DOCSLIB.ORG

File No. 19120

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
File No. 19120 File No. 19120 SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST Complaint Committee Date: September 15, 2020 D Petition/Complaint Page:~(<1 D Memorandum - Deputy City Attorney Page:-(g (.o?,, D Petitioner/Complainant Supporting Documents Page: \?l l\ D Respondent's Response Page: '::f? ':\­ D Public Correspondence Page:_ D Order of Determination Page:_ D Minutes Page· LJ Administrator's Report Page:_ D No Attachments OTHER D D D D D D D D D Completed by: __c_._L_e~g~e_r _________Date 9/10/20 *An asterisked item represents the cover sheet to a document that exceeds 25 pages. The complete document is in the file. P659 I (BOS) From: Google Forms <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2019 8:28 PM To: SOTF, (BOS) Subject: New Response Complaint Form This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources. Your form has a new entry. Here are the results. Complaint against which Office of City Attorney Department or Commission Name of individual contacted ind iv respondents: City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Moira Walsh, Jana Clark, Wayne Snodgrass, Andrew Shen, at Joshua White, Brad Russi, David Ries, Alicia Cabrera, Paul Zarefsky, Buck Delventhal, Scott Minty, Joy Perez, J Department Givner, Elizabeth Coolbrith, Odaya Buta or Commission Alleged Public Records Violation Sunshine SFAC 67.21(b,c), 67.26, 67.27: failed to respond to a request for public records in a timely or complete mann Ordinance · failed to assist, withheld more than the minimally exempt portion of a public record, and failed to justify Section: withholdings with clear reference to exemption statute or case law PG60 Please See attachment from [email protected]: describe https ://cd n. m uckrock.com/ outbound reg uest attach me nts/94383620Ano nymous/80695/vs20City20Atto rr alleged 20Adachi20Carmody20Records20-20COMPLAINT HlaEPBK.pdf violation Name Anonymous Email 80695-54486849@req uests. m uckrock.com If anonymous, please let us know [email protected] how to contact you.Thank you. Sent via Google Forms Email CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY DENNIS J. HERRERA· PEDER J. V. THOREEN City Attorney Deputy City Attorney Direct Dial: I415) 554-3846 Email: [email protected] MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force FROM: Peder J. V. Thoreen Deputy City Attorney DATE: January 13, 2020 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al. COMPLAINT An anonymous complainant ("Complainant") alleges that San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, Moira Walsh, Jana Clark, Wayne Snodgrass, Andrew Shen, Joshua White, Brad Russi, David Ries, Alicia Cabrera, Paul Zarefsky, Buck Delventhal, Scott Minty, Joy Perez, Jon Givner, Elizabeth Coolbrith, and Odaya Buta (collectively, "Respondents"), violated the Sunshine Ordinance by failing to respond to Complainant's requests in a timely and complete manner. COMPLAINANT FILES COMPLAINT Complainant filed this complaint with the Task Force on November 13, 2019, specifically alleging that Respondents violated Administrative Code sections 67.2l(b, c), 67.26, and 67.27. JURISDICTION Respondents are subject to the Sunshine Ordinance and the California Public Records Act ("CPRA"). Respondents do not dispute jurisdiction. APPLICABLE STATUTORY SECTIONS Section 67. of the San Francisco Administrative Code: • Section 67.21 governs responses to a public records request in general. • Section 67 .26 provides that withholding of public records shall be kept to a minimum. • Section 67 .27 sets f01ih requirements for justifying the withholding of information. Cal. Government Code (CPRA) • Section 6253 sets forth the general requirements for the production of records. e Section 6254 sets forth exemptions from disclosure under the.CPRA. Fox PLAZA . 1390 MARKET STREET, 7TH FLOOR . SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-5408 RECEPTION: (415) 554-3800 · FACSIMILE: (415) 437-4644 n:\codenf\as2019\9600241 \01419005.docx P662 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 2 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al. APPLICABLE CASE LAW " City ofSan Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608 (holding that when a city employee uses a personal account to communicate about public business, the writings may be subject to disclosure under the CPRA). " Los Angeles County Bd. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282 (holding that while attorney billing records of a public agency are not categorically exempt from disclosure under CPRA section 6254(k), they may be privileged where the content of the invoices reveal anything about legal consultation, and the privilege encompasses everything in an invoice regarding a matter that remains pending and active). " St. Croix v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 434 (holding that San Francisco's City Charter establishes an attorney-client relationship between the City Attorney and City agencies, and that attorney-client privileged communications in the contextof this relationship are not required to be disclosed under the Sunshine Ordinance). BACKGROUND On September 20, 2019, Complainant submitted a document request seeking from Respondents 30 categories of documents related to the keyvvords "adachi," "carmody," and "North Bay News." Complainant initially also requested documents using the keyword "public defender," but on September 26, 2019, Complainant and Respondents reached an agreement that Complainant withdraw that request. Complainant instead made an additional set of requests with the keyword "shield law." Although the requests sought metadata associated with these documents, Complainant clarified in a filing with the Task Force on November 13, 2019, that the present complaint raises no metadata issues. · · Respondents contend that they produced a statement pursuant to Administrative Code section 67.21(c) on September 30, 2019. See infra. Complainant contends that this response was untimely. See Admin. Code section 67.21(c) (requiring a written response within seven days). Respondents contend that they required an additional business day in order to provide a response consistent with Complainant's modified request. Complainant further contends that the statement was insufficient because, when stating that certain documents were withheld on the privilege grounds, Respondents were at least required to state the quantity of documents withheld under St. Croix v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 434. Relying primarily on Los Angeles County Ed. of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2 Cal.5th 282, Respondents contend that doing so would reveal privileged information. After requesting an extension for the production of documents, Respondents eventually produced over 2,000 documents. Complainant contends that the production was incomplete. First, Complainant contends that certain documents related to a paiiicular employee were n:\codenf\as2019\9600241101419005 .docx P663 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13,2020 PAGE: 3 RE: Complaint No. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al. withheld. Respondents contend that their production included this employee's responsive documents. Next, Complainant raises the following objections: 3-1. Some or all records claimed to be privileged. Respondents Herrera, Coolbrith, and Office of the City Attorney previously incorrectly asserted attorney-client and work-product privilege over.certain records in 19095 Anonymous v. Herrera, et al. and did not provide the (not genuinely privileged) records until complaints were proceeding so I have no reason to believe they have correctly asse1ied privilege this time either. Specifically, at least the following types of records cannot be so privileged and should be deemed public: 3-1-a. Records not written by an attorney, and not written by a client asking for legal advice 3-1-b. Records written by an attorney, but without any client being involved and without any legal interpretation (such as objective gathering of facts) 3-1-c. Records for which privilege has been waived by inclusion of any party on the thread who is neither a client nor an employee of the City Attorney's office (such as, but not limited to, Carmody or his attorneys, or any other journalist, of any· other records requestor) 3-1-d. Records for which exemption was previously waived by production to any other record requestor 3-2. Pg. 6, 7 redactions - this cannot be personal or health information. It could be some other exemption that has been failed to be cited. 3-3. Pg. 8, 9 redactions - business emails cannot be exempt, nor the identity of the recipient. Also Respondents disclosed Mr. Burke's business email address on pg 10 and many other places anyway. 