Complaint Filed by Thomas Busse

File No. ------18013 Item No.7------SUNSHINE ORDINANCE TASK FORCE AGENDA PACKET CONTENTS LIST

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Date: August 1, 2018

rn Petition/Complaint Page: t;DJ.... Memorandum - Deputy City Attorney Page:-5Q(,o ~ Petitioner/Complainant Supporting Documents Page:.!l=t' ~ Respondent's Response Page:_:i_\'1,_., D Public Correspondence Page:_J 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;.:..... =Le=g=e"-'-r ______Date 07/25/18

*An asterisked item represents the cover sheet to a document that exceeds 25 pages. The complete document is in the file.

P501 ~.,-) .\ :··- '.I••· .r'• , .•• : .. , .. ·.·.. :) Thomas J. Busse 1 1 584 Castro Street #388 '"",..,or<·~; ..:} 1 :c.Lt 1 "J p·!\"1 L·''· '4 i ' San Francisco, CA 94114 415-244-5072 [email protected]

December 2, 2017 ~ •' .

Bruce Wolfe Sunshine Ordinance Task Force City Hall Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94103

Re: Complaint regarding SFPUC's failure to produce Public Records, in Violation of the Administrative Code and against the City Attorney for acting as legal counsel for a city employee for purposes of denying access to a public record.

Dear Members of the Task Force:

On October 6, 2017, I made a request of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to disclose the "Emergency Action Plans" in its possession of SFPUC water resources facilities (ie. Emergency plans of what to do if a SFPUC dam failure is imminent- something of considerable concern and risk and worthy of citizen oversight).

On October 30, I received a response from the SFPUC declining to provide these public records. Their response is enclosed. This is an official complaint that they had no grounds to decline, and they were advised to do so by the City Attorney, as they disclose.

Thus, I ask the Task Force to find an SFPUC violation of Section 67.24(g) and 67.24(i) for failure to disclose a public record or records without meeting the standard specified in section 67.27 and a City Attorney violation of 67 .21(i) for acting as legal counsel to the SFPUC for denying access to a public record.

The SFPUC complied with Sunshine ordinance Section 67.27 (Justification of withholding) to the extent that the SFPUC cited the specific statutory authority for a permissive exemption. However, the SFPUC's justification was deficient for the following reasons:

• The statutory authority cited was not part ofthe California Public Records Act, which is codified as Government Code Section 6250-6276. Instead, the statutory authority is much later in the Government code and is part ofthe California Emergency Services Act (section 8550-8668), which refers to the CPRA with this specific text: o Nothing in Chapter 3.5 {Commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 [The California Public Records Act] shall be construed to require disclosure of an emergency action plan. • The statutory authority was not a "prohibition" in the manner of Sunshine Ordinance 67.27(b). It was an exemption. Therefore the justification for withholding must have stemmed from 67.27(a), which only justifies permissive exemptions not forbidden by the sunshine ordinance. • Although the statutory authority was an exemption, it was not a permissive exemption. Sunshine ordinance 67.27(a)-only allows justification for withholding based on permissive exemptions. P502 The key difference is a permissive exemption is something discrete within the CPRA- namely, part of Chapter 3.5 ofthe Government Code (the 6000's) and thus applies to local agencies covered by the CPRA. Had the author of SB 92, adding Govt. Code 8589.5(e) to the Emergency Services Act wished to create a permissive exemption, then SB 92 could have amended the CPRA.

Instead, the author of SB 92 merely added Govt. Code 8589.S{e) in the 8000's to avoid expanding permissive exemptions beyond the scope of SB 92- in other words, avoiding the risk that this exemption in the context ofthe CPRA {the 6000's) could be interpreted too broadly and applied to a broader class of public records by all local agencies. The specific intent of SB 92 was to exempt the State's office of Emergency Service from disclosing emergency action plans in its possession prepared by local agencies and submitted to it. Important to recognize, exemption is not a requirement, only an option.

To summarize: exemption in the 6000's =permissive exemption for all agencies; exemption in the 8000's or elsewhere= exemption only applicable to state agencies.

• The sunshine ordinance forbids the exemption cited from being asserted per Section 67.24- part of the broader scope of the sunshine ordinance -and thus the SFPUC had no authority to justify invocation of 67.27{a): o 67 .24{d) prohibits certain records for law enforcement information to be exempted from disclosure. The Emergency Action Plan described in 8589.5{2) states "IGcal public safety agencies may adopt emergency procedures that incorporate information contained in an emergency action plan." In other words, if there is a state of emergency and a dam failure is imminent, a new crime and enforcement action is permitted. The public has a right to know what the law is. Furthermore, the Action Plan cited in 8589.5{d){2){G) indicates it will include "identification of particular areas or facilities in the flood zones that will not require evacuation because of their location on high ground."

So how could 67.27{d) possibly consider the information "where high ground actually is" when the police say to "get to it" and threaten arrest if you don't as somehow "clearly and substantially outweighing the public interest in disclosure?" per 67.27{d). Is their plan when the substandard concrete around sunset reservoir fails to hand out plumb lines?

