conditions
a. The names of the adjacent subdivisions, or the record vesting information of adjacent parcels of land, and the Assessor’s block and lot numbers of adjacent parcels. b. Location, dimensions and approximate size of existing lots. c. The location of all existing buildings within the subdivision and on adjacent land which may be affected by the proposed subdivision.
d. The location and names of all existing streets within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision, together with overall widths of roadways.
23 e. The locations and widths of existing railroad right-of-way, MUNI right-of-way, sewer and other easements within or affecting the proposed subdivision. f. Location and dripline of large trees, 8” or larger diameter at breast height, within the proposed subdivision.
g. Location of all existing visible surface utilities present at the proposed subdivision. Include:
drain inlets, clean-outs, water valves, fire hydrants, gas valves, electrical and telephone vaults, utility poles, MUNI poles, street lights, traffic lights, and all other surface utilities fronting or within 25 feet of the subject property.
h. Location of all existing visible sub-surface utilities present at the proposed subdivision.

Include material, diameter and direction of flow (can be based on record information). i. Topography with contours delineated at 1’ intervals; spot elevations may be added for flat sites as necessary to depict slope.
j. Location of existing improvements including, building envelopes, sidewalks, top face of curb and flowline, driveways, and other improvements fronting public areas. Note the source (i.e. GIS records, aerial survey, field survey, etc.) and date of the above information and whether any significant changes occurred between then and the time of application. k. Note whether buildings or other improvements are to be demolished or preserved in the proposed subdivision development.
l. North arrow (usually pointing to left or top of sheet), graphic scale, date of drafting, and a submission number, i.e. first submission, second submission, etc.

3. Proposed Parcelization (Lots, Parcels, or Units)
24 a. Proposed streets within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision; indicate if proposed streets are to be public or private. If street names have not been selected and approved by the Department of Public Works, identifying letters may be used. b. Location, dimensions and approximate size of proposed lots. c. All parcels of land proposed to be dedicated for public use such as parks, open space, right- of-way, etc., together with the purposes, conditions, and limitations, if any. Note the party who will be the beneficiary of the offer of dedication if it is an entity other than the City, e.g. non-City governmental agency, Private Utility, Non-Profit, Homeowner’s Assoc., etc.

4. Proposed Street Improvements
a. Proposed streets within or adjacent to the proposed subdivision, together with overall widths of roadways and sidewalks. Indicate curb return radius. Indicate if proposed streets are to be public or private. If street names have not been selected and approved by the Department of Public Works, identifying letters may be used. b. Typical cross-sections of proposed and existing streets showing the full width of existing right-of-way and any proposed addition to or reduction in right-of-way.

5. Proposed Underground Utilities
a. Layout of drainage and sanitary facilities and utilities, including alignments and grades thereof. Show manhole covers and other underground structures together with distance between them and direction of flow. Label separation distances between water mains and other sanitary facilities.
25 b. Layout of all other existing and planned utility facilities which would serve the proposed subdivision such as electric, gas, potable water, reclaimed water, AWSS, telephone, cable TV, solar, etc.
c. Layout of the street lighting and facilities for the fire alarm and police communications system.
d. Show proposed connections between existing and proposed utilities, between interim sub- phases of proposed development, and proposed lateral service connections to future lots.

Show any temporary interim facilities that will function prior to completion of proposed final improvements.
e. Show location and size of all required easements and right-of-ways needed to serve the public or private utilities.
f. Note any infrastructure improvements necessary to make the utility facilities operable, whether on-site or off-site, to be constructed together. g. Note the party responsible for ownership and maintenance of the actual infrastructure if that party differs from the proposed owner in fee.

6. Proposed Grading Plan
Note: A separate grading plan is required for planned cut/fill involving more than 1,000 C.Y. of earth. Such grading plan should be consistent with the design criteria for such plan as described in greater detail in the applicable engineering specific Appendix attached hereto.
a. Label proposed pad grades, streets, and other proposed hard surfaces. Label areas of cut/fill.
26 b. Note the location, height and type of proposed structural retaining walls. c. Include a statement on whether the site grading is impacted by any applicable environmental mitigation measures.

D. ENGINEERING PLANS AND DOCUMENTS
Improvement plans, utility plans and ot her required engineering plans and documents shall comply with the requirements of the applicable engineering specific Appendices attached hereto.

1. Appendix B
Technical Specifications Related To Engineering Documents Applicable City-Wide Unless Specified Otherwise In Subsequent Appendices

2. Other Appendices
Appendix C: Technical Specifications Related To Engineering Documents For Candlestick Point/Hunters Point Phase II Development. Or, such other appendices as may be subsequently adopted or amended hereto from time to time.

If the engineering plans and specifications related to the proposed public improvements are not addressed in the Appendices, the Subdivider shall rely on the requirements set forth in DPW’s Standard Plans and Specifications and the other officially adopted regulatory standards of other City departments.
27 VI. DEFERRED MATERIALS SUBMITTAL
When a Subdivider requests both phased Final Maps and the deferral of application materials, and the Director of Public Works has approved such a request, DPW shall require the Subdivider to submit Deferred Materials Submittals prior to submittal of a Final Map Checkprint in accordance with Section IV. Subsection F. Such Submittal will graphically present the areas included within the proposed Final Map and include an overlay of all previously deferred items upon the approved tentative map. Additional information on the content and timing of Deferred Materials Submittals may be addressed in the conditions of approval of a tentative map.

VII. FINAL MAP
A. Conditions Satisfied
All applicable conditions of approval shall be satisfied prior to the recording of a Final Map. Public improvement requirements that are not satisfied prior to recording the Final Map shall be addressed and secured through a Public Improvement Agreement in accordance with the provisions of the applicable Subdivision Code and these Regulations. City approved Improvement Plans are a prerequisite to all Public Improvement Agreements.

B. Satisfaction of Conditions Documented
When submitting a Final Map Checkprint, the Subdivider shall prepare a tracking sp readsheet addressing each condition of approval, the date each was satisfied, and the method of satisfaction (actual compliance or future compliance by separate agreement and security).

C. Checkprint Submittal
28 Final Map Checkprints shall be submitted for review comments and redline corrections. Upon receipt of the requested revisions, the Subdivider shall revise and re- submit another Final Map Checkprint conforming with all requested changes.

Upon satisfactory review of the Final Map Checkprint, the Director of Public Works sha ll issue instructions for submittal of mylar copies of the Final Map for recording.

The content of Final Maps and Final Map Checkprints shall conform to the technical specifications described in Appendix A.

D. Map Certificates
The Final Map shall bear the following certificates or acknowledgments:
a. A certificate, signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the land subdivided, consenting to the preparation and recordation of the Final Map and an irrevocable offer of dedication for public use of the streets and easements shown. b. Notary's acknowledgment of signatures.
c. Approval of the Director of Public Works and City Engineer. d. Approval as to form by the City Attorney.
e. Certificate of the City and County Surveyor.
f. Certificate of the Surveyor.
g. Certificate(s) of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors as to liens or taxes. h. Certificate of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors approving the map and accepting and/or rejecting the offers of dedication.
i. The Recorder's Certificate.
j. Certificate of Compliance.
29 VIII. PARCEL MAP
The DPW review and approval process for Parcel Maps shall be the same as for Final Maps indicated in the previous section. Parcel Maps shall include the same information specified for a Final Map with the exception that required certificates may vary as listed below.

A Parcel Map shall bear the following:
a. Certificate of the Surveyor.
b. Certificate of the City and County Surveyor.
c. A certificate signed and acknowledged by all parties having any record title interest in the real property subdivided, consenting to the preparation and recordation of the parcel map.

Note that when no offers of dedication are being made, then signature blocks for Trustees or Beneficiaries are not required to be shown.
d. Notary's acknowledgment of signatures.
e. The Recorder's Certificate.

Recommended standard forms of the above certificates and acknowledgments are available at DPW’s offices or on the DPW website.

IX. RECORD OF SURVEY MAP
A Record of Survey (ROS) map may be filed for any purpose specified under applicable State law.

All recorded maps shall comply with the technical requirements specified in Appendix A, A Record of Survey Map shall bear the following:
a. Certificate of the Surveyor.
b. Certificate of the City and County Surveyor.
30 c. The Recorder's Certificate.

Recommended standard f orms of the above certificates and acknowledgments are available at DPW’s offices or on the DPW website.

X. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS
A Tentative Map application shall be accompanied by the then current application fees as published and available at DPW’s offices or on the DPW website.

A Parcel Map or Final Map shall be accompanied by the following:
a. A recording fee. Refer to the Office of the Assessor-Recorder for the current fee schedule. b. Title report or reports updated to within 45 days of recording. c. A tax certificate dated within 30 days of date of submittal. d. Any other item(s) requested by the mylar approval transmittal. e. A tracking spreadsheet document, signed by the Subdivider or Applicant, indicating how and when each Condition of Approval was satisfied.

A Parcel Map or Final Map, when applicable, shall also be accompanied by the following:
f. Grant Deed: A deed(s) to the street areas, pedestrian ways, and other property to be dedicated to public use transferring the title in fee to the City and County of San Francisco.

A title report covering the parcels dedicated shall be furnished showing the parcels to be free and clear of all encumbrances. This deed shall also be accompanied by an irrevocable offer of the property and a separate irrevocable offer of the proposed improvements referencing approved improvement plans. An interim temporary construction easement 31 shall be also offered by separate instrument such that the City can step into the shoes of the Subdivider in the event of a failure to complete construction of the improvements. g. Grant of Easement: If the Director of Public Works authorizes a public easement in lieu of a grant deed, the Subdivider shall submit the easement at this time unless the easement can be shown and dedicated solely on the face of the map. The easement to the City and County of San Francisco shall contain the regular conditions and restrictions shown in the City's standard form for easements.
h. Improvement Agreements: A draft version of the Improvement Agreements applicable to the Final Map shall be submitted with a Checkprint and fully executed Improvement Agreements shall be required at least one week prior to recordation of a Final Map. i. Monument Bond: A bond in an amount that the City and County Surveyor determines is necessary to cover the cost of setting monuments if the monuments are to be set after the Final Map is recorded.

XI. SETTING MONUMENTS
The Surveyor shall set permanent survey monuments prior to the recordation of any map in such positions that another surveyor may readily retrace the lines of the survey or subdivision. The proposed number of monuments and their locations is subject to review and approval by the City and County Surveyor.
12 12 Refer to Appendix A. for additional details and requirements.

32 XII. REVISIONS AND CERTIFICATES OF

CORRECTION
Upon written request of the Surveyor who prepared the map, the City and County Surveyor may allow a Final Map or Parcel Map, once submitted for recordation, to be recalled prior to recordation.

The request for a recall shall state the reason for the recall and the nature and extent of the revisions to be made.

No recorded Final Map or Parcel Map may be repeatedly amended with certificates of corrections.

Where the extent and occurrence of such corrections are excessive in the opinion of the City and County Surveyor, he or she sha ll require a new map to be filed and approved. A fee shall be charged, based on actual cost, for checking and processing of each certificate of correction.

XIII. SEVERABILITY
If any section, subsection, sentence or provision of these Regulations is ruled inconsistent with the provisions of other existing State or local statutes and declared void, such said section, subsection, sentence or provision shall not in any way invalidate or change any other portion or portions of these Regulations.

XIV. EFFECTIVE DATE
The pro visions of these Regulations, as amended, shall become operative upon approval and adoption by the Director of Public Works.
33 APPENDIX A – TECHNICAL

SPECIFICATIONS RELATED TO

SURVEYS PERFORMED IN SAN

FRANCISCO
I. GENERAL
Suggested guidelines for subdivision maps in San Francisco.