3-4. Pg. 61, 63 - 2nd redaction only - you hid the email address and the name. 3-5. Pg. 77, 99 redaction - not sure what this could be 3-6. Pg. 224, 228, 230, 235, 237, 240, 243, 235, etc. - redaction hides both name and email address 3-7. Pg. 264 - all redactions, unclear what has been redacted 3-8. Pg. 406-409 - almost all of this document is redacted and all of it is challenged n:\codenf\as2019\9600241\01419005 .docx P664 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: January 13, 2020 PAGE: 4 RE: Complaint Nc:i. 19120: Anonymous v. Office of the City Attorney, et al. 3-9. Pg. 410-415 - almost all of this document is redacted and all of it is challenged · 3-10. Pg. 418, 420, 422, 424, 426, 428, 430, 432, 434, 436 - I was provided small portions of very large images. The rest of the image was withheld without justification. 3-11. Pg. 451 - all redactions challenged, incl the incident number 3-12. Pg. 4 77-480 - hyper link urls in the mayor's newsletter withheld without justification 3-13.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Personal Information That Is Provided in Communications to the Board Of
    FILE NO. 130218 Petitions and Communications received from February 25, 2013, through March 4, 2013, for reference by the President to Committee considering related matters, or to be ordered filed by the Clerk on March 12, 2013. Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board of Supervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information will not be redacted. From Clerk of the Board, reporting the following individuals have submitted a Form 700 Statement: ( 1) Malia Cohen - Supervisor - Annual Katy Tang - Supervisor-Assuming Katy Tang - Legislative Assistant- Leaving Matthias Mormino - Legislative Assistant - Annual Amy Chan - Legislative Assistant - Annual From National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., regarding ammunition proposals. File No. 130040. Copy: Neighborhood Services & Safety Committee Clerk. (2) From concerned citizens, regarding the renaming of SFO. File No. 130037. 4 Letters. Copy: Each Supervisor. (3) From the Mayor, submitting Notice of Appointment for the Historic Preservation Commission. Copy: Each Supervisor, Rules Committee Clerk. (4) Jonathan Pearlman Ellen Johnck From Supervisor Mark Farrell, submitting a memo regarding the Budget & Finance Committee Schedule. (5) From the Mayor, submitting issuance of the Oath of Office to the District 4 seat of the Board of Supervisors. Copy: Each Supervisor. (6) Katy Tang From concerned citizens, regarding opposition to the Pagoda Palace. File No. 130019. 3 Letters. Copy: Land Use & Economic Development Committee Clerk. (7) From the Youth Commission, regarding Four Youth Commission actions. File No. 120669. Copy: Land Use & Economic Development Committee Clerk. (8) From Supervisor Chiu, regarding the updated Government Audit & Oversight Committee Assignments.
    [Show full text]
  • Discussion and Action
    File No. 19126 Item No. 8 SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST Complaint Committee Date: February 16, 2021 _.,'\'(. Petition/Complaint Page:_\'J <( Memorandum - Deputy City Attorney Page:_,< ; Petitioner/Complainant Supporting Documents Page:_,').,,.~ ~ Respondenfs Response Page:_ \{IC) D Public Correspondence Page:_ D Order of Determination Page:_ D Minutes Page:_ D Administrator's Report Page:_ D No Attachments OTHER D D D D D D D D D Completed by: __C_._L_e~g_e_r _________Date 2/12/21 *An asterisked item represents the cover sheet to a document that exceeds 25 pages. The complete document is in the file. P1553 SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE 1 Dr, Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San Francisco CA 94102 Tel. (415) 554-7724; Fax (415) 554-7854 http://www.sfgov .org/sunshine SUNSHINE ORDINANCE COMPLAINT FORM Complainant Name (Optional) A;J .u rf(g£;,a u fJ Date of Request: ) I /2~! 1 q@ ':( flJJ ff\ . Please identify the City Official(s) and/or Employee(s) against whom the complaint is being made: Please identify the Officials' and/or Employees' Board, Commission, Task Force, S .c A o,- ~ (J"' , ~· ! l? I Department or other type of agency. \ _ '1' ~ '.:2 l.""' 'VL !!::'.!. '/'<:>11 0 N Name of the Custodian of Records tasked with providing the requested information: 0 Sunshine Ordinance Section(s) (If known, please cit specific provision(s) being violated) Please describe the alleged violation. Use additional paper if needed. Please attach any relevant documentation which supports your complaint Are you requesting a public hearing before the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force? 1 00 yes 0 no If yes, please provide 1 or more preferred method(s) of contact: .