What about 8589.5(d)(2){H) "Identification and development of procedures for the evacuation and care of people with access and functional needs and for the evacuation of specific facilities such as schools, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities and other facilities as deemed necessary?" Is the public interest in disclosure outweighed by the SFPUC's CYA plan that the SFPD have no intention of coming for grandma?

• Section 27.27{i) prohibits assertion of a CPRA exemption under section 6255 "or any ·similar provision as the basis for withholding any documents or any information requested under this P503 ordinance." The sunshine Ordinance's prohibiting invocation Section 6255 in the CPRA is the heart of my complaint: it creates the "public interest is served by disclosure" exemption asserted by the SFPUC that is expressly prohibited by Section 67.27(i) of the administrative code. The SFPUC refers to "heightened security" and a Federal Court Case called Living Rivers. First, Federal law does not interpret the CPRA or the Sunshine ordinance, so it does not set precedent in interpreting Section 6255 of the CPRA. Second, it's a case from the US District Court from the District of Utah- not Ninth Circuit- so it sets no precedent over the SFPUC or City Attorney. Third, it interprets the federal Freedom of Information Act. The CPRA and San Francisco Sunshine Ordinances are more permissive than the FOIA, and the principal that local law and state constitutions or laws can establish rights or freedoms broader than the analogous Federal rights is well established through Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74 {1980), a Federal Supreme Court case that does apply to California.

Two can play at the fancy legal citation game ....

• How can withholding the following components of an Emergency Action plan be a compelling public interest outweighed in the name of "heightened Security:" o The Response Process 8589.5{3)(A) o Preparedness Activities and Exercise Schedules 8589.5(3)(D) o Any Additional information that may impact life or property 8589.5(3)(F) o Methods and procedures for alerting and warning the public 8985.5.(2)(A) o Delineation of the area to be evacuated 8985.5.(2)(B) o Routes to be used C o Traffic Control Measures (D) o Shelters to be activated (E) o Methods for the movement of people without their own transportation (F) o Location of high ground (G) o Evacuating people with disabilities (H) o Procedures for Interior and perimeter security (IK) o Procedures for lifting the evacuation and reentry {J) o Details as to which organizations are who are responsible for a safe evacuation (K)

Further down in my records request it is disclosed by the SFPUC it was the City Attorney who advised withholding these public records, citing privilege. This is a violation of 67.20{i) because the SFPUC refused to disclose a communication concerning the Sunshine Ordinance.

The Sou less Deputy City Attorney who advised the SFPUC to withhold information about the SFPUC's emergency preparedness in the event of dam failures endangering human life with bogus legal advice should be ashamed and referred to Ethics. The "heightened security" refers to the job security of incompetent and unprepared public safety officials who ought to move to the Lower Ninth Ward. The City Attorney's job is to "protect and secure the rights of Citizens" to this information.

And to drive the point home: emergency action plans for dam failures in the State of Massachussets are expressly required to be posted on the internet: https://www.cambridgema.gov/Water/watershedmanagementdivision/sourcewaterprotectionprogram /emergencyresponse/emergencyactionplan

P504 To Conclude:

In an age of global warming, extreme weather events pose significant risks to public water resources infrastructure, and there is no public interest in denying the public access to information about the disaster plans and preparation of their governments. The collapse of the St. Francis Dam in California is still the greatest human-caused loss of life in this state, and earlier this year, over 100,000 individuals had to be evacuated from beneath Lake Oroville, even though the Sierra Club had sued the state over the deficient design of the emergency spillway. The Sunshine Ordinance of the City and County of San Francisco was adopted to address the deficiencies of the CPRA- the deficiencies that hid the looming disaster at Oroville from the public- and the exemption cited is a prime example of why San Francisco has a sunshine ordinance in the first place.

P505 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

DENNIS J. HERRERA NICHOLAS COLLA City Attorney Deputy City Attorney

Direct Dial: (415) 554-3819 Email: nicholas.colla @sfgov.org

MEMORANDUM

TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force FROM: Nicholas Colla Deputy City Attorney DATE: February 23, 2018 RE: Complaint No. 17134-Busse v. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the San Francisco City Attorney's Office

COMPLAINT Complainant Thomas Busse ("Complainant") alleges that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ("SFPUC") and the San Francisco City Attorney's Office ("CAO") violated provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance by failing to adequately respond to a records request (SFPUC) and ·acting as legal counsel to deny access to public records (CAO). COMPLAINANT FILES THIS COMPLAINT On December 13, 2017, Complainant filed this complaint with the Task Force regarding ·his alleged denial of records. · JURISDICTION SFPUC and CAO are departments subject to the provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance regarding records requests. SFPUC and CAO do not contest jurisdiction to hear this complaint. APPLICABLE STATUTORY SECTION(S) Section 67 of the San Francisco Administrative Code: • Section 67.21 governs responses to requests for public records. • Section 67.24 governs records that must be disclosed. • Section 67.27 governs the process for withholding records exempt from disclosure. Section 6250 et seq. of the Cal. Gov't Code ("CPRA") • Section 6254 governs exemptions to disclosure. APPLICABLE CASE LAW • St. Croix v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cal. App. 4th 434, 442 (The provisions of the City Charter supersede all municipal laws, ordinances, rules br regulations inconsistent therewith). BACKGROUND