Although it is understood the County Surveyor is limited as to what can be required for a Record of Survey, following these Guidelines will be a substantial benefit in future years to the public and to the surveyors who may one day follow in our footsteps. This document does not provide an exhaustive discussion of the many unique situations that act to create these procedures. However, the City and County Surveyor is available to assist fellow Land Surveyor’s or members of the public who wish to have a dialogue regarding these policies or who have any questions regarding their application.

Boundary surveys completed in San Francisco are subject to procedures unique to this City. The historical and physical realities of the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) yield many unique situations which can be positively mitigated with the formalization of certain customs and consistent practices to promote and maintain reliable land records.

II. RETRACEMENT SURVEY POLICY
A. SURVEYS PRESUMED TO REFLECT DEED
34 When a surveyor submits a survey to the CCSF for review and the survey is a retracement of lands described by metes and bounds, the survey must clearly depict relationship to the deed of record.

B. EXCEPTIONS
The City and County Surveyor, on a case by case basis, may request evidence extrinsic to the record deed to support a boundary resolution. The following guidelines are found consistent with the historical practice of surveying in this community, but are not conclusive or meant to preclude any private property rights or any other rights of the City and County of San Francisco or the State of California.

1. Deed Calls at Variance from Long Occupation
If the physical occupation on the subject property is discrepant with the written deed and the Surveyor proposes a resolution based upon the physical occupation, the survey shall show the relationship (by dimensions on the survey map) between the resolved boundary location and the record deed location as required to comply with PLS Act Section 8764. At a minimum, the following should be addressed and included in the proposed resolution
13 a. Title research that includes McEnerney deeds
:
14 b. Field measurements documenting the location of the physical occupation of subject property, its adjoiners, and present location of improvements along the full width of the for the subject parcel and all adjoiners.

13 Professional Land Surveyor’s (PLS) Act Sec. 8764(d) and (g), requires the submittal of specific requested information where surveys have been previously performed by others.
14 Research should extend back in time to a point of common ownership of the parent tract. Because land records prior to the 1906 fire were largely destroyed, the McEnerny decrees to establish title are often the earliest surviving documents of record in the C ity. 35 block together with a comparison of those locations shown on historical surveys as required by PLS Act Section 8764.15
c. Evidence demonstrating that current occupation supports the historical evidence of occupation dating back to the era of the original McEnerny judgments. In such cases, the Surveyor may, consistent with his or her professional opinion, monument and hold as the property boundary either the record deed line or the occupation line. However, in doing so, the survey shall clearly state which of the two lines is purported to be the property boundary (deed or occupation).

Land Surveyors are not authorized to determine title or whether physical occupation has ripened into actual transfer of title. Land Surveyors are authorized to weigh all applicable evidence and opine on the location of the property boundary based on that evidence. If there exists physical evidence that is in contradiction to the title boundary, then the Surveyor must also show that additional information in an effort to memorialize all relevant survey evidence needed to conclude their opinion. In such a case, the use of extrinsic evidence may support the conclusion not that title changed, but rather that the reliably documented historical occupa tion is consistent with the actual intent of the

15 This would include but not be limited to the Block Diagrams on file with the City. Original City field notes dating from the era of the 1906 fire have been found to support the information portrayed on many of the Block Diagrams 36 parties as expressed in light of the circumstances16 of the 1906 earthquake and fire that necessitated the McEnerny deeds.17

2. Unwritten Rights

These cases are not correctable by the surveyor. They are characterized by relatively shorter (5+ years) occupation. An actual transfer of title may have occurred, but the City shall recognize such transfer only after formal judicial action (quiet title) or agreement between the concerned parties (lot line adjustment, grant of fee ownership, easement, etc.).

3. Defective Deeds
A deed is presumed to have a defect in cases where the discrepancy between the deed and occupation is explained from evidence other than historical occupation alone. Such cases include among others, problems created through the chronology of McEnerney judgments and subdivisions of property containing some deficiency. Such defects may be, but are not necessarily, correctable by the Surveyor. Such retracements shall be based on substantial record evidence that clearly explains why the evidence invariably supports the Surveyor’s conclusion.

The explanation may incorporate graphic and/or narrative formats and needs to reach a logical conclusion.

16 Fire destroyed most of the public records existing in 1906. However anecdotal evidence and fragments of surviving documents show that substantial portions of the City had been surveyed, platted, developed and occupied since the time of stateh ood. 17 Civ.Proc.Sec.2077 that establishes principles for construing doubtf ul or uncertain descriptions of real property 37 III. SURVEYS AND COMPUTATIONS
a. As a basis for a recorded map, a Surveyor shall complete a final survey of the land to be subdivided. If the schedule of construction of pertinent improvements potentially conflicts with an anticipated boundary location, the Surveyor is encouraged to consult early with the City and County Surveyor’s office to help resolve any boundary questions. To help mitigate delays in the development schedule, the Surveyor may submit a complete boundary survey for review and comments at the time of tentative map submittal or as early thereafter as possible.
b. The Surveyor shall furnish to the Department closure calculations, in a form that the City and County Surveyor approves, that give bearings, distances, and coordinates, and shows the mathematical closure of lots. For calls to a remote point of commencement or ties to distant controlling monuments, the Surveyor shall provide a similar closure report that allows the ties shown on the map to be confirmed. Alternatively, the Surveyor may submit a least squares adjustment report, in a form that the City and County Surveyor approves, that is based on redundant observations.

c. The Surveyor shall ensure that the exterior boundary and control ties for each block of the subdivision close.

d. The Surveyor shall tie to all monuments, property lines, street and alley lines, and all easements or right-of-ways associated with a survey and that serve to perpetuate and preserve existing survey control.
38 e. Surveys that show bearings shall tie to and have as a basis of bearings the CCSF-CS1318 IV. DETAILS OF RECORD MAPS
,
another prior map of record that is referenced on the map, or as otherwise approved by the City and County Surveyor.
a. All Record Maps shall be clearly and legibly printed using permanent black ink on mylar film. All affidavits, certificates and acknowledgments shall be signed using a permanent black ink that dries without tracking or sticking onto adjacent sheets. The Subdivider or Applicant shall submit the Record Map to the City and County Surveyor for recording. b. All characters shall have a minimum text height of 1/10th of an inch at the plotted scale of the map. No lines or symbols shall cross through or obscure the printed characters and any such lines or symbols shall be trimmed or masked to preserve map legibility. c. The size of each sheet shall be 18 inches by 26 inches overall, with a marginal line drawn completely around each sheet leaving a blank margin one inch in width. d. A printed and graphic scale shall be shown on the map. The map must be sufficient to show all details clearly. Additional sheets may be employed to accomplish this purpose.

Each sheet shall include a north arrow, the number of the sheet and the total number of sheets comprising the set, its relation to the adjoining sheets, and the basis of the bearings used.

18 City and County of San Francisco 2013 Coordinate System (CCSF -CS13), as established by that Certain Record of Survey 8080, recorded April 4, 2014 in Book EE of Survey Maps 147

39 e. All survey and mathematical information and data necessary to locate all monuments and to locate and easily retrace any and all interior or exterior boundaries, including angles or bearings and distances for all straight lines shall be shown on the map. The map shall show radius, length and central angle of all curves. Non-tangent curves shall include additional curve elements such as chord length and chord bearing.
f. Each block and lot shall be numbered. Lots on Final Maps shall use “lot” followed by Arabic numerals, i.e. “Lot 1”. Any lots on Final Maps dedicated to the public shall be designated with alphabetic letters, i.e. “Lot A”. Lots on Parcel Maps shall use “Parcel” followed by alphabetic letters, i.e. “Parcel A”.

Contact the County Surveyor for naming conventions on Parcel Maps that will dedicate parcels to the public. The record map shall show angles or bearings and distances of each lot, block, and boundary line, except when bearings or distances of lot lines in any series of lots are the same. The map may omit such bearings or lengths from each interior parallel lot line of such series. The map shall show each required bearing and distance in full. Angular measurements shall be shown to the nearest arc second and distances shall be shown to the nearest hundredth of a foot using U.S. Survey Feet as the unit of measurement, unless otherwise approved by the City and County Surveyor. Where needed to simplify or compare measurements to earlier record documents (deeds calling to fractions of an inch), distances may be converted and shown to the nearest thousandth of a foot. In such case, the Surveyor shall place a cautionary note explaining why the increased precision is shown and that it is not intended to imply a more accurate measurement.
40 g. The record map shall designate each street by the name that the Director of Public Works has authorized.
h. The map shall show locations of all new monuments and shall describe them with sufficient detail so that they can be easily identified. Monuments not set at the time of the Final Map shall be labeled “To Be Set.” A map amendment shall be subsequently filed after monuments are installed and as a condition of the release of associated security. i. The record map shall indicate exterior boundary of land to be subdivided by means of a bold border of such a character that it will not obliterate any figures or other data.

V. MONUMENTATION
Subdivider shall not place monuments located in pavement areas until construction of pavement is complete. If a Record Map is filed before pavements have been constructed, the City and County Surveyor shall require the Subdivider to post a bond with DPW in an amount the City and County Surveyor determines shall guarantee that the monuments will be set. The Subdivider is required to set all monuments within two years of the City Engineer’s determination that the construction of pavement has been completed. The PLS or RCE number shall be affixed to monuments set by the survey per the PLS Act Section 8772.

Monuments shall consist of the following alternatives as approved by the City and County Surveyor:
a. A granite or concrete monument, 5 x 5 inches at the top, 9 x 9 inches at the bottom and 30 inches long. Subdivider shall place a lead plug, one inch in diameter and two inches long, in the center of the top face and the exact monument point marked with a brass nail. The 41 Subdivider shall cap the monument with a cast-iron frame and cover, the design of which shall be approved by the City and County Surveyor.
b. A surface metal disk countersunk and set flush in the surface of a concrete or rock structure of such a nature as to provide a permanent fixed and immoveable reference point. The disk shall be composed of brass, bronze, or other comparable durable metal. c. Other sufficiently durable and identifiable monument as approved by the City and County Surveyor. Where feasible, the Subdivider shall place a 1/2” x 1/4” ceramic magnet below any monument to aid in future recovery and perpetuation of the monument.

VI. MONUMENT DESTRUCTION AND

PROCEDURES FOR PRESERVATION
Survey monuments in the City are a valuable public resource that Subdividers and applicable governmental agencies shall preserve and perpetuate. Monuments form the tangible substance of land boundaries and perpetuate the horizontal and vertical location of land - related rights and responsibilities. The improper disturbance of survey monuments is illegal 19 and may amount to a crime.20
A. LOCATING MONUMENTS PRIOR TO

CONSTRUCTION

19Bus. and Prof. Code Sec. 8771(b) requires that survey monuments in the public way be referenced before construction, their positions recorded, and if disturbed or destroyed, be reset and perpetuated – all under the supervision of a Surveyor and in cooperation with DPW.

See also The Greenbook – Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction Sec. 2-9.1, reiterating the above and explaining that a contractor is to provide notice before disturbing a survey monument and bears the expense of replacing a disturbed monument. 20 Penal Code Sec. 605 makes the malicious intentional destruction of survey marks a misdemeanor.

42 Prior to performing any construction within any public street, public easement, or other City owned property, a Surveyor shall locate and reference all survey monuments on a Corner Record form or Record of Survey. The construction zone within which a survey monument is presumed to be disturbed shall include any work done within 10 feet of a survey monument. If the proposed work will disturb any survey monument the City owns or sets, the Subdivider shall contact the City and County Surveyor at least two weeks prior to construction and submit a Monument Reference Request for m and the appropriate fee. The form, instructions and amount of the fees are available on the DPW website.

Examples of City monuments and additional identifying information for City -owned monuments are available from DPW upon request.