    [Show full text]
  • D D D D D D D D D D D D D
    File No. 20122 Item No. 5 SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST Complaint Committee Date: May 18, 2021 D Petition/Complaint Page:_ Memorandum - Deputy City Attorney Page:_ ~ Petitioner/Complainant Supporting Documents Page:_ d Respondent's Response Page:_ D Public Correspondence Page:_ D Order of Determination Page:_ D Minutes Page:_ D Administrator's Report Page:_ D No Attachments OTHER D D D D D D D D D Completed by: _ __:C_;:_._.::;L::..;::e.....,gc.::.e-=-r _________Date 5/14/21 *An asterisked item represents the cover sheet to a document that exceeds 25 pages. The complete document is in the file. P521 Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint Summary File No. 20122 Thomas Busse v. City Attorney's Office Date filed with SOTF: 11/6/2020 Thomas Busse (584 Castro Street, San Francisco, 94114) (Complainant) Dennis Herrera ([email protected]); John Cote ([email protected]) Odaya Buta (odaya.buta@sfcityattyorg) City Attorney's Office ([email protected]) (Respondents) File No. 20122: Complaint filed by Thomas Busse against Dennis Herrera and the City Attorney's Office for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21 failing to respond to a records request in a complete and timely manner. Administrative Summary if applicable: Complaint Attached. P522 )_ Complainant/Peti,tioner' s .. Document Submission P523 Thomas J. Busse 584 Castro Street #388 San Francisco, CA 94114 November 1, 2020 Sunshine Ordinance Task Force City Hall, Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94102 Re: Complaint against The City Attorney Dear Sir or Madam: I wish to make an officia I complaint against the City Attorney for violation of Section 67 of the Administrative Code.
    [Show full text]
  • District 2 Democratic Club DCCC Candidate Questionnaire
    District 2 Democratic Club DCCC Candidate Questionnaire Dear DCCC Candidate, The District 2 Democratic Club will be endorsing candidates for the June 5th election. Below is a (short) questionnaire. Please send your answers in reply to this email no later than Friday, April 27th at 5pm. In the interest of time (since we aim to make endorsements in both AD17 and AD19) we don't plan to interview candidates but will make our decisions based on your answers to the questionnaire. Thank you and good luck on a successful run! Ariel Ungerleider VP Political Action District 2 Democratic Club Name: • Matt Dorsey Office Sought: • Democratic County Central Committee (Assembly District 17) Why are you running for the DCCC and what do you hope to accomplish if elected? I was appointed to the DCCC to fill the seat formerly held by the late Michael Goldstein, who lived for 25 years with HIV when he passed away last December. Because of Michael, because I’m HIV-positive myself, and because of my own work on healthcare issues over many years, part of my motivation to run for the DCCC now in my own right is to continue predecessor’s legacy as a progressive conscience on issues involving HIV/AIDS and healthcare more generally. But I also run because my many years of experience working for Democratic candidates and progressive issue campaigns affords me unique strengths to offer our party and our City. As communications director in City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s office for nearly a decade, I’ve played a central strategic role on myriad public interest cases involving issues that touch every San Francisco community and neighborhood, and that represent the values of the Democratic Party at its best.
    [Show full text]
  • Meeting Minutes - Final San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 Budget and Finance Committee
    City and County of San Francisco City Hall 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place Meeting Minutes - Final San Francisco, CA 94102-4689 Budget and Finance Committee Members: John Avalos, Ross Mirkarimi, Sean Elsbernd, Sophie Maxwell, David Campos Clerk: Gail Johnson (415) 554-4445 Wednesday, June 30, 2010 5:00 PM City Hall, Legislative Chamber, Room 250 Special Meeting MEETING CONVENED The meeting convened at 12:29 a.m. on Thursday, July 1, 2010. Present: 3 - John Avalos, David Campos and David Chiu Absent: 3 - Ross Mirkarimi, Sean Elsbernd and Sophie Maxwell REGULAR AGENDA City and County of San Francisco Page 1 Printed at 8:37 am on 7/8/10 Budget and Finance Committee Meeting Minutes - Final June 30, 2010 100701 [Proposed Consolidated Budget and Annual Appropriation Ordinance, FYs Ending June 30, 2011, and June 30, 2012] Sponsor: Mayor Proposed Consolidated Budget and Annual Appropriation Ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts and all estimated expenditures for the City and County of San Francisco for the FYs ending June 30, 2011, and June 30, 2012. 06/01/10; RECEIVED AND ASSIGNED to Budget and Finance Committee. 06/16/10; CONTINUED TO CALL OF THE CHAIR. Heard in Committee. Speakers: Monique Zmuda, Deputy Controller; Female Speaker, Assessor/Recorder's Office; Harvey Rose, Budget and Legislative Analyst; Ben Rosenfield, Controller; Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board; Debra Newman, Office of the Budget and Legislative Analyst; Greg Wagner, Mayor's Budget Director; Anita Sanchez, Executive Officer, Civil Service Commission; John St.