Fox PLAZA · 1390 MARKET STREET, 6TH FLOOR • SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-5408 RECEPTION: (415) 554-3800 · FACSIMILE: (415) 437-4644

n:\codenf\as2014\9600241 \Ol255835.doc P506 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN fRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM

TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: February 23,2018 PAGE: 2 RE: Complaint No. 17134-Busse v. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the San Francisco City Attorney's Office

On October 6, 2017, Complainant sent a sunshine request via email to SFPUC in which he requested records regarding SFPUC's "Emergency Action Plan" in the event of a water resource failure. On October 30, 2017, SFPUC Public Records Coordinator Michelle Peters ("Ms. Peters") sent a reply to Complainant in which she alleged that records responsive to the request were exempt from disclosure pursuant to Government Code Section 8589.5(e). On December 13, 2017, Complainant filed this complaint with the Task Force. On December 21, 2017, in response to the filing of this Complaint, SFPUC Communications Manager Delia Darby ("Ms. Darby") sent the Task Force a letter in which she contended that SFPUC did not violate the Sunshine Ordinance in this case because it properly asserted an exemption to disclosure under CPRA Section 6254(k), in ccmjunction with Government Code Section 8589.5(e). It is unclear whether the CAO filed a response to this complaint as of this date. QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT ASSIST IN DETERMINING FACTS • When did SFPUC initially reply to Complainant's original request for public records? • How does Complainant contend that the alleged exemption does not apply here? • What evidence does Complainant have to support his argument that CAO provided legal . advice to prevent the disclosure of public records? LEGAL ISSUES/LEGAL DETERMINATIONS • Did SFPUC violate the Sunshine Ordinance by failing to timely respond to Complainant's request?

e Did SFPUC violate the Sunshine Ordinance by failing to properly assert an exemption to disclosure? • Did CAO violate the Sunshine Ordinance by advising SFPUC to withhold discloseable documents?

n:\codenf\as20 14\9600241\01255835 .doc P507 CiTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CiTY ATIORNEY MEMORANDUM

TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: Febtuary 23, 2018 PAGE: 3 RE: Complaint No. 17134-Busse v. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the San Francisco City Attorney's Office

CONCLUSION

THE TASK FORCE FINDS THE FOLLOWING FACTS TO BE TRUE:

THE TASK FORCE FINDS THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS TO BE TRUE OR NOT TRUE. * * *

n:\codenf\as20 14\9600241\01255835 .doc P508 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM

TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: February 23, 2018 PAGE: 4 RE: Complaint No. 17134- Busse v. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the San Francisco City Attorney's Office

CHAPTER 67, SAN FRANCISCO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (SUNSIDNE ORDINANCE) SEC. 67.21. PROCESS FOR GAINING ACCESS TO PUBLIC RECORDS; ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS. (a) Every person having custody of any public record or public information, as defined herein, (hereinafter referred to as a custodian of a public record) shall, at normal times and during normal and reasonable hours of operation, without unreasonable delay, and without requiring an appointment, permit the public record, or any segregable portion of a record, to be inspected and examined by any person and shall furnish one copy thereof upon payment of a reasonable copying charge, not to exceed the lesser of the actual cost or ten cents per page. (b) A custodian of a public record shall, as soon as possible and within ten days following · receipt of a request for inspection or copy of a public record, comply with such request. Such request may be delivered to the office of the custodian by the requester orally or in writing by fax, postal delivery, or e-mail. If the custodian believes the record or information requested is not a public record or is exempt, the custodian shall justify withholding any record by demonstrating, in writing as soon as possible and within ten days following receipt of a request, that the record in question is exempt under express provisions of this ordinance. (c) A custodian of a public record shall assist a requester in identifying the existence, form, and nature of any records or information maintained by, available to, or in the custody of the custodian, whether or not the contents of those records are exempt from disclosure and shall, when requested to do so, provide in writing within seven days following receipt of a request, a statement as to the existence, quantity, form and nature of records relating to a particular subject or questions with enough specificity to enable a requester to identify records in order to make a request under (b). A custodian of any public record, when not in possession of the record requested, shall assist a requester in directing a request to the proper office or staff person. (d) If the custodian refuses, fails to comply, or incompletely complies with a request described in (b), the person making the request may petition the supervisor of records for a determination whether the record requested is public. The supervisor of records shall inform the petitioner, as soon as possible and within 10 days, of its determination whether the record requested, or any part of the record requested, is public. Where requested by the petition, and where otherwise desirable, this determination shall be in writing. Upon the determination by the supervisor of records that the record is public, the supervisor of records shall immediately order the custodian of the public record to comply with the person's request. If the custodian refuses or fails to comply with any such order within 5 days, the supervisor of records shall notify the district attorney or the attorney general who shall take whatever measures she or he deems necessary and appropriate to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. (e) If the custodian refuses, fails to comply, or incompletely complies with a request described in (b) above or if a petition is denied or not acted on by the supervisor of public records, the person making the request may petition the Sunshine Task Force for a determination whether the record requested is public. The Sunshine Task Force shall inform the petitioner, as soon as possible and within 2 days after its next meeting but in no case later than 45 days from when a

n:\codenf\as2014\9600241 \01255835 .doc P509 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATIORNEY MEMORANDUM

TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: February 23, 2018 PAGE: 5 RE: Complaint No. 17134-Busse v. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the San Francisco City Attorney's Office

petition in writing is received, of its determination whether the record requested, or any part of the record requested, is public. Where requested by the petition, and where otherwise desirable, this determination shall be in writing. Upon the determination that the record is public, the Sunshine Task Force shall immediately order the custodian of the public record to comply with the person's request. If the custodian refuses or fails to comply with any such order within 5 days, the Sunshine Task Force shall notify the district attorney or the attorney general who may take whatever measures she or he deems necessary to insure compliance with the provisions of this ordinance. The Board of Supervisors and the City Attorney's office shall provide sufficient staff and resources to allow the Sunshine Task Force to fulfill its duties under this provision. Where requested by the petition, the Sunshine Task Force may conduct a public hearing concerning the records request denial. An authorized representative of the custodian of the public records requested shall attend any hearing and explain the basis for its decision to withhold the records requested. (f) The administrative remedy provided under this article shall in no way limit the availability of other administrative remedies provided to any person with respect to any officer or employee of any agency, executive office, department or board; nor shall the administrative remedy provided by this section in any way limit the availability of judicial remedies otherwise available to any person requesting a public record. If a custodian of a public record refuses or fails to comply with the request of any person for inspection or copy of a public record or with an administrative order under this section, the superior court shall have jurisdiction to order compliance. (g) In any court proceeding pursuant to this article there shall be a presumption that the record sought is public, and the burden shall be upon the custodian to prove with specificity the exemption which applies. (h) On at least an annual basis, and as otherwise requested by the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, the supervisor of public records shall prepare a tally and report of every petition brought before it for access to records since the time of its last tally and report. The report shall at least identify for each petition the record or records sought, the custodian of those records, the ruling of the supervisor of public records, whether any ruling was overturned by a court and whether orders given to custodians of public records were followed. The report shall also summarize any court actions during that period regarding petitions the Supervisor has decided. At the request of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, the report shall also include copies of all rulings made by the supervisor of public records and all opinions issued. (i) The San Francisco City Attorney's office shall act to protect and secure the rights of the people of San Francisco to access public information and public meetings and shall not act as legal counsel for any city employee or any person having custody of any public record for purposes of denying access to the public. The City Attorney may publish legal opinions in response to a request from any person as to whether arecord or information is public. All communications with the City Attorney's Office with regard to this ordinance, including petitions, requests for opinion, and opinions shall be public records. G) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the City Attorney may defend the City or a City Employee in litigation under this ordinance that is actually filed in court to any extent required by the City Charter or California Law. SEC. 67.27. JUSTIFICATION OF WITHHOLDING.

n: \codenf\as20 14\9600241\0 125 583 5. doc P510 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM

TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: February 23, 2018 PAGE: 6 RE: Complaint No. 17134-Busse v. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the San Francisco City Attorney's Office

Any withholding of information shall be justified; in writing, as follows: (a) A withholding under a specific pemiissive exemption in the California Public Records Act, or elsewhere, which permissive exemption is not forbidden to be asserted by this ordinance, shall cite that authority. (b) A withholding on the basis that disclosure is prohibited by law shall cite the specific statutory authority in the Public Records Act or elsewhere. (c) A withholding on the basis that disclosure would incur civil or criminal liability shall cite any specific statutory or case law, or any other public agency's litigation experience, supporting that position. (d) When a record being requested contains information, most of which is exempt from . disclosure under the California Public Records Act and this Article, the custodian shall inform the requester of the nature and extent of the nonexempt information and suggest alternative sources for the information requested, if available. CAL. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT (GOVT. CODE§§ 6250, ET SEQ.) .SEC. 6254 Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, nothing in this chapter shall be construed to require disclosure of records that are any ofthe following: (k) Records, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege.

CAL. GOV'T CODE SECTION 8589.5 (a) For the purposes of this section, "emergency action plan" means a written document that outlines actions to be undertaken during an emergency in order to minimize or eliminate the potential loss of life and property damage. (b) An emergency action plan shall do all of the following: (1) Be based upon an inundation map approved by the Department of Water Resources pursuant to Section 6161 of the Water Code. (2) Be developed by the dam's owner in consultation with any local public safety agency that may be impacted by an incident involving the dam, to the extent a local public safety agency wishes to consult. (3) Adhere to Federal Emergency Management Agency guidelines, and include, at a minimum, all of the following: (A) Notification flowcharts and contact information. (B) The response process. (C) The roles and responsibilities of the dam owner and impacted jurisdictions following an incident involving the dam.

n:\codenf\as20 14\9600241\01255 835 .doc P511 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM

TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. DATE: February 23, 2018 PAGE: 7 RE: Complaint No. 17134-Busse v. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the San Francisco City Attorney's Office

(D) Preparedness activities and exercise schedules. (E) Inundation maps approved by the Department of Water Resources pursuant to Section 6161 ofthe Water Code. (F) Any additional information that may impact life or property. (c) At least once annually, an owner of a dam shall conduct an emergency action plan notification exercise with local public safety agencies, to the extent that a local public safety agency wishes to participate. This annual exercise is to ensure that emergency communications plans and processes are current and implemented effectively. (d)(l) The appropriate public safety agencies of any city, county, or city and county, the territory of which includes any of those areas identified in an inundation map and the emergency action plan, may adopt emergency procedures for the evacuation and control of the potentially affected areas. The Office of Emergency Services may provide guidance to these agencies on incorporating the emergency action plan into the local all-hazard emergency response plans and local hazard mitigation plans. (2) Local public safety agencies may adopt emergency procedures that incorporate the information contained in an emergency action plan in a manner that conforms to local needs, and that includes all of the following elements: (A) Methods and procedures for alerting and warning the public. (B) Delineation ofthe area to be evacuated. (C) Routes to be used. (D) Traffic control measures. (E) Shelters to be activated for the care of the evacuees. (F) Methods for the movement of people without their own transportation. (G) Identification of particular areas or facilities in the flood zones that will not require evacuation because of their location on high ground or similar circumstances. (H) Identification and development of procedures for the evacuation and care of people with access and functional needs and for the evacuation of specific facilities, such as schools, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and other facilities as deemed necessary. (I) Procedures for the perimeter and interior security of the evacuated area. (J) Procedures for the lifting of the evacuation and reentry of the area. (K) Details as to which organizations are responsible for the functions described in this paragraph and the material and personnel resources required. (3) Each agency that prepares emergency procedures may review and update these . procedures in accordance with its established schedules. (e) Nothing in Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 of Title 1 shall be construed to require disclosure of an emergency action plan.

n:\codenf\as20 14\9600241\01255835 .doc P512 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM

TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: February 23,2018 PAGE: 8 RE: Complaint No. 17134-Busse v. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the San Francisco City Attorney's Office

SAN FRANCISCO CITY CHARTER.

SEC. 6.102. CITY ATTORNEY

The City Attorney shall: 1. Represent the City and County in legal proceedings with respect to which it has an interest; provided that any elected officer, department head, board or commission may engage counsel other than the City Attorney for legal advice regarding a particular matter where the elected officers department head, board or commission has reason to believe that the City Attorney may have a prohibited financial conflict of interest under California law or a prohibited ethical conflict of interest under the California Rules of Professional Conduct with regard to the matter, subject to the following limitations and conditions. The elected officer, department head, board or commission shall first present a written request to the City Attorney for outside counsel. The written request shall specify the particular matter for which the elected officer, department head, board or commission seeks the services of outside counsel, a description of the requested scope of services, and the potential conflict of interest that is the basis for the request. Within five working days after receiving the written request for outside counsel, the City Attorney shall respond in writing to the elected officer, department head, board or commission either consenting or not consenting to the provision of outside counsel. If the City Attorney does not consent to the provision of outside counsel, the City Attorney shall state iri the written response why he or she believes that there is no conflict of interest regarding the particular matter. If the elected officer, department head, board or commission continues to believe there are adequate grounds for outside counsel despite the City Attorney's response that there is no conflict of interest, the elected officer, department head, board or commission may, within thirty days after receiving the City Attorney's response, refer the issue of whether the City Attorney has a prohibited conflict of interest regarding a particular matter to a retired judge or justice of the state courts of California for resolution. If the elected officer, department head, board or commission and City Attorney cannot agree on a retired judge to hear the matter, the retired judge shall be selected at random by an alternative dispute resolution provider. If the matter is referred to a retired judge, the elected officer, department head, board or commission, subject to the budgetary and fiscal provisions of the Charter, shall be entitled to retain outside counsel to represent it solely on the issue of whether the City Attorney has a conflict ofinterest regarding the particular matter. In deciding whether the City Attorney has a conflict of interest regarding a particular matter, the retired judge shall be bound by and apply the applicable substantive law and Rules of Professional Conduct as ifhe or she were a court of law. To the extent practicable, the retired judge shall hear the matter within 15 days after its assignment to the retired judge, and within 15 days after the hearing, shall issue a written opinion stating the basis for the decision. The retired judge, but not the City Attorney or elected officer, department head, board or commission, shall have the power to subpoena witnesses and documents in this proceeding. . The retired judge may request that the City Attorney secure written advice from the California Fair Political Practices Commission, the State Bar of California, or the California Attorney General on the question of whether the City Attorney has a conflict of interest regarding the particular matter. Upon such a request by the retired judge, the City Attorney shall

n:\codenf\as20 14\9600241\01255835 .doc P513 CiTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CiTY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM

TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: February 23, 2018 PAGE: 9 . RE: Complaint No. 17134-Busse v. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the San Francisco City Attorney's Office

secure such written advice. The retired judge may consider, but is not bound by, written advice so secured. The decision of the retired judge shall be final for the limited purpose of determining whether or not the elected officer, department head, board or commission may retain outside counsel for the particular matter.