B. REPLACING MONUMENTS AFTER

CONSTRUCTION
When construction is substantially complete, but before certificate of final completion, the Applicant shall schedule an inspection of any monuments that existed prior to construction and within the construction zone. The Applicant shall reset and perpetuate any monuments that were disturbed or destroyed under the supervision of a Surveyor and file this information with the City and County Surveyor on a Corner Record or Record of Survey. If the monument was a survey monument that the City owns or set, the Applicant shall contact the City and County Surveyor at least two weeks prior to completion, 43 finalize the Monument Reference Request, and submit the appropriate fee per replaced monument. The form, instructions and amount of the fees are a vailable on the DPW website.

VII. STANDARD FORMS AND

AGREEMENTS FOR EASEMENTS

AND FEE DEDICATIONS
All offers of dedication, grant deeds, and agreements to benefit the public shall be based on the standard forms available upon request from DPW. The content and form of all final offers, deeds and agreements shall be reviewed and approved by DPW, the City Attorney, and if required the Director of the Division of Real Estate and the Board of Supervisors prior to any City acceptance or recordation.

A. PRIVATE EASEMENTS BETWEEN PRIVATE

PARTIES
A Surveyor shall locate private easements on all record maps and identify them on the face of the map in a note describing the use of the easement and listing the easement recording information. Note that the map notation of the easement and the corresponding information in the title report should match. A subdivision map may not be used to purport to create an easement benefiting a private party.

B. QUASI PUBLIC EASEMENTS
A Surveyor shall locate private easements intended to benefi t a public entity in their proprietary capacity on the face of all record maps and label them "Private Easement for 44 Public Utilities" or as appropriate. These easements and agreements shall be in the form that the public entity, and if necessary, the City Attorney approves. The Subdivider shall submit a copy of the approved easement and if applicable, the approved easement agreement, with a Checkprint prior to recording the map. The Subdivider shall include a note describing the use of the easement and listing the easement’s separate recording information on the face of the map. In the case of an easement not separately recorded, then the Subdivider shall provide a copy of the public entity’s official written interim acceptance of easement to DPW at the time of submittal of a Checkprint.

C. PUBLIC EASEMENTS
With prior approval and when permitted by the Director 21

21 Subdivision Regulations Sec. V (A), note the City’s policy to require fee dedications. See also Sec. E, Conditions of Approval. Note that the PUC requires separate consent and approval for any easement for PUC utilities and may have additional requirements for depth of cover, minimum width and surface treatments not addressed in these Regulations. , the Subdivider shall
irrevocably offer public easements to the City on behalf of the public in perpetuity. The Subdivider shall offer such easements fo r dedication to the City, but the City will not accept such easement s until the City Engineer deems construction of associated improvements complete and the Board of Supervisors acts to accept the dedication.

These easements shall be in the form acceptable to DPW and the City Attorney. The Subdivider shall submit a copy of the easement and easement agreement that the burdened property owner has executed with a Checkprint prior to recording the map. The Subdivider shall include a note making an irrevocable offer of the easement to the City,

45 describing the use of the easement, and listing the easement recording information on the face of the map. Examples of some public easements are available from DPW upon request.

D. PUBLIC DEDICATIONS IN FEE
The City generally requires dedications in fee for new public right-of-way associated with land development projects.

1. Completeness of Public Infrastructure
The City shall accept only full, complete, and functional public streets for purposes of City maintenance and liabil ity. Full, complete, and functional streets include all the aerial, surface, and subsurface public improvements necessary for, and the full width and length of the public right -of-way from intersection to intersection necessary to safely operate the publi c street and all other components as designed in perpetuity. The Subdivider shall not offer public improvements to the City for purposes of City maintenance and liability unless the improvements include the full, complete, and functional public street. The City shall not accept temporary streets or other temporary public improvements. Where proposed public streets or other public improvements connect to private, temporary, or non -functional streets or street improvements, the Subdivider shall not offer such public improvements and the City shall not accept such public streets or street improvements for City maintenance and liability purposes unless the Director, after consultation with other affected City Agencies, approves or conditionally approves the proposed connections. The Director, on a case by case basis 46 and after consultation with other affected City Agencies, may grant an exception to these requirements.

2. Form and Process of Dedications of Land and Improvements Dedications in fee shall be irrevocab ly offered to the City. In addition, the Subdivider shall include an irrevocable offer of interim easement such that the City can complete the Subdivider’s public improvement obligation in the event of default at any time prior to the City’s final acceptance of the fee dedication. In most instances, after Board of Supervisors approval and prior to recordation of the map, the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors shall accept the offer of easement if shown only on the map and reject the offer of fee dedication until the Subdivider completes the required public improvements. The Board of Supervisors shall accept the fee dedication (or easements that include an easement agreements) as part of subsequent legislation that will occur only after the City Engineer deems that the construction of associated improvements is complete, unless the Director determines that it is in the City’s best interest to take such action earlier. All offers and dedications shall be in the form acceptable to DPW and the City Attorney and th e Subdivider shall execute such offers and dedications prior to City approval. A copy of the approved offers and dedications shall be submitted with a Checkprint prior to recording the map. The Subdivider shall include a statement making the irrevocable of fers of dedication to the City and describe the purposes of the dedications on the face of the map.

Example documents of past dedications are available from DPW upon request. 47 VIII. EXEMPT CONVEYANCES
The Subdivision Map Act does not require that a parcel map or final map be filed for certain conveyances to or from a governmental agency, public entity, or public utility22

22 SMA Sec. 66426.5 and Sec. 66428
. However,
the Subdivision Map Act still applies to the division and it is the City and County Surveyor’s longstanding policy to require that such conveyances be adequately memorialized. For each such exempt conveyance where parcel boundaries are newly created and not shown on any existing map of record, the authorized entity shall request a certificate of compliance from the City and County Survey or for review and filing. Upon City and County Surveyor approval, which shall be issued on a case by case basis, the applicant shall prepare and simultaneously file a Record of Survey to memorialize the newly established boundaries and provide evidence of their physical locations.
48 APPENDIX B – TECHNICAL

SPECIFICATIONS RELATED TO

ENGINEERING DOCUMENTS

APPLICABLE CITY-WIDE UNLESS ADDRESSED OTHERWISE IN

SUBSEQUENT APPENDICES OR OTHER REGULATIONS

Note: These specifications continue those portions of the 1982 Subdivision Regulations related to engineering. The section numbering here commences with XII, in accordance with the 1982 regulations and for the convenience of users familiar with the older regulations. Users also should be aware of and familiarize themselves with more updated policies and procedures contained in the official design manuals, plans and specifications, rules, and other official policies adopted by the Department of Public Works, the Fire Department, the Public Utilities Commission, and other City and County of San Francisco agencies and departments.

XII. RECOMMENDED DESIGN OF

STREETS, BLOCKS, AND LOTS

DPW has adopted the following standards of design for the layout of streets, blocks, and lots in the City and County of San Francisco and all t entative and Final Maps shall conform thereto except where unusual circumstances warrant exceptions.

In accordance with Administrative Code Chapter 98, DPW is guided by the following principles in the review and approval of street designs:
49 a. Design of City streets shall be in keeping with the Urban Design Element of the City's General Plan;
b. the City's Transit-First Policy;
c. the Better-Streets Policy;
d. engineering best practices in environmental planning and pedestrian-oriented, multi- modal street designs as adopted within the profession;
e. incorporation of sustainable water management, hydraulic engineering, and landscape architecture techniques to promote safe and livable public improvements.

These principles are intended to ensure continued quality of life, economic well-being, and environmental health in San Francisco. To support these guiding principles, DPW incorporates by reference Administrative Code Chapter 98 and the concepts of the Better Streets Plan into these Subdivision Regulations. DPW also recognizes the City's General Plan, Transportation Element, Urban Design Element, various Neighborhood Plans, and Neighborhood Streetscape Plans as additional objectives and policies that will guide development and assist City agencies when reviewing and approving street designs so that streets are safe and compatible for all users and modes of travel in specific areas of the City.

DPW notes the importance of the following excerpt from the Better Streets Plan:
“The pedestrian character and quality of place for a given street is determined as much by the design of the roadway between the curbs as by what happens on the sidewalk. Factors such as numbers of lanes, lane widths, design and posted speeds, number of directions (one-way or two-way), and how 50 the roadway is split among different travel modes (transit, bicycles, vehicles) exert a great influence on pedestrian safety and quality.”

Recognizing the need to apply sound engineering principles for street design in light of these broad policy goals, DPW encourages all designers and developers to consider the totality of these factors in the resulting proposed street designs.

Practical considerations also should include but are not limited to the relationships of intersecting and adjacent streets; roadway ac cess for emergency vehicles; length of street segments; adjacent proposed development, occupant density, and residential or commercial nature of the occupation; type of building construction, height, and building access points for emergency service provisions; driveway cuts and location and type of private ingress and egress, inclusion of parks, mews, and pedestrian-only corridors, curb turning radii at public streets for various types of vehicles; crosswalk and curb location and design; sidewalk widths, si ght lines for both pedestrians and vehicles; lane width and direction, parking lane locations and width; bicycle access and accommodations; pedestrian safety and disabled access and accommodations; accommodation of fixed street encroachments, such as trees and street furniture; stormwater management, flood analysis and hydraulic design; grading, soils analysis, liquefaction susceptibility; geotechnical suitability, soil permeability, slope stability, and ground water influences, etc.

In light of these factors and considerations, DPW establishes the following street design standards.

DPW with the input of other reviewing City Agencies may consider modifying these standards on a 51 case-by-case basis if the Subdivider or sponsoring City Agency presents adequate technical information that supports issuance of an exception to the standards or a design modification.

A. PUBLIC STREETS
The following design criteria governing the dimensions and grades of City streets is the result of the findings of an ongoing multi-department technical engineering review. Users are advised to consult with all affected City departments to verify that adequate safety and separation factors are properly addressed in any proposed new street design. These guidelines are intended to be c onsistent with the San Francisco Street Design Manual anticipated to be drafted and adopted in the future. These guidelines also are intended to be consistent with the National Association of City Transportation Officials’ (NACTO) Urban Street Design Guide , and the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide . Where topography, conservation of land use, or other public benefit overrides other factors, the Director of Public Works may grant a n exception to these requirements. Prior to or concurrent with a tentative map application submittal, the Subdivider may request such an exception or design modification.

2. Definitions
a. Street. The area between property lines dedicated to public right-of-way purposes, including Sidewalks, Curbs, Gutters and Roadway. All public streets require a minimum width of 40 feet.23

23 Street and Highways Code Sec. 1805; see also Sec. 160 There is no maximum width.
52 i. Sidewalk. The area between property line and face of curb or edge of Roadway as depicted on the official grade and dedication maps maintained by the Department of Public Works. The Sidewalk is composed of three general zones:
1) Frontage Zone. The frontage zone is the portion of the sidewalk located immediately adjacent to the property line, and provides shy distance from buildings, walls, fences, or property lines. It sometimes includes space for building-related features such as entryways and accessible ramps. It also may include landscaping as well as awnings, signs, news racks, benches, and outdoor café seating.
2) Pedestrian Zone. The pedestrian zone, situated between the frontage zone and the furniture zone, is the area dedicated to pedestrian movement and should be kept clear of all fixtures and obstructions. Within the pedestrian zone, the Pedestrian Access Route (PAR) is the path that provides continuous connections from the public right-of-way to building and property entry points, parking areas, and public transportation. DPW requires this pathway to comply with ADA guidelines and is intended to be a seamless pathway for persons with disabilities. As such, this route should be a firm, stable, and slip-resistant pavement. The PAR should be a minimum of 4 feet, but preferably at least 5 feet in width to provide adequate space for two pedestrians to comfortably pass or walk side by side and accommodate pedestrian traffic load. All transitions (e.g., from street to accessible ramp or accessible ramp to landing) must be flush and 53 in accordance with ADA guidelines. The design engineer shall propose a pedestrian zone width sufficient to accommodate the projected volume of users, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. In no case shall this zone be less than the width of the PAR.
3) Furniture Zone. The furniture zone is located between the curb and the pedestrian zone. To keep the pedestrian zone free of obstructions, the furniture zone should contain all fixtures, such as street trees, bus stops and shelters, parking meters, lamp posts, signs, bike racks, benches, waste receptacles, drinking fountains, and other street furniture. ii. Roadway. The roadbed, the curb to curb area marking the travel way, is the area of the roadway typically reserved for the curb, curbside parking, and vehicular travel. In a Shared Street, it is that portion demarcated for use by vehicles. The type, quantity, and size of lanes shall be consistent with the requirements of Section B. Constituent Parts, below.
b. Alley. A Street with a Roadway not exceeding 25 feet in width. The overall right-of-way for an alley shall not exceed 40 feet in width or be less than 20 feet in width. 24 24 California Vehicle Code Sec. 110; Street and Highways Code Sec. 1805.