    [Show full text]
  • SEPTEMBER 2011 President's Message Key Political Endorsements Decided by Board of Directors by Gary Delagnes Was Very Difficult
    - Official Publication Of The - SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION VOLUME 43, NUMBER 9 SAN FRANCISCO, SEPTEMBER 2011 www.sfpoa.org President's Message Key Political Endorsements Decided by Board of Directors By Gary Delagnes was very difficult. Suhr land the appointment to Chief While we certainly have no quarrel of Police. At a specially scheduled Emergency with other respected civic leaders like We wish all of our candidates well Board Meeting on Wednesday, August Senator Leland Yee, Assessor Phil Ting, and feel that any of them will make 24, 2011, the POA Board of Directors Supervisor David Chiu, or Joanna Rees, a great mayor. Regardless who the ratified the Election Committee rec- our relationship with each was simply winner might be, we stand ready to ommendations for the upcoming No- not as strong or long lasting as it was support him or her and deliver our vember elections. The endorsements with our chosen candidates. best to them and to the citizens of this will be as follows: Interim Mayor Ed Lee has proven to fabulous city. be a strong and effective leader during At the Board meeting, the debate on Mayor: his nine months in office. He worked who to endorse for District Attorney • Mayor Edwin Lee effectively with us while structur- became rather robust. Some on the • City Attorney Dennis Herrera ing an equitable and reasonable deal Board did not feel we should endorse • Former Supervisor on our concession package without former Chief of Police and current DA Michaela Alioto-Pier threats of layoffs or severe cuts, as George Gascón.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda Item 5: Staff Memorandum Regarding the Sunshine Ordinance Task QUENTIN L
    ETHICS COMMISSION CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO PETER KEANE Date: October 16, 2017 CHAIRPERSON To: Members of the Ethics Commission DAINA CHIU VICE-CHAIRPERSON From: Jessica Blome, Deputy Director, Enforcement & Legal Affairs PAUL A. RENNE Eric Willett, Senior Investigative Analyst COMMISSIONER Subject: Agenda Item 5: Staff memorandum regarding the Sunshine Ordinance Task QUENTIN L. KOPP COMMISSIONER Force referral of File No. 17048, Ray Hartz v. Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors YVONNE LEE COMMISSIONER LEEANN PELHAM Summary This memorandum provides legal analysis for the handling of one EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR referral from the Sunshine Ordinance Task for enforcement under the Sunshine Ordinance. Action Requested Staff requests that the Commission vote to determine whether a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance occurred. Section 27.30(c) of the Sunshine Ordinance provides that "the [Sunshine Ordinance] Task Force shall make referrals to a municipal office with enforcement power under this Ordinance or under the California Public Records Act and the Brown Act whenever it concludes that any person has violated any provisions of this Ordinance or the Acts." SF Admin. Code § 67.30 (c). On October 11, 2017, the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (SOTF) referred Sunshine Ordinance Task Force File No. 17048 to the Ethics commission for enforcement. According to its Order of Determination, the SOTF found Angela Calvillo, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, in violation of Administrative Code, Sections 67.16 and 67.34, by willfully failing to place a written summary of public comment, of no more than 150 words into the body of the March 14, 2017, and March 21, 2017, Board of Supervisors meeting minutes.