If the retired judge decides that the City Attorney does not have a conflict of interest regarding the particular matter, the City Attorney shall continue to be the legal adviser to the elected officer, department head, board or commission for such matter. If the retired judge decides that the City Attorney has a conflict of interest regarding a particular matter, the elected officer, department head, board or commission shall be entitled to retain outside counsel for legal advice regarding the particular matter, and the City Attorney shall thereupon cease to advise the elected officer, department head board or co~mission on such matter. Any such finding of a conflict of interest shall not affect the City Attorney's role as legal advisor to the elected officer, department head, board or commission on all other matters. If at any time after the retention of outside counsel, the City Attorney believes that there is no longer a conflict of interest, the City Attorney shall state in writing to the elected officer, department head, board or commission why he or she believes that there is no longer a conflict of interest. Within five working days after receiving the written statement from the City Attorney, the elected officer, department head, board or commission shall respond in writing, either agreeing or disagreeing that there is no longer a conflict of interest. If the elected officer, department head, board or commission agrees that there is no longer a conflict of interest regarding a particular matter, the elected officer, department head, board or commission shall cease employing outside counsel for legal advice regarding the matter, and the City Attorney shall serve as legal adviser to the elected officer, department head, board or commission regarding that matter. If the elected officer, department head, board or commission states in its written response that it believes the conflict of interest still exists, the City Attorney may, within ten working days after receiving the response of the elected officer, department head, board or commission, elect to refer the issue of whether the conflict of interest regarding the particular matter continues to exist to the same retired judge who. originally heard the matter, if available. The same procedures as established herein shall apply thereafter. In selecting outside counsel for any purpose described in this Section, the elected officer, department head, board or commission shall give preference to engaging the services of a City attorney's office, a County counsel's office or other public entity law office with an expertise regarding the subject-matter jurisdiction of the elected officer, department head, board or commission. If the elected officer, department head, board or commission concludes that private counsel is necessary, that attorney must be a member in good standing with the Bar of California who has at least five year's experience in the subject-matter jurisdiction of the elected officer, department head, board or commission Any private counsel retained pursuant to this Section shall be subject to the conflict of interest provisions of Section 13.103.5. The cost of any of the services of outside counsel and of the alternative dispute resolution process authorized by this Section shall be paid for by the elected officer, department head, board or commission, subject to the budgetary and fiscal provisions of this Charter.

n:\codenf\as20 14\9600241\01255835 .doc P514 CiTY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CiTY ATTORNEY MEMORANDUM

TO: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force DATE: February 23, 2018 PAGE: 10 RE: Complaint No. 17134-Busse v. San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the San Francisco City Attorney's Office

2. Represent an officer or official of the City and County when directed to do so by the Board of Supervisors, unless the cause of action exists in favor of the City and County against such officer or official; .3. Whenever a cause of action exists in favor ofthe City and County, commence legal proceedings when such action is within the knowledge of the City Attorney or when directed to do so by the Board of Supervisors, except for the collection of taxes and delinquent revenues, which shall be performed by the attorney for the Tax Collector;

4. Upon request, provide advice or written opinion to any officer, department head or board, commission or other unit of government of the City and County; 5. Make recommendations for or against the settlement or dismissal of legal proceedings to the Board of Supervisors prior to any such settlement or dismissal. Such proceedings shall be settled or dismissed by ordinance and only upon the recommendation of the City Attorney; 6. Approve as to form all surety bonds, contracts and, prior to enactment, all ordinances; and examine and approve title to all real property to be acquired by the City and County; 7. Prepare, review annually and make available to the public a codification of ordinances of the City and County then in effect; 8. Prepare and make available to the public an annual edition of this Charter.complete with all of its amendments and legal annotations; and 9. Establish in the Office of the City Attorney a Bureau of Claims Investigation and Administration which shall have the power to investigate, evaluate and settle for the several boards, commissions and departments all claims for money or damages. The Bureau shall also have the power to investigate incidents where the City faces potential civil liability, and to settle demands before they are presented as claims, within dollar limits provided for by ordinance, from a revolving fund to be established for that purpose. The City Attorney shall appoint a chief of the Bureau who shall serve at his or her pleasure. The chief of the Bureau may appoint, subject to confirmation by the City Attorney, investigators who shall serve at the pleasure of the chief. 10. During his or her tenure, not contribute to, solicit contributions to, publicly endorse or urge the endorsement of or otherwise participate in a campaign for a candidate for City elective office, other than himself or herself or of a City ballot measure or be an officer, director or employee of or hold a policy-making position in an organization that makes political endorsements regarding candidates for elective office or City ballot measures.

n:\codenf\as20 14\9600241\0 1255835.doc P515 Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint Summary

File No. 17134

Thomas Busse V Public Utilities Commission and the Office of the City Attorney

Date filed with SOTF: 12/13/17

Contacts information (Complainant information listed first): [email protected] (Complainant) publicrecords@sfwater. org; andrea. guzman@sfgov. org; cityattomey@sfcityatty. org (Respondent)

File No. 17134: Complaint filed by Thomas Busse against the San Francisco Public Utilities for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, 67.24(g)(i), 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner and against the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21(i), for acting as legal counsel for denying access to a public record.