A standard
alley shall have sidewalks on both sides of the roadway that are a minimum of 4 feet in width. These sidewalks shall be designed in accordance with ADA guidelines. DPW shall review and approve other types of alleys (such as Shared Streets) on a case by case basis after consultation with other affected City Agencies. DPW may approve an alley with a sidewalk on only one side on a case by case basis and after issuing an exception. 54 B. CONSTITUENT PARTS
The Subdivider is required to dedicate to the City in fee simple ownership a public street of sufficient width to accommodate the sum of the individual components listed below.

Subdivider shall demonstrate that streets have all necessary constituent parts and functionality prior to being offered for dedication. The following applies to public or private streets:

1. Traffic Lane
The standard automobile traffic lane shall be 10 feet wide. Recommended traffic lane on a truck, commercial or transit routes is 11 to 12 feet wide, depending on the number of lanes and their location.
25 The design of lane widths shall be a function of
adjacency to oncoming lanes, parking lane or bicycle lane, and other special conditions such as design speed, curves, and traffic volumes. Streets shall have a minimum of two lanes of opposing traffic. The Director may approve a design modification to allow one-way streets on a case by case basis after consultation with affected City department. Subdivider shall consult with the appropriate City Agencies for additional specifications and requirements for streets that the City may classify and/or design as arterials or collector streets.
26 2. Sidewalks.

25 San Francisco currently lacks “designated truck routes”; see MTA Memorandum from the City Traffic Engineer dated June 19, 2013 for additional information related to lane widths for streets with Muni vehicles and bicycle facilities. 26 See California Highway Design Manual Chapter 40 – Federal Aid, and Chapter 60 – Nomenclature for additional information on funding and classification of state and federal highway system s. 55 Streets shall include sidewalk improvements on both sides of the roadway. Street sidewalk widths shall conform to the following or as the Better Streets Plan may be updated in the future.

Primary Land Use Street Type
Sidewalk Minimum
Width
COMMERCIAL Downtown commercial Per Downtown Plan
Commercial throughway 15’
Neighborhood commercial 15’
RESIDENTIAL Downtown residential 15’
Residential throughway 15’
Neighborhood residential 12’
OTHER Industrial 10’
Mixed-use 15’
SPECIAL Parkway 17’
Park edge 24’
Multi-way boulevard 15’
Ceremonial Varies
Alley 9’
Shared public way NA
Paseo Varies

Note that additional accessibility requirements exist w ith technical specifications beyond the scope of these Regulations. DPW advises Subdividers a to contact the 56 DPW Disabilities Coordinator for specific provisions related to pavement materials, passenger loading zones, and path of travel for disabled persons.27

3. Fire Department Operations.

a. All streets shall provide a minimum clear width of 20 feet of travel way between obstructions. Obstructions may include parked vehicles, certain curbs greater than 6 inches in height
28 b. For purposes of calculating the clear width of the travel way, such width may include any combination of the following:
or any other fixed object that prevents emergency vehicular travel. i. That portion of any adjacent curbside parking space having a width greater than 7 feet, ii. a bike lane or any other adjacent pavement capable of supporting emergency vehicles where such lane or pavement is separated from the vehicular lanes by paint striping (Class II) or a mountable curb being no more than 2 inches in height (Class I), or other forms of pavement separation that may vary in material type, color, and texture. c. Where adjacent buildings are greater than 40 feet in height and not of Type 1 (fire resistive) building construction, and the building entrance locations are not yet specified, the Director may require an operational width of at least 26 feet to accommodate Fire Department operational requirements along each street fronting such a building. i. “Operational width” shall be the combined total of the clear width of the travel way together with those unobstructed portions of adjacent pavement or sidewalks (if

27 See also Proposed Accessibility Guidelines for Pedestrian Facilities in the Public Right -of-Way as published by the United States Access Board.
28 See San Francisco Fire Code Sec. 503.4, provid ing additional guidance on what may be considered an obstruction; see also Board of Supervisors Ordinance No. 116- 13.
57 capable of supporting emergency vehicles).Reservation of portions of curbside parking for fire-only access or use of alternative mountable curb designs that allow for safe fire vehicle access to the sidewalk may accomplish this goal. The Fire Department, in consultation with other affected City agencies, may approve other proposals developed in the future.
ii. In such cases, the Subdivider shall provide sufficient right-of-way width on all abutting sides of a proposed development block to accommodate the foreseeable street design alternatives.
iii. Where DPW requires the portion of the block to have additional operational width (greater than 20 feet clear), the design engineer shall be locate this in segments along the building frontages with a maximum length of 200 feet for any one segment.

Segments may have a minimum length of as little as 100 feet. The Subdivider shall ensure the existence of adequate space for emergency vehicles to pass each other and set up operations at the front entrance of the building. In addition, the design shall provide for meaningful traffic calming measures to ensure safe vehicle speeds along the street, including returning to the standard 20 foot travel way between widened segments. This provision shall not apply to blocks less than 200 feet in length. iv. Subdividers are encouraged to consult with the Fire Department early in the subdivision process in advance of when the Subdivider anticipates the construction of such buildings. Information such as building access points, size of building and type of building construction are essential elements needed for constructive agency review.
58 v. Any decision to accommodate street widths having greater than 20 feet of travel way shall be approved by the Director only after consultation with and approval by an interagency working group composed of the Fire Department, the Municipal Transportation Agency, the Planning Department and any other affected city agency.

When discussing the most appropriate widths of the travel way, the interagency working group shall consider such factors as the role and intended character of the street in the overall street network, the width of adjacent streets, the length of the street(s) in question, the anticipated traffic volume, and emergency and medical response.

4. Bicycle Lanes
All bicycle facilities shall meet or exceed the minimum lane widths provided in the California Highway Design Manual , the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. Subdivider’s shall design bicycle facilities in accordance with the NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide.

5. Parking Lane
The width of a curbside parallel parking lane shall be 8 feet. SFMTA may approve on a case by case basis angled curbside parking designs.

6. Curb Intersection Radii and Turning Movements
Subdividers shall design intersections for and accommodate turning vehicles in accordance with the Better Streets Plan.
29 29

http://www.sfbetterstreets.org/find-project-types/pedestrian-safety-and-traffic-calming/traffic-calming-overview/curb-radius- changes/
59 7. Sidewalk Extensions or Bulbs
Sidewalk extensions or bulbs into the roadway at intersection or midblock adjacent to parallel parking shall be 6 feet wide. The Director may approve on a case by case basis wider sidewalk extensions or bulbs where adjacent to angled parking.

8. Median
Any uncontrolled pedestrian crossing of four or more traffic lanes shall have a median or island not less than 6 feet wide in- between opposing traffic directions. The Director shall review on a case by case basis continuous medians that extend more than 400 feet in length or continue beyond a city block

9. Dead End Streets
In addition to all other applicable requirements, Subdivider shall ensure that all requirements of the San Francisco Fire Code are met.

10. Utility Separation
Utilities shall conform to the requirements of state law and the policies of the DPW and the SFPUC.
30 Refer to following diagrams31

30 Subdividers shall consult separately with Pacific Gas and Electric Company to determine separation requirements of natural ga s or as appropriate for other utilities not addressed herein. of typical sub-surface utilities:
31 This diagram is illustrative of certain specifications set forth by the PUC and DPW. This diagram is subject to change and i s subject to other technical specifications set forth in these appendices or other official policies that Cit y department may adopt. 60 Diagram 1 - Subsurface utilities designed with a combined sewer system:

61 Diagram 2 - Subsurface utilities designed with a separated sewer system:

62 C. STREET GUIDELINES

1. Alignment
All streets shall, as far as practicable, align with existing streets. The Subdivider shall justify any deviations based on written environmental and design objectives.

2. Intersecting Streets
Intersecting streets shall meet at right angles or as nearly so as practicable.

3. Naming
Streets of a proposed subdivision which are in alignment with existing streets shall bear the names of the existing streets. The Department of Public Works shall approve names for all new streets.

4. Street Grades
DPW shall not approve street grades in excess of 17% except as an exception and under unusual conditions.

Streets having grades in excess of 14% shall require separate consultation with the Fire Department prior to use for fire access purposes.

No gutter grade shall be less than 0.5%. The Subdivider shall provide concrete on any pavement grade less than 1.0%.

The Subdivider shall connect all changes in street grades, the algebraic sum of which exceeds 1.5%, with vertical curves of DPW-approved length sufficient to provide safe stopping sight distances and good riding quality. All changes in street grades shall have an absolute value of the algebraic difference in grades which does not exceed fifteen percent (15%), regardless of any vertical curves. 63 The Director with the consent of the SFFD may approve of any design modification to this standard on a case-by-case basis.

5. Surface Drainage
a. Subdivider shall grade streets to provide a continuous downhill path. b. At low end cul-de-sacs and sumps, in addition to sewer drainage facilities, Subdivider shall provide surface drainage channels in dedicated easements as relief of overflow to prevent flooding of adjoining property.
c. Subdivider shall design street and drainage channel cross-sections to provide a transport channel for overland or surface flow in excess of the 5-years storm capacity of the sewer system. The channel capacity shall be the difference between the sewer capacity and the quantity of runoff generated by a 100-year storm as defined by the NOAA National Weather Service or by City-furnished data, applied over the tributary area involved. d. Subdivider shall round street curb intersections by a curve generally having a radius equivalent to the width of the sidewalk and the design shall be in accordance with the Better Streets Plan. While allowing vehicle movements for emergency vehicles, the Subdivider shall use the smallest possible radius.

D. PRIVATE STREETS
Private streets shall have a minimum right -of-way width of 40 feet for through streets.

Dead-end private str eets shall have a minimum right -of-way width of 60 feet. The Subdivider shall consult with the Fire Department and Department of Building Inspection for all designs that might result in less than the minimum width.

E. BLOCKS
64 1. Length
Blocks shall not exceed 600 feet in length except under unusual conditions. If a Block a is greater than 300 feet in length, the Subdivider shall attempt to incorporate a mid- block access generally near the mid -point of each block in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Planning Code.

2. Mid-Block Pedestrian Way
Where a City department or commission requires a mid-block pedestrian way for longer blocks, such pedestrian way shall have a minimum width of 10 feet and be located near the mid-point of each block. The grade of such pedestrian ways shall not exceed 15% unless the Subdivider provides steps that DPW approves as part of the design. The Subdivider should consult all latest laws and regulations, which may be in effect, governing accessibility and the design of pedestrian ways for the disabled.