    [Show full text]
  • Bernal Heights Democratic Club
    Bernal Heights Democratic Club If you would be interested in receiving the endorsement of the Bernal Heights Democratic Club for San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee, please complete this questionnaire and return via e- mail or regular mail by April 8. Name: Matt Dorsey Which candidates have you supported in the following elections: 2012 Board of Supervisors: I have so far committed to support Eric Mar in District 1; David Campos in District 9; and John Avalos in District 11. School Board: I haven’t done my sufficient due diligence, quite frankly, to formally endorse a candidate for November’s Board of Education race, though I’m favorably impressed with both Matt Haney (should he choose to run) and Gladys Holder Soto. 2011 Mayor: (1) Dennis Herrera; (2) John Avalos; and (3) Leland Yee. District Attorney: I committed very early to make no public endorsements in the D.A.’s race. Sheriff: (1) Ross Mirkarimi; (2) Chris Cunnie; (3) Paul Miyamoto. 2010 Board of Supervisors: I actively supported (as a volunteer and donor) Janet Reilly in District 2; Debra Walker in District 6; and Rafael Mandelman in District 8. School Board: I bullet-voted for Kim-Shree Maufus. Have you ever campaigned for, or served as staff or proxy for an elected official who will have an ex-officio vote on the DCCC during the term in which you would serve? If so, who? Yes. I’ve previously campaigned for: Kamala Harris for both Attorney General and District Attorney; Mark Leno for State Senate, State Assembly and Supervisor; and Tom Ammiano for State Assembly, Mayor and Supervisor.
    [Show full text]
  • Correspondence and Media Coverage of Interest Between April 26, 2021 and May 10, 2021 Correspondence
    May 20, 2021 – Agenda Item #9E BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING May 13, 2021 Correspondence and media coverage of interest between April 26, 2021 and May 10, 2021 Correspondence From: Environmental and Fishing Non-Governmental Agencies To: Secretary Haaland, Department of the Interior Secretary Raimondo, Department of Commerce Date: May 7, 2021 Subject: Request of Biden Administration no to endorse so-called “voluntary agreements” Water supplies, and the length of the Design Drought From: Nicole Sandkulla, BAWSCA CEO/General Manager To: Steve Ritchie, Asst. General Manager, SFPUC Water Enterprise Date: May 5, 2021 Subject: San Francisco’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan – BAWSCA Comments From: Environmental and Fishing Non-Governmental Agencies To: Sophie Maxwell, SFPUC Commission President, and Commissioners Date: May 5, 2021 Subject: Request for timely actions to address population and demand projections, alternative Water supplies, and the length of the Design Drought From: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Date: April 29, 2021 Subject: PRESS RELEASE: SFPUC Calling for 10 Percent Voluntary Irrigation Reduction As Dry Conditions Continue in California From: Peter Drekmeier, Policy Director, Tuolumne River Trust To: Sophie Maxwell, SFPUC Commission President, and Commissioners Date: April 26, 2021 Subject: April 27 Agenda Item 7: Discussion of the Commission Water Workshops Media Coverage Drought/Water Supply Conditions Date: May 10, 2021 Source: Maven Article: Governor Newsom Expands Drought Emergency To Klamath River, Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Tulare Lake Watershed Counties Date: May 10, 2021 Source: The Mercury News Article: Hosing down the driveway? Why California has no statewide water wasting rules as it heads into a new drought Date: May 8, 2021 Source: Sacramento Bee Article: ‘We got unlucky.’ Why melting Sierra snow won’t save California from extreme drought May 20, 2021 – Agenda Item #9E Drought/Water Supply Conditions, cont’d.