Administrative Summary if applicable:

Complaint Attached.

P516 Complainant/Petitioners Documents Submission.

P517 f': .·· Thomas J. Busse 584 Castro Street #388 San Francisco, CA 94114 .,, /f>l:.___ .. 415-244-5072 w i ------·-

October 21, 2016

Mr. John Cote, Communications Director Office of the City Attorney City Hall, Room 234 San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: Hearing on Jurisdiction- 2/27/18 SOTF File 17134

Dear Mr. Cote:

I was genuinely looking forward to hearing your response to this complaint Tuesday night, and I am sincere in thanking you for taking the time to attend the committee's meeting where the committee found jurisdiction.·

I want you to know I took no pleasure that it turned out to be such a colossal waste of time for you and that certain structural problems ofthe Task Force are not lost on me (I have to sit there too). In that spirit, I'm enclosing the argument I made to find jurisdiction, which I believe. to be logical and well researched. I want to assure you, I abhor frivolity and am not trying to haul up some public servants to the SOTF on a half-baked charge to burn off some sort of redirected inner rage and Need to Be Known.

The motivation of my complaint is grounded in what I believe are structural problems in the Office of the City Attorney, its limited oversight and transparency, cronyism, lopsided civil actions, and questionable causes of action for affirmative litigation to accomplish goals that should be, in my opinion, better achieved through the political process and coordinated with public policy. My options to raise awareness of this unsexy issue are limited, and obviously, we'll have to agree to disagree on a vision for the office, but I just wanted to take a moment to provide context and transparency.

CC Victor Young, SOTF Administrator CC SFPUC, Public Records

P518 File 17134: Complainant's Summarized Argument regarding Jurisdiction 2/27/18 -Thomas Busse

Although the Ethically-screened CAO memorandum dated 2/23/18 on City Attorney letterhead does not contest jurisdiction, The City Attorney acting as respondent in two memorandums claims the Task Force lacks jurisdiction because finding a violation of 67.21(i) would irreparably harm the attorney-client relationship for the legal services provided by the City Attorney to other city agencies.

But who hires San Francisco's City Attorney? The People. Who are his clients? We are. The San Francisco City Attorney is Elected, and as an elected official, the City Attorney has an inherit conflict-of-interest when advising other city departments regarding ethics, open meetings and public records. To paraphrase the Charter, The City Attorney works for the people of the City, counseling the City in furtherance ofthe people's interest, which may at times conflict with the interest ofthose who work for the people or his own political/ethical interest. The Sunshine Ordinance implements and broadens the existing ethical boundaries in Charter 6.102-10.

The Ballot Simplification Committee in 1999 said of the proposed Sunshine Ordinance Amendments, "The City Attorney could not give confidential advice to City officers or employees on matters concerning government ethics, public records, and open meeting laws." This is what was promised to the People. In other words, the City Attorney has a legal to recuse himself from giving confidential legal advice on these matters, and the Sunshine Ordinance clarifies and codifies this limitation to the otherwise broad counsel offered by the City Attorney under Charter 6.102-4. It is not uncommon for lawyers to recuse themselves from work outside of their area of expertise or where a conflict of interest develops.

The 2014 Saint Croix decision was an evidentiary decision. It held that if records exist that are suspected to be of illegal confidential advice, they are not subject to discovery or admissible evidence. That's all: it did not strike down the formal ban on acting as confidential counsel, it just made it harder to prove that confidential advice concerned matters it should not have addressed. Here, I have built a circumstantial complaint I believe to be adequately supported without the evidence of the illegal confidential advice.

Each City Department has its own operating budget, and if it needs specific legal counsel in these areas, one option would be to engage counsel. The specific case law enabling this with greater ease than Charter 6.102 is City and County of San Francisco vs. Cobra Solutions (2006) where the California Supreme Court held "the entire City Attorney's Office was vicariously disqualified from representing the City and County of California" because "an ethical screen is not sufficient protection where, as here, the conflicted attorney is the head of a government law office."

Additional Case law bearing this out is United States of America v. Zula Jones {9th Cir. Court 2002}. This was a fourth amendment case where the City Attorney consented to an FBI search of the Human Rights Commission, which was engaging in an Enron-like shredding operation to evade a subpoena served on the City Attorney in her capacity as Custodian of Records. The court held:

Although the government attempts to argue that under the City Charter, the City itself was the employer and that, therefore, the City Attorney could consent to the search as an employer, the record does not support this conclusion. The HRC, while technically a part of the City government, is a separate agency with its own authority and director. The HRC could have refused to cooperate with the investigation.

P519 Furthermore, the Charter does not state that the City Attorney has the power to step in and act as the employer."