3. Corners
Where block corners having an interior angle of 60 degrees or less are necessary and approved by the Director, the Subdivider shall round such corners by a curve having a radius of not less than ten feet. And, this radius shall be such that when added to the sidewalk width the aggregate shall not be less than 25 feet. In a business district the block corner may be chamfered in an angular fashion.

4. Block Numbers
The Assessor's Office shall approve all Block numbers.
65 F. LOTS

1. Dimensions
Lot dimensions shall conform with the City Planning Code.

2. Side Lines
The side lines of all lots shall be at right angles or radial to the street right-of-way line, to the extent practicable.

3. Setback Lines
Setback lines shall be consistent with the provisions of the General Plan.

4. Lot Numbers
The Assessor’s Office shall approve all lot numbers.

G. STREET NETWORK DESIGN
In any planned unit development as defined in Planning Code Section 304 or other type of master plan area of equal or greater size, DPW shall prohibit more than one half of the total street network to include 26’ minimum clear or larger street width, as counted by the number of block faces fronting on such streets. The Subdivider shall arrange and align such larger streets in these development areas to create a continuous network of emergency vehicle access streets and shall ensure that at least one side of each block fronts on such a street. The Director, only after consultation and agreement with the Fire Department, the Municipal Transportation Agency, the Planning Department and any other affected city agency, may allow more than two faces of any block to front on such larger streets.
66 XIII. STREET IMPROVEMENT

REQUIRED
The Subdivider shall improve, or agree to improve, all streets, highways, or public ways that are a part of or adjacent to the subdivision. Such improvement shall include the necessary paving, curbs, sidewalks, catchbasins, manholes, sewers, side sewers, culverts, storm drains, sanitary sewers and various utilities such as gas, electric, telephone, water, fire protection and alarm, and lighting.32 The Subdivider may obtain information regarding street lighting requirements from the Bureau of Light, Heat and Power of the Public Utilities Commission.

All
street improvements shall be in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Public Works and all other affected City Agencies with jurisdiction over public improvements. The Fire Department shall approve all water supplies for fire protection and alarm facilities. The SFPUC Bureau of Light, Heat and Power shall approve all street lighting facilities. All potable water supply mains, catch basins, manholes, sewers, side sewers, culverts, storm drains, and sanitary sewers shall be in accordance with rules and regulations of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission. The Subdivider shall bear the difference in cost between a normal size main and that of any larger size main that the City may require because of the City’s fire service needs. The City shall not refund any part of such additional cost. The Subdivider shall satisfy the SFPUC that such ove rsizing of the main will not be detrimental to water quality.

32 See also Sec. VII.(D)(1) Completeness of Public Infrastructure 67 The Subdivider may obtain information regarding requirements for fire alarm facilities and Police Communication system from the Department of Technology 33 XIV. RECOMMENDED TYPES OF

PAVEMENTS
. If such improvements are not
satisfactorily completed at the time the Final Map is filed, the Subdivider shall, prior to the approval of such map, enter into a Public Improvement Agreement with the Director of Public Works in accordance with the provisions set forth in these Regulations.

Pavements and curbs shall be of the types hereinafter set forth and the S ubdivider shall construct these improvements to the Standard Specifications of the Bureau of Engineering, Department of Public Works.

A. FOR LIGHT TRAFFIC

1. Grades over 17% (when approved)
An 8-inch concrete pavement.

2. Grades 17% to 0.5%
A pavement consisting of a 8 -inch concrete base and a 2 -inch asphalt concrete wearing surface, or

3. Also on grades 1.0% - 0.5%
The Subdivider shall construct a concrete gutter at least 1 feet wide and of the same thickness as adjoining pavement.

33 At the time of adoption of these Regulations (2015), the point of contact at Department of Telecommunications and Information Services is Mike Denning, mike.denning@ sfgov.com.
68 B. FOR HEAVY TRAFFIC
On streets likely to carry heavy loads or large volumes of traffic, the Subdivider shall design pavements according to and in compliance with DPW requirements.

C. COMMERCIAL AREAS
The Subdivider shall construct a concrete parking strip 8 inches thick and at least 8 feet wide adjacent to the curbs in all areas zoned for commercial purposes.

D. CURBS
The Subdivider shall construct standard concrete curbs adjacent to all pavements.

XV. RECOMMENDED STANDARDS OF

DESIGN FOR SEWER SYSTEMS
A. GENERAL
The Subdivider shall design infrastructure to remove sewage and storm water from each lot or parcel of land, and to remove storm water from all roads, streets, and sidewalks.

At all sump or cul -de-sac locations, the Subdivider shall design (in addition to normal sewer connections), surface drainage channels to relieve overflows that could flood adjoining property. Subdivider shall dedicate easements for this purpose to the City if the SFPUC requires such easements.

B. SEWERS

1. Location
The Subdivider shall locate sewers in the center of streets, alleys, etc., unless the Director with the consent of the SFPUC approves an alternate design. 69 2. Depth and Cover
The minimum depth of sewers shall be 6 feet; provided, however, that the Director with the consent of the SFPUC may approve a shallower alternative. In no event shall the cover over sewers in street areas be less than four feet in order to distribute surface loads and to provide space for utility service facilities.

For sewers located in the rear of lots or in easements not subject to surface traffic, the minimum depth of trench shall be four feet. The Subdivider shall design surface drainage in these areas so that natural soil erosion does not result in a build-up of soil covering any manhole castings. The Subdivider may accomplish this with a design of the casting that rises slightly above the surrounding surface.

Sewers are designed to flow under surcharged conditions and, in the event of extreme storms, the surcharge may rise to the street for overland flow transport. In order to prevent backflow fro m the sewer main into improvements below street grade, the SFPUC prohibits gravity line from sources below the surface grade of adjacent streets to sewer mains. The Subdivider shall install backflow preventers in all properties below street grade. The SFPUC advises the installation of automatic sewage ejectors for any such drainage.

3. Types and Sizes
Sewers 6" to 21" in diameter shall be of vitrified clay pipe (VCP) (ASTM C-700 Extra Strength). Sewers 24" to 36" diameter may be of VCP (ASTM C-700 Extra Strength) with construction modifications, or of reinforced concrete pipe subject to the approval 70 of the Director with the consent of the SFPUC. Sewers larger than 36" diameter may be of monolithic reinforced concrete or of reinforced concrete pipe subject t o the approval of the Director with the consent of the SFPUC.

In addition to circular shapes, the SFPUC may require egg-shaped, basket-handle, or rectangular sections for particular flow conditions.

Standard plans for most monolithic types of sewer sections are available from DPW and/or SFPUC. The Director with the consent of the SFPUC may consider the use of alternative pipe material for specific purposes and situations.

4. Joints
Vitreous Clay Pipe (VCP) sewers shall have bell and spigot joints with facto ry fabricated compression-type fittings (ASTM-C425). Reinforced Concrete Pipe (RCP) sewers shall have bell and spigot or other approved joints.

5. Alignment and Curves
All VCP or RCP sewers shall generally be laid using straight lines and grades between manholes.

In certain circumstances the Director with the consent of the SFPUC may permit curved sewers. Compound curves are prohibited. The degree of curvature shall conform to ASTM or other appropriate standards.
71 The Subdivider may lay monolithic concrete sewers on curves, provided the radius of curvature is made as large as practical and is not less than four times the diameter of the sewer.

6. Easement, Bedding and Piling
The Subdivider shall encase all 24" or larger diameter VCP sewers in reinforced concrete, or place them on a reinforced concrete or crushed rock foundation, in a manner that the Director with the consent of the SFPUC requires. The Subdivider shall encase or cradle all VCP sewers 15" or less in diameter, having 15 feet or more of cover, and all VCP sewer 18" or larger in diameter with 10 feet or more of cover in concrete. Encasement and concrete foundations shall be in accordance with Standard Plans.

The Subdivider shall encase all VCP sewers on grades of 30% or greater in reinforced concrete in accordance with Standard Plans, and place concrete against undisturbed ground.

Based on the soil conditions, the Director with the consent of SFPUC may require the Subdivider to place sewers on concrete foundations, encasement, and/or placement on pile foundations.

The Director with the consent of SFPUC may require encasement in areas of possible root intrusion or extreme infiltration.

C. MANHOLES
The Subdivider shall locate manholes preferably at intervals of 300 feet but not more than 350 feet and shall provide them at every change in size, grade, or alignment, at all 72 junctions of sewers (except side sewers), at ends of sewers, and where catchbasin culverts joint pipe sewers. On sewers with curved horizontal alignment, the Subdivider shall place manholes at intervals that the Director with the consent of the SFPUC approves.

The Subdivider shall construct manholes in accordance with Standard Plans unless the Director with the consent of the SFPUC approves otherwise.

D. TAPERS AND JUNCTION STRUCTURES
The SFPUC requires taper structures where a concrete sewer changes in size or shape.

The SFPUC requires junction structures where concrete sewers merge.

E. CULVERTS
The Subdivider shall construct culverts of VCP 10" in diameter. The Subdivider shall make connections to VCP sewers, and concrete pipe having a diameter less than 42", at manholes only and in accordance with Standard Plans. The Subdivider may make connections to brick sewers which are 3' x 5' or larger and to monolithic concrete sewers or concrete pipe sewers, 42" or more in diameter, directly into the sewer in accordance with Standard Plans and current City practice.

The Subdivider shall lay culvert inverts generally at a depth of three to four feet below pavement grade at the CB, with a fall towards the manhole or sewer of approximately 12 inches, but in no case at a grade of less than two percent.

1. Catchbasins
73 The Subdivider shall construct catchbasins (CB) at all corners of an intersection except at summit corners where the Subdivider shall located them in the gutter as to most effectively serve the adjacent drainage area.

The Subdivider shall space CB's or Storm Water Inlets (SWI's) not more than 600 feet apart. The Director with the consent of the SFPUC may require closer spacing and additional CB's and SWI's to effectively drain the pavement. The Director with the consent of the SFPUC may require the Subdivider to install multiple inlets.

The Subdivider shall construct CB's and SWI's, if approved by the Director and with the consent of the SFPUC, in accordance with Standard Plans.

2. Sewer Connections
The Subdivider shall install Y-and T-Branches or vitrified clay on all VCP sewers in locations described under Section 3. Side Sewers , to provide connections for side sewers. In general, they shall be 6 inches in diameter for residential districts, and 8 inches minimum in diameter for industrial and commercial districts.

3. Side Sewers
Unless the Director with the consent of the SFPUC permits otherwise, the Subdivider shall install side sewers in conjunction with construction of the main sewer and extend them beyond the curb.

The Subdivider shall install side sewers and space them as herein described. They shall generally be 6" in diameter for residential areas and 8" minimum in diameter for 74 industrial and commercial areas. The Subdivider shall lay them on a uniform grade upward from the main sewer to a point 12 inches beyond the curb line. In no case shall this grade be less than 1/4 inch per foot.

The upper end of the side sewer, at the curb, shall be of sufficient depth to provide adequate drainage for the property served and, in no case, shall the invert at the curb be less than four feet below curb grade. The Subdivider shall make openings in the existing sewer with a sharp cutting tool; and the Subdivider shall epoxy an approved saddle of appropriate size or strap it to the existing sewer. The Subdivider shall locate side sewers at the lowest elevation of the frontage of the property.

Where the street is to be paved before lot improvements are made, the Subdivider shall construct side sewers beyond the curb before the paving is started. The Subdivider shall close the upper end of each side sewer not in service when the work is backfilled with a vitrified clay stopper, marked with a redwood post, and marked with the letter "S" on the curb, all as specified in the Standard Specifications.

XVI. CAPACITY OF STORM AND

COMBINED SEWERS DESIGN
Combined and storm water sewers shall have sufficient capacity, when flowing full or surcharged to carry the computed storm water runoff, based on the ultimate development of the area including the material drainage from upstream areas.