    [Show full text]
  • D D D D D D D D D
    File No. -------- Item No. SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST Complaint Committee Date: June 25, 2019 0 Petition/Complaint Page: \ \'1./ 0 Memorandum - Deputy City Attorney Page:-\-\~ 0 Petitioner/Complainant Supporting Documents Page: ~\;'\ D Respondent's Response Page: \V D Public Correspondence Page:_ 0 Order of Determination Page:_ D Minutes Page:_ 0 Administrator's Report Page:_ D No Attachments OTHER D D D D D D D D D Completed by:_--=C:...:.... -=L=eg=e=r_________ Date 6/19/19 *An asterisked item represents the cover sheet to a document that exceeds 25 pages. The complete document is in the file. P111 .. :.. ;.:.u·.I 80/\:~D )F · :.':'lj·:- 1•-.,·-c -·'I '-' "-' .,_, SUNSHINE ORDfNANCE TASK FORCE i Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244, San F.r:ancisco CA. 94102 TeL (415) 554-7724; Fax (415) 554-7854 hrtp:/lwww .sigov .o:rg/sunshme S1UNSIDN1E OJfUilltNANCE COiw'1?1LAJl:NT Name of individual contacted a1t Department or Commisskm ~§' £ L (-) (~~ ~ J 1U!? 0 Alleged violation public records access ~ Alleged violation of public meeting. Date of meeting Sunshine Ordinance Section t;;.·r, 1S(d) fUB LIC- 'Tl.5TitYioJJ 'l (If known, please cite specific provision(s) being violated) Please describe alleged violation. Use additional paper if needed. Please atta1ch any relevant documentation supporting your complaint. 5f:!.£ /-JTrn cf.l r-'b. J4D toau':J 2iu'111111 A~Y A5 :;~ ;1l'!/ f:.':b 70 ·r:U c-_ .. ·­ &;J:S ,4-r::ib 7:7{ £ r12--~ ·vi ..:Scc.b v £125 co 10 As ,a 1!-10"1£h j D ';;?{ £ .
    [Show full text]
  • Herrera Statement on Homeaway's Challenge to Short Term Rental
    City Attorney Dennis Herrera Statement For Immediate Release: November 3, 2014 Contact: Matt Dorsey (415) 554‐4662 Herrera statement on HomeAway’s challenge to short term rental ordinance Federal lawsuit pushes ‘dubious legal theory’ that the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause prohibits local jurisdictions from making local land use decisions SAN FRANCISCO (Nov. 3, 2014)—HomeAway, Inc., an online platform for tourist rentals, filed suit against the City and County of San Francisco in federal court today, alleging that a newly enacted local ordinance that allows San Francisco residents to rent their homes on an occasional basis violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In response, City Attorney Dennis Herrera issued the following statement: I intend to vigorously defend a law that offers San Francisco residents reasonable flexibility to rent their homes on an occasional basis. HomeAway’s challenge pushes a dubious legal theory that the U.S. Constitution’s Commerce Clause somehow prohibits local jurisdictions from making local land use decisions. San Francisco is well within its authority to ensure that scarce housing resources are used primarily for housing. HomeAway’s lawsuit is without merit, and I’m confident the City will prevail. The case is: HomeAway, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, case no. 3:14‐cv‐04859, filed Nov. 3, 2014. # # # Case3:14-cv-04859 Document1 Filed11/03/14 Page1 of 20 1 AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP REX S. HEINKE (SBN 066163) 2 [email protected] MICHAEL C. SMALL (SBN 222768) 3 [email protected] 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 4 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3010 Telephone: 310.229.1000 5 Facsimile: 310.229.1001 6 STEPHEN A.
    [Show full text]
  • Residents Divided Over Plans for Mt. Sutro Reserve
    WESTSIDE BSERVER Volume 27 • Number 2 March 2014 An Appeal to Mayor Ed Lee? Residents ODivided Over Plans for Mt. Sutro Reserve By John Farrell By Keith Burbank uni needs $10 billion, the hether to thin the trees in the UCSF Homeless program is medio- Mt. Sutro Open Space Reserve is still Mcre, the City is in dire need Wdividing residents of the local area, of affordable housing and we lost the 49ers despite changes in the university’s plans. On one to Santa Clara to name a few. On the other side are residents who want to maintain the forest hand, unemployment is low and the City as it is. Other residents agree with the university – will receive a healthy increase in property tax revenue due to that thinning needs to occur. new construction going on all over the City. “It’s really quite simple,” said Jake Sigg, a I appeal to the Mayor to put a moratorium on any new retired gardener who lives on Ortega Street. He proposals to increase taxes or fees until all revenue-generat- added that there are many more trees now than ing City departments audit and report on potential revenues. when Sutro first planted them, and many areas Over the past year I have written articles identifying close are so dense with trees it’s not healthy for the trees to $200 million in revenue to the City that is not currently themselves. “Any gardener can tell you that.” Mount Sutro Open Space Reserve Management Plan was developed with substantial involvement from members of the community, but many outspoken opponants are strongly opposed to the plan being addressed.
    [Show full text]