In general in the design of a combined sewer, the Subdivider need not include sanitary flow and infiltration n computing sewer capacities. However, where a sanitary sewer diversion line, 75 interceptor, or pump discharge enters a combined sewer, the Subdivider shall include ultimate sanitary flow.

A. Minimum Size
Main sewers shall be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter unless the Director with t he consent of the SFPUC approves otherwise.

B. Velocity and Invert Lining
The Subdivider shall design storm sewer for a minimum velocity of three feet per second when flowing full.

The Subdivider shall design combined sewers for a minimum velocity of two feet per second under average sanitary flow conditions (approximately four feet per second flowing full).

The Subdivider shall line the inverts of monolithic concrete sewers with vitrified brick or other approved material when the velocity under maximum sanitary flow conditions equals or exceed ten feet per second (approximately 20 feet per second flowing full).

C. Hydraulic Considerations
The Subdivider shall select sewer sizes so that the hydraulic grade line shall, in general, be four feet below the pavement or ground surface, and at no point less than two feet.

The Subdivider shall use tidal elevation in hydraulic computations, where applicable, which is -3.5’, Old City datum. Subdividers shall consult with the City and County Surveyor for conversion information to the newer CS-13 Datum.

The Subdivider shall address in large sewers hydraulic losses in bends where the velocity is seven feet per second or more.
76 D. RUN-OFF
The Subdivider shall compute \storm water run-off by the Rational Formula, as herein described, or such other methods as Director with the consent of the SFPUC determines to be City practice.

Rational Formula: Q=ACR, where
Q = Quantity of Run-off in cubic feet per second.

A = Drainage Area, tributary to the point under consideration, in acres.

C = Coefficient of Run-off = Ratio of Run-off to Rainfall.

R = Rate or Intensity of Rainfall in inches per hour.
( = c.f.s. per Acre) for the duration of rainfall corresponding to time of concentration.

1. Rainfall Rate
Rainfall Rate (R), or intensity, us ed in design shall be taken from the tabulation entitled "San Francisco Rainfall Rate Table 1941," Plan L -3903.4 dated February 1941, or subsequent revisions thereof, and is defined as a 5-year storm. The intensity, or rate, that the Subdivider uses at any point along the sewer line, shall be the intensity corresponding to the total time of concentration at that point.

2. Area
The Subdivider shall use the total area tributary to the point under consideration in design.

3. Coefficient of Run-off (C)
Coefficient o f Run-off (C) for any area depends upon the type of development, character of the soil, slope and general topography, and the proportion of the area 77 occupied by improvements. The Subdivider shall use the coefficient in design that is in accordance with the values shown in Table I and shall be subject to the approval of the Director with the consent of the SFPUC.

4. Time of Concentration and Inlet Time
Time of concentration at any given point is the time required for the runoff from the most remote point in th e drainage area to reach that point, and is equal to the inlet time plus the time of flow in the sewer to the point under consideration.

Inlet time is the time required for the water from the most remote point of the drainage area to reach the uppermost i nlet of the sewer system. The inlet times that the Subdivider uses in design shall be in accordance with the values shown in Table I.

For inlet times of less than five minutes, the Subdivider shall use the intensity of 3.13 inches per hour.

Coefficients of run-off and inlet times for various types of districts are shown in the following table. For those districts that do not fit into any of the categories below, the Subdivider shall submit proposed coefficients with rationale to the Director and the SFPUC for review and approval.
78 COEFFICIENTS OF RUN-OFF AND INLET TIMES

TABLE I

Range of Values
Run-Off Coeff. "C"

Inlet Time in Minutes
Type of District Slope 3% &
Over
Slope Under 3%

Commercial .80 to .95 3 5

Industrial .50 to .90 3-5 4-6

Apts. & Flats .50 to .80 3 5

Residential
(Attached Homes)

.45 to .70

4 6

Residential
(Detached Homes)

.40 to .65

5 7

Suburban .25 to .35 6 10
79 E. SELECTION OF SEWER SIZES
The Subdivider shall computed sewer sizes by the Kutter, or the Manning Formulas. The values for the coefficient of roughness "n" to be used for different types of sewers shall be as indicated below in Table II.

TABLE II
COEFFICIENT OF ROUGHNESS "n"
Type of Sewer Coefficient "n"

Vitrified Clay Pipe .013

Monolithic Concrete 0.13

Centrifugally Cast Concrete Pipe 0.12 - 0.13

Brick 0.15

Corrugated Iron 0.25

80 XVII. SANITARY FLOW CRITERIA IN THE

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO DESIGN BASIS
Sanitary or interceptor sewers shall be designed to carry the ultimate maximum sanitary flow plus infiltration computed as hereinafter described. Sewers 12 inches to 18 inches in diameter shall have sufficient capacity to carry the computed design flow when running half full. Sewers larger than 18 inches shall have sufficient capacity to carry the computed flow when running 3/4 full.

A. MINIMUM SIZE
Sanitary main sewers shall be a minimum 12 inches in diameter the Director of Public Works with the consent of the SFPUC permits otherwise.

B. VELOCITY
The grade of sanitary sewers shall be such as to produce a minimum velocity of 2 to 2.5 feet per second under average sanitary flow conditions.

C. DEPTH
The Subdivider shall construct sanitary sewers at the minimum depths specified under Section XV. Recommended Standards of Design for Sewer Systems.

D. SELECTION OF SEWER SIZES
In determining sewer sizes the coefficient of roughness "n" to be used shall be as specified for various types of materials in Table II.
81 E. QUANTITY OF FLOW
Where no water use records are available, the maximum ultimate sanitary flow that the Subdivider uses in design shall be computed on the basis of 180 gallons per capita per day or 0.278 cubic feet per second per 1000 population. This maximum flow is predicated on an average ultimate flow of 100 gallons per capita per day. Where it is known that the average ultimate flow exceeds or will exceed 100 gallons per capita per day, the Subdivider shall adjust accordingly the maximum ultimate flow for purposes of the design.

The Director and the SFPUC shall give special design consideration to areas that include large water users or industries which discharge large quantities of industrial wastes, such as breweries, slaughter houses, canneries, etc., in regard to quantity and quality of sewerage.

Population - In the absence of actual census counts, or other data, the Subdivider shall assume population densities for purposes of ultimate sanitary flow computations within the limits shown in Table III. The Director with the consent of the SFPUC shall approve these computations.
82 TABLE III

POPULATION DENSITIES
Type of District Persons Per Acre
Industrial 100 - 150
Commercial 100 - 150
Apartment Houses 150 - 200
Flats 80 - 100
Residential - Attached Houses 50 - 60
Residential - Detached Houses 40 - 50
Suburban 35

1. Infiltration
The Subdivider shall estimate infiltration to be added to the sanitary flow of pipe sewers between the limits of 0.001 second feet per acre, in the fairly high areas of the City with moderately heavy soil to 0.003 second feet per acre, in the low areas of the City where sewers are below the soil-water plane. In high areas with sandy soils, the Subdivider may disregard rates of infiltration.

2. Sanitary Diversions
In computing flows for sanitary diversion lines constructed to carry sanitary flow from a combined sewer to a treatment plant or pumping station, the Subdivider shall make an allowance for the first rains which flush debris from the streets. This allowance shall be equal to a run-off of 1/4 inches per 24 hours ( = 0.01 inches per hour = 0.01 83 c.f.s. per acre) and the Subdivider shall add this to the maximum ultimate sanitary flow.

F. AUXILIARY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
For all Subdivision projects in the City, the Subdivider shall construct an Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) to the satisfaction of the San Francisco Fire Department (SFFD), including but not limited to high pressure water mains and hydrants, cisterns, a Portable Water Supply Systems (PWSS), suction inlets and fireboat manifolds. The SFFD shall specify hydrant location spacing, but generally the Subdivider should site hydrants at street intersections to the extent practicable. The Director with the consent of the SFFD shall review and approve any design modification to this standard. The SFPUC shall design any AWSS features on behalf of the SFFD.

XVIII. POST CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS
A. AS-BUILTS
The Contractor and Construction Manager shall sign and certify as -built plans. The Subdivider, Contractor or Construction Manager shall scan and provide electronic copies of the original redlined plans to the City Engineer and any other requesting City Agency.

B. RECORD DRAWINGS
Upon completion of improvements shown on a set of Improvement Plans, the Subdivider shall update the Improvement Plans with changes made during construction and provide the City with electronic files of the final record drawings and any reports 84 that the Improvement Plans, Standard Plans, or Standard Specifications require. The record drawings shall be a separate document and shall not contain references to construction submittals, instructional bulletins, or requests for information. The electronic files shall be in AutoCAD (.dwg), or ESRI (.shp, personal or file geodatabase) and/or PDF format or other form as approved by the City Engineer. The Subdivider shall deliver these to the City Engineer, City and County Surveyor, and any other requesting City Agency for a permanent record of the constructed improvements.

Attributes and metadata of the constructed improvements shall be included. Pipe attributes shall include material, type and diameter information from DPW look up tables as Object Data or .shp or geodatabase files as applicable. Node attributes shall include Rim, Invert, and Node Type from DPW look up tables as Object Data or .shp or geodatabase files as applicable. Structures shall include Type attribute (i.e.; Diversion, Junction, Weir, Pump Station, etc.) from DPW look-up table as Object Data or .shp or Geodatabase files as applicable.

1 D. Luttropp Decl. ISO MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01786767.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
DAVID CHIU, SBN 189542
City Attorney
SARA J. EISENBERG, SBN 269303
ALEXANDER J. HOLTZMAN, SBN 311813
Deputy City Attorneys
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, 6
th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-5408
Telephone: (415) 554-3999
Facsimile: (415) 554-3837
E-Mail: [email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

JENNIFER TOY, ROSE AQUILINA, MARK
ROH, and TED LOEWENBERG individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs and Petitioners,

vs.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION, and DOES 1 – 10,

Defendants and Respondents.

Lead Case No. CPF-22-517764
(Consolidated with Case No. CPF-23-518342)

DECLARATION OF DEPUTY CHIEF

DARIUS LUTTROPP IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS CITY

AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE

ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY

ADJUDICATION

Hearing Date: February 13, 2025
Hearing Judge: Judge Andrew Y.S. Cheng
Time: 9:30 a.m.

Place: Dept. 613

Date Action Filed: May 17, 2022
Trial Date: December 1, 2025

ELECTRONICALLY

F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
11/14/2024
Clerk of the Court
BY: VERA MU
Deputy Clerk

2 D. Luttropp Decl. ISO MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01786767.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

DECLARATION OF DARIUS LUTTROPP
I, Darius Luttropp, declare as follows:

1. I am Deputy Chief of Operations with the San Francisco Fire Department (“Fire Department”), a department of the City and County of San Francisco (“City”). I am over the age of eighteen (18) and not a party to this action. I submit this declaration in support of the Motion for Summary Adjudication or in the Alternative Summary Judgment filed by the City and San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC”). Except where otherwise indicated, the following facts are known to me personally, and if called on as a witness, I would testify to them competently.

2. Hydrants are located and designed to protect developed properties, such as buildings, facilities, and other structures within the City, which I understand receive water service from the SFPUC. These hydrants are designed to provide an immediately available water service to aid in extinguishing fires that threaten this developed property. My understanding is that the California Fire Code requires that hydrants be located where facilities or buildings are constructed. When new development is proposed, the Fire Department reviews building plans to ensure that hydrants will be installed and located such that hydrants will be able to serve the property on which the structure(s) will be constructed.

3. The essential purpose of hydrants is to provide water service to suppress fires that threaten developed properties. Any other use of hydrants within the City is incidental to the primary purpose of providing water to suppress fires on developed properties.

4. The public at large does not have access to water through hydrants. My understanding is that tampering with any fire hydrant for the unauthorized use of water is unlawful.

5. The Fire Code does not require the installation of hydrants near vacant land. Hydrants are sometimes installed on currently vacant land in anticipation of future development. When the Fire Department responds to fires on vacant land, the response is typically designed to prevent the fire from spreading to nearby buildings or other structures.

6. The Fire Department also responds to car and other street fires. The Fire Department generally uses manual extinguishers or tank water to put out non-structural fires such as these. These fires require a smaller volume of water to extinguish, so it is unnecessary (and would be inefficient) to 1 connect to the hydrant system.
2 7. As a whole, the City's low-pressure hydrant system and Auxiliary Water Supply 3 System provide immediate availability of water to aid in extinguishing fires on or threatening 4 properties across the City. Having both systems increases the Fire Department's capacity to address 5 more simultaneous, large property fires and to account for the potential loss of one or the other system 6 in a natural disaster such as an earthquake.
7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is 8 true and correct. Executed this 12th day of November, 2024 in San Francisco, California. 9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
D. Luttropp Deel. ISO MSJ ; Case No. CPF-22-517764
l

DARIUS LUTTROPP
3 n:\govlit\l i2022\221061\01786767 .docx

1 A. Holtzman Decl. ISO MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01798444.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
DAVID CHIU, SBN 189542
City Attorney
SARA J. EISENBERG, SBN 269303
ALEXANDER J. HOLTZMAN, SBN 311813
Deputy City Attorneys
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, 6
th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-5408
Telephone: (415) 554-3999
Facsimile: (415) 554-3837
E-Mail: [email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

JENNIFER TOY, ROSE AQUILINA, MARK
ROH, and TED LOEWENBERG individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs and Petitioners,

vs.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION, and DOES 1 – 10,

Defendants and Respondents.

Lead Case No. CPF-22-517764
(Consolidated with Case No. CPF-23-518342)

DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER J.

HOLTZMAN IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS CITY

AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE

ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY

ADJUDICATION

Hearing Date: February 13, 2025
Hearing Judge: Judge Andrew Y.S. Cheng
Time: 9:30 a.m.

Place: Dept. 613

Date Action Filed: May 17, 2022
Trial Date: December 1, 2025

ELECTRONICALLY

F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
11/14/2024
Clerk of the Court
BY: VERA MU
Deputy Clerk

2 A. Holtzman Decl. ISO MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01798444.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
DECLARATION OF ALEXANDER J. HOLTZMAN
I, Alexander J. Holtzman, declare as follows:

2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the Third Amended Complaint for Refund, Declaratory Relief, and Equitable Relief, and Petition for Writ of Mandate filed on August 2, 2023, in Toy, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, et al., Case No. CPF-22-517764.

3. Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of Complaint for Refund, Declaratory Relief, and Equitable Relief, and Petition for Writ of Mandate filed on October 3, 2023, in Aquilina, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, Case No. CPF-23-518342 (Aquilina).

4. Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Anna Maria Bereczky-Anderson of Legislative Intent Service, Inc., compiling the legislative history of Senate Bill 1386 of 2020.

5. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of excerpts of American Water Works Association, Manual of Water Supply Practices—M1: Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges (7th ed. 2017), produced by Plaintiffs in these actions with the bates numbers PLF 1015–1017, 1038, 1196.

6. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Rose Aquilina in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, signed March 9, 2024.

7. Attached as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Mark Roh in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification, signed March 4, 2024.

8. Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Ted Loewenberg in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.

3 A. Holtzman Decl. ISO MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01798444.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

9. Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion for Class Certification, filed in Aquilina on May 16, 2024.

10. Attached as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Jennifer Toy’s Responses to Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) Regarding Class Certification.

11. Attached as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Rose Aquilina’s Responses to Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) Regarding Class Certification.

12. Attached as Exhibit K is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Rose Aquilina’s Verification for Responses to Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) Regarding Class Certification.

13. Attached as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Mark Roh’s Responses to Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) Regarding Class Certification

14. Attached as Exhibit M is a true and correct copy of Plaintiff Ted Loewenberg’s Responses to Defendants’ Requests for Production of Documents (Set One) Regarding Class Certification
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 14th day of November, 2024 in San Francisco, California.

ALEXANDER J. HOLTZMAN

1 Exhs. D – M to A. Holtzman Decl. ISO MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2022\221061\01798444.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
DAVID CHIU, SBN 189542
City Attorney
SARA J. EISENBERG, SBN 269303
ALEXANDER J. HOLTZMAN, SBN 311813
Deputy City Attorneys
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, 6
th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-5408
Telephone: (415) 554-3999
Facsimile: (415) 554-3837
E-Mail: [email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

JENNIFER TOY, ROSE AQUILINA, MARK
ROH, and TED LOEWENBERG individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs and Petitioners,

vs.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION, and DOES 1 – 10,

Defendants and Respondents.

Lead Case No. CPF-22-517764
(Consolidated with Case No. CPF-23-518342)

EXHIBITS D – M TO DECLARATION OF
ALEXANDER J. HOLTZMAN IN

SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS AND

RESPONDENTS CITY AND COUNTY OF

SAN FRANCISCO AND SAN FRANCISCO
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY

ADJUDICATION

Hearing Date: February 13, 2025
Hearing Judge: Judge Andrew Y.S. Cheng
Time: 9:30 a.m.

Place: Dept. 613

Date Action Filed: May 17, 2022
Trial Date: December 1, 2025

ELECTRONICALLY

F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
11/14/2024
Clerk of the Court
BY: VERA MU
Deputy Clerk

EXHIBIT D
PLF 01015
PLF 1015
Principles of Water Rates,
Fees, and Charges
Seventh Edition
American Water Works
Association
Copyright© 2017 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved. PLF01016 PLF 1016
Manual of Water Supp!y Practices---M'I, Seventh Edition Principles of Water Rates, Fees, and Charges
Copyright@1954, 1972, 1983, ]99J, 2000, 2012, 2ffl7 American Water Works Association Ali rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means. electronic or medhrnicaL including photocopy~ recording, or any information or retriev,1J system, except in the form of brief excerpts or quotations for review purposes, without the written permission of the publisher,
Disclaimer
The authors, contributors, editors, and publisher do not assurne responsibility for the validity of the content or ,rny conseqi;ences of its use. Jn no event will AINWA be Ii able for direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages arising out of the use of information presented in this book. In partin1lar, AWWA will not be responsible for any costs, mdudmg, but not limited to, those incurred as a result of lost revenue. ln no event shall AWWPls liability exceed the ammmt paid for lhe purchase of this book.

Project J'v!mh1ger: Melissa Valentine
Cover Arl: Melanie Yamamoto
Production: Glacier Publi~;hing Services, Inc.

Manuals Specialist: Sue Bach
library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: w·oodcock, Chris, author. I Giardina, Rick, author. I Cristiano, Todd, author.

Title: J\'Il, waler rates, fees, and charges! Chris Woodcock. Rick Giardina, Todd Cristiano.

Description: Seventh Edition. I Denver, CO: American W,1ter Works Association, [2017] i Revised edition, 2012. I lndudes bibliographical references and index.

Identifiers: LCCN 201601±8760 I lSBN 9781625761910 (alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Water-supply--Rate~;. I Water utilities--·Rales.

Classification: LCC HD11'±56 .W66 2017 i DDC 363.6/10688--dc23 LC record a-vailable at https://lccn.loc .gov/2016048760
lSBN-13 978-1-62576-191-0
eISBN··B 978-1-61300-399-2
This At1lVYA content is the product of thousands of
hours of Mrork by your fello1N vvater professionals.

Revenue from the sales of th1s .AVV~'llA ntatei-ial supports ongoing product developn1ent. Unauthorized distribution, either electronic or photocc~pied; is illegal and hin.de.rs _.4.t'liV~l. .. 4.'s rnission to support the water cornrnunity.

Printed in the United States of Arnerica
American Waler Works Association
6666 West Quincy Avenue
Denver, 0) 80235-3098
#~
t~
Pnntedcm
recycled paper
Copyright© 2017 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved. PLF 01017 PLF 1017
AWWA .M.ANUAL
Chapter I. 1
Overview of
Cost-Based Water
Utility Rate-Making
Establishing cost-based rates, fees, and charges is an important component in a well ma naged and operated water utility. Cost-based rates provide sufficient funding to allow communities to build, operate, maintain, and reinvest in the water system that provides the community with safe and reliable drinking water and fire protection. Properly and adequately funded water systems also allow for the economic development and sustain-· ability of the local community. The purpose of this manual is to discuss standard practices in financial planning and rate--making that a utility can use to establish cost·-based rates, fees" and charges to recover the full costs associated with its water system.

The methods and analyses used to establish cost··based rates, fees, and charges have a long history within the water utility industry. Operators of some of the earliest water systems recognized the need for sufficient funding and rates to properly operate" main-· tain, and expand their water systems. AWWA appointed the Committee on Water Rates in 1949. As time passed, the utility industry recognized the need for a manual of standard practice. Through the work of this committee, the first AWWA Ml manual, \!\later Rates lvianual, was published in 1954. (For a more complete history, see Woodcock 2013.) Many of the same concepts, methodologies, and analyses used in 1954 remain relevant today. As time has passed, AWWA Manual Ml has been updated and expanded to reflect the chang ing industry and its current financial and rate issues. The development of this seventh edition continues the efforts of many dedicated rate professionals to provide a manual of standard practice for the development and establishment of cost-based water rates, fees, and charges.

As a manual of standard practice, AWWA advocates the use of the generally accepted cost-based principles and methodologies for establishing rates, charges, and fees contained and discussed within this manual. Establishing cost-based and equitable rates is techni cally challenging and requires, at some level, knowledge and understanding of fimmce, accounting, budgeting, engineering, system design and operations, customer service, 3 Copyright© 2017 American Water Works Association. All Rights Reserved. PLF 01038 PLF 1038
RATES FOR FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE 161
The first two approaches presume that the sysiem ·was primarily built to provide either general water service or fire protection. A review of these meihodologies and addi iional historical publicaiions was published in 1982 in fournal AWVIA (Corssmit and Green 1982). The use of each approach results in a significanily different allocation to fire protec iion service. Since ihe mid-'i900s and coniinuing through the present, the third approach has been mosi widely used and accepted. Section TH of ihis manual illustrates the use of ihis third method. This approach recognizes that the dual fundions of water systems, to provide basic 1-vater service and to provide a readiness-to-serve capacity for fire protection, are equally important This is the raiionale used in this manual to develop cost-based rates that avoid subsidization of users. Both the base-extra capacity and the commodity demand methods of cost allocation adhere to the principle of proportional cost allocations. ln both models, the service characteristics of each customer class indude fire protection demand. Fire protection demands by user class can be established in both maximum-day and maximum-hour fire How demand units. The total quantity of water used for fire fighting is minimal in comparison to other uses and is ignored in some studies. In other studies, a nominal amount of base use (between 0.5 and 1.0 percent) is assigned to fire protection because flow from fire hydrants is rarely metered.

PUBLIC VERSUS PRIVATE FIRE PROTECTION
A\V\IV/\.1\1anua1 .Ni.l
Utilities typically provide fire protection services in two disiinct ways-public and pri vate. Public fire protection service is provided to all customers on a community-wide basis through fire hydrants located throughout the water system. Usually,. the fire hydrants are owned by the utility, located on public rights-of-way, and available for use primarily by fire departments (or other authorized parties) for the purpose of extinguishing fires.

Hydrants may also be used for system purposes, such as flushing or testing. Even though the hydrants are not directly controlled by the retail water users, the standby capacity to provide needed water is dearly intended for the use of the utility's retail users. ln contrast to public fire protection service, private fire protection service is provided to individual customers that receive additional fire protection services through private hydrants, standpipes, or sprinkler connections. In th is instance, the costs of private fire protection can be directly allocated to the user of the private service through separate fire line charges or other methods. These private fire protection connections provide a direct service to the individual customer's property that is not available to customers without such connections,; these customers receive a service from the utility that others do not receive and should pay for the cost of the additional service. A counterargument is made by some that charges for private fire protection should be limited because fires can be extinguished by private sprinkler systems very early in their development, representing a much smaller system demand.

Because utilities provide both public and private fire protection services, they may choose an approach that separates the total system fire protection into each type of service.

Total fire protection costs may be split between public and private fire services based on the proportional demand potentials of each service. Costs associated with providing pub·· lie fire protection may be shared by all customers either as an indirect part of their rates or directly allocated as a customer class requirement based on fire flow needs. Because the relative magnitude of the publk·level fire protection costs may be significant, the indirect recovery through other water rates and charges results in a less-than-desired level of pre cision in allocating the cost of public fire protection.

1 MPA ISO MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2024\221061\01800138.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
DAVID CHIU, SBN 189542
City Attorney
SARA J. EISENBERG, SBN 269303
ALEXANDER J. HOLTZMAN, SBN 311813
Deputy City Attorneys
Fox Plaza
1390 Market Street, 6
th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-5408
Telephone: (415) 554-3999
Facsimile: (415) 554-3837
E-Mail: [email protected]
[email protected]

Attorneys for Defendants and Respondents

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO - UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

JENNIFER TOY, ROSE AQUILINA, MARK
ROH, and TED LOEWENBERG individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs and Petitioners,

vs.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION, and DOES 1 –
10,

Defendants and Respondents.

Lead Case No. CPF-22-517764
(Consolidated with Case No. CPF-23-518342)

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND

AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF

DEFENDANTS AND RESPONDENTS CITY

AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AND

SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Hearing Date: February 13, 2025
Hearing Judge: Judge Andrew Y.S. Cheng
Time: 9:30 a.m.

Place: Dept. 613

Date Action Filed: May 17, 2022
Trial Date: December 1, 2025

ELECTRONICALLY

F I L E D
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
11/14/2024
Clerk of the Court
BY: VERA MU
Deputy Clerk
2 MPA ISO MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2024\221061\01800138.docx 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...........................................................................................................3 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES .................................................................6 I. Introduction ..............................................................................................................6 II. Constitutional and Statutory Background ................................................................ 7 III. Factual and Procedural Background ........................................................................ 9 IV. Legal Standard ....................................................................................................... 12 V. Argument ...............................................................................................................13 A. Plaintiffs’ Claims Challenging the Inclusion of Hydrant Costs in Water Rates Fail Based on the Government Code, the City’s Practices, Other State Statutes, and Industry Standards. ......................................................13

Under the Government Code, Water Services Include Hydrants, Cisterns, and Associated Infrastructure and Water Flows. ............14

Plaintiffs’ Claims Depending on Hydrant Costs Not Being Part of Water Services Therefore Fail. ..................................................18

B. Plaintiffs’ Claim Regarding the Proportionate Allocation of Hydrant Costs Fails as a Matter of Law. ..................................................................19

C. The Court Should Grant Summary Adjudication in the Alternative. ........21 VI. Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 23

1. 2.

3 MPA ISO MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2024\221061\01800138.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
(2001) 25 Cal.4th 826 ................................................................................................................12 Barratt American, Inc. v. City of San Diego
(2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 809 ......................................................................................................15 Bidart Brothers v. Elmo Farming Co.
(1973) 35 Cal.App.3d 248 .........................................................................................................14 Bostrom v. County of San Bernardino
(1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 1654 ......................................................................................................13 Building Industry Assn. v. Marin Mun. Water Dist.
(1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1641 .....................................................................................................16 Capistrano Taxpayers Assn., Inc. v. City of San Juan Capistrano (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1493 ............................................................................................ passim City of Azusa v. Cohen
(2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 619 ......................................................................................................15 City of San Buenaventura v. United Water Conservation Dist. (2017) 3 Cal.5th 1191 ................................................................................................................20 County of Sonoma v. Com. on State Mandates
(2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 1264 ......................................................................................................15 Crawley v. Alameda County Waste Management Authority
(2015) 243 Cal.App.4th 396 ......................................................................................................13 Davis v. City of Berkeley
(1990) 51 Cal.3d 227 .................................................................................................................15 Greene v. Marin County Flood Control & Water Conservation Dist. (2010) 49 Cal.4th 277 ..........................................................................................................15, 16 Griffith v. Pajaro Valley Water Management Agency
(2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 586 ................................................................................................20, 21 Hershey v. Reclamation Dist. No. 108
(1927) 200 Cal. 550 ...................................................................................................................14 Hindin v. Rust
(2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 1247 ..............................................................................................13, 22 Jones-Hamilton Co. v. Franchise Tax Bd.
(1968) 268 Cal.App.2d 343 .......................................................................................................15

4 MPA ISO MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2024\221061\01800138.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
KCSFV I, LLC v. Florin County Water Dist.
(2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 1015 ......................................................................................................21 Lewinter v. Genmar Industries, Inc.
(1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1214 ................................................................................................13, 20 Methodist Hospital of Sacramento v. Saylor
(1971) 5 Cal.3d 685 ...................................................................................................................15 Moore v. City of Lemon Grove
(2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 363 ......................................................................................................19 Morgan v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.
(2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 892 ......................................................................................................21 People v. Birkett
(1999) 21 Cal.4th 226 ................................................................................................................15 Preach v. Monter Rainbow
(1993) 12 Cal.App.4th 1441 ......................................................................................................12 San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water Dist. of Southern Cal. (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1124 ......................................................................................................21 Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority (2008) 44 Cal.4th 431 ................................................................................................................15 VFLA Eventco, LLC v. William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 287 ................................................................................................13, 20 Wyatt v. City of Sacramento
(2021) 60 Cal.App.5th 373 ........................................................................................................18 Constitutional Provisions
California Constitution, Article XIII C ............................................................................................7 California Constitution, Article XIII D .................................................................................. passim § 6 ...................................................................................................................................... passim State Statutes & Codes
Code of Civil Procedure
§ 437c .............................................................................................................................11, 12, 22 Fire Code
§ C101.1 .....................................................................................................................................17 Government Code
§ 53750.5 ........................................................................................................................... passim Health & Safety Code
§ 116750 ....................................................................................................................................18

5 MPA ISO MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2024\221061\01800138.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
Penal Code
§ 148.4 .......................................................................................................................................17 § 498 ....................................................................................................................................17, 18 Water Code
§ 353 ..........................................................................................................................................16 § 354 ..........................................................................................................................................16 § 525 ..........................................................................................................................................17 Regulations

Code of Regulations, Title 24, pt. 2
§ 2902 ........................................................................................................................................17 Code of Regulations, Title 24, pt. 9
§ 507.1 .................................................................................................................................10, 17

6 MPA ISO MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2024\221061\01800138.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. Introduction
The claims by Plaintiffs and Petitioners Rose Aquilina, Mark Roh, Ted Loewenberg, and Jennifer Toy (“Plaintiffs”) in these consolidated cases depend on the central, false premise that costs of providing “water services” under Proposition 218 exclude the costs associated with water from hydrants.
1 Plaintiffs assert that Defendants and Respondents the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (“SFPUC” and together with the City and County of San Francisco, the “City”) acted improperly when they included these costs in water rates. But, in doing so, the City was following the Legislature’s guidance in Government Code section 53750.5, which expressly defined water service for purposes of Proposition 218 as including these costs.

Plaintiffs do not challenge the constitutionality of this statute in their complaints and could not succeed in such a challenge given the broad deference to the Legislature’s interpretation of constitutional provisions. In any event, the City’s hydrants do provide a water service under Proposition 218. Just as other municipal water infrastructure provides water services, hydrants and the connected water distribution facilities, pipes, valves, cisterns, tanks, and reservoirs do too. Plaintiffs’ claims under Article XIII D, section 6 (“Section 6”), subdivision (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(4), and (b)(5) of the California Constitution fail in light of Government Code section 53750.5 and the fact that water services under Proposition 218 include water from hydrants and the associated infrastructure to facilitate those flows.

Plaintiffs’ sole remaining assertion is that water service costs are allocated disproportionately in violation of Section 6, subdivision (b)(3), with respect to the inclusion of costs associated with water from hydrants. But the operative complaints in these consolidated cases do not allege any basis for disproportionality or alternative approach to distributing the costs of water service. In any event, external rate-setting experts set forth the proportionality analysis underlying the City’s water rates in

1 Ms. Aquilina, Mr. Roh, and Mr. Loewenberg bring class claims and are the certified representative plaintiffs in both Toy et al. v. City & County of San Francisco, et al., Case No. CPF-22- 517764 (Toy) and Aquilina, et al. v. City & County of San Francisco, Case No. CPF-23-518342 (Aquilina). Ms. Toy brings individual, non-representative, claims only in Toy. As of November 4, 2024, Ms. Toy had not paid any San Francisco water bill since January 31, 2020, and had accrued an account balance of $2,736.13. (Declaration of Diala Batshoun (“Batshoun Decl.”) ¶ 4.) Ms. Toy’s claims have the same deficiencies addressed in this Motion and additionally fail for reasons beyond those applicable to the classes.

7 MPA ISO MSJ; Case No. CPF-22-517764 n:\govlit\li2024\221061\01800138.docx

1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
detail in the 2018 Water and Wastewater Cost of Service Study and 2023 Water and Wastewater Rate Study. No evidence creates a material dispute regarding whether the City’s water rates are allocated disproportionately in violation of Proposition 218. Thus, Plaintiffs’ claims all fail as a matter of law, and the Court should grant summary judgment to the City or, in the alternative, grant summary adjudication on the causes of action it concludes fail as a matter of law.

II. Constitutional and Statutory Background
In November 1996, California voters passed Proposition 218 (codified as Articles XIII C and D of the California Constitution), a constitutional amendment affecting charges for property-related services. Proposition 218 requires voter approval for fee increases but excludes all “fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection services” from that voter-approval mandate. (Cal. Const., Article XIII D, section 6(c).) Proposition 218 does not provide a specialized definition for “water” or “water services.”
Under the relevant portions of Proposition 218, increased fees or charges must satisfy five requirements:
(1) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not exceed the funds required to provide the property related service. (2) Revenues derived from the fee or charge shall not be used for any purpose other than that for which the fee or charge was imposed. (3) The amount of a fee or charge imposed upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership shall not exceed the proportional cost of the service attributable to the parcel. (4) No fee or charge may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Fees or char ges based on potential or future use of a service are not permitted. Standby charges, whether characterized as charges or assessments, shall be classified as assessments and shall not be imposed without compliance with Section 4. (5) No fee or charge may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited to, police, fire, ambulance or library services, where the service is available to the public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to property owners. (Cal. Const., art. XIII D, § 6, subd. (b).)
The California Legislature has addressed the treatment of hydrants and associated infrastructure and water flows for Proposition 218 purposes, as it has many other aspects of public infrastructure in statutes implementing Proposition 218. (See Gov. Code, § 53750.5.) Declaring its understanding of the existing law as of the statute’s enactment, the Legislature first recognized that “[f]ire service” as used in Section 6, subdivision (b)(5), “is a different and distinct service from water

CleanPowerSF Sfpuc CommissionApril 28, 2026

CleanPowerSF Sfpuc Commission
April 28, 2026