The PUC's separateness is similar. In the meantime, the City Attorney who's client is the People of the City, not its government officials whom it merely advises, has an affirmative duty to seek disclosure from the PUC or to refrain from making any advice.

The Task Force's job under 67.30(b) is to advise the public about how to implement The Sunshine Ordinance so as to deliver what was promised to the voters in light of evolving case law and to communicate to the Board of Supervisors and the Public (including myself) its policy problems and evolution. Finding a violation of 67.21(i) furthers that goal. Jurisdiction is appropriate.

P520 Thomas J. Busse 584 Castro Street #388 San Francisco, CA 94114

415~244-5072

January 31, 2018

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force City Hall Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94103

Re: File 17134 Complainant'~ Answer to Respondent Darby of the SF PUC

Dear Task Force:

First, 1 want to thank Respondent (and ghostwriter) for the thorough answer, and. for the real-world after work opportunity for civic engagement. As I am neither an attorney nor do I have a background in law or civil procedure, I am grateful for this sandbox to articulate a fairly complex legal argument about the Sunshine Ordinances' intents and purposes -namely, that it and the Public Records Act actually says what it means- shows the wider value of the Task Force's relatively free-form process and greater civil access than the Courts or the Ethics commission to focus on substantive issues without the arcane burden of civil procedure and (often tortur~d) cause of action constraints to the forrnulation of Public Interest law.

That said, the SFPUC's response fails to hold water.

Respondent claims I fundamentally misunderstand the California Public Records Act, but this is a complaint brought under the Sunshine Ordinance, not the California Public Records Act. As my Complaint noted, Section 67.24(h) states: "Neither the City, nor any office, employee, or agent thereof may assert California Public Records Act section 6255 or any similar provision as the basis for withholding any documents or any information requested under this ordinance" [my emphasis]l.

As I will make clear, CPRA Section 6254(k) meets the criteria of "similar provision" because the California Constitution (Article 1 Section 3) requires that all exemptions in other laws, including as the Emergency Services Act, be adopted with findings as to their purpose. The findings asserted in ESA section 8985 from SB 92 are the balancing test exemption similar to CPRA section 6255. In other words, in this case 6254(k) is "like" 6255, and the SFPUC may not assert 6254(k) per Admin. Code 67 .24(h). I suggest the term "peregrine exemption" for 6254(k) because the fundamental exemption class can inherit changing characters based on . 2 the cross-reference, but a fundamental exemption class does not and cannot go away •

As I will also make clear, classification of a stated security exemption may be in fact a balancing test exemption; stated assertion notwithstanding. Otherwise, "security issues" are unreasonably broad excuses.

1 The similar provision is not specific to the CPRA. . 2 Peregrine-construction is a well-established legal doctrine -viz charter vs. general law as a function of contextual convenience, etc. .

P521 Stepping back, without the asides, section 6254{k) reads: "Records ... relating to privilege"

Privilege is itself a balancing test. In legal jargon, privilege is the type asserted by the City Attorney and enjoyed by spouses, priests, psychotherapists, formerly slave/master/servant, all of which are subject Tara soW limitations. It's the domain of those who think they can just because they can, leading them down a tautological rabbit hole beyond all reason that they should. If a dam is a danger to others, the SFPUC has an affirmative duty to warn, and some nod has to be made to the reputational and character. Gradually expanding how 6254{k) simply encodes these common law privjleges into the CPRA by filling in the sentence:

Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13, this chapter does not require the disclosure of any of the following: records [ ... ] including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege" 4

The Circular Reference to the Emergency Services Act's 8589.5{g) "Nothing in Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 12 of Division 7 of Title 1 shall be construed to require disclosure of an emergency action plan" leaves no express provision in 6254{k). Section 67.26 makes clear: no record shall be withheld from disclosure in its entirety "unless all information contained in it is exempt from disclosure under express provisions of the California Public Records Act or of some other statute."

If 8589.5{g) were an express provision it would use the language of an express provision, e.g.: "The Emergency Action Plans described in this chapter are not public records."

The Legislative Counsel's Digest, although a Persuasive Authority, is ~ot an exh~ustlve authority: a publisher's blurb rather than an author's text. These Digests for the legal reader are not written by the Legislative Analyst and are often written by lobbyists at the behest of special interest groups. When in conflict with the text the Government code can and should be ignore~· (San Luis Coastal Unified School District, et of va John Van De Kamp, [former Second Dist. Div 6 No 8054262,. Brief S019575 Judicial Notice]. A famous federal example of this Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. 118 US 394 {1886) where a "headnote" not part of the legal opinion overgeneralized that the court found "corporations are persons within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment."

And to pose a hypothetical, what if the incorporation of foreign law by statute lead to the incorporation of of an illegal law or a law repugnant to the, intents and purposes of such law? Suppose there was a new · provision in the Emergency Services Act exempting the location of nuclear fallout shelters or a new provision· in the Revenue and Taxation code exempting disclosure of all budgets of local agencies or of the current public debt?

· Sb 92 Section 102 states: "it is necessary to protect an emergency action plan submitted pursuant to this act as confidential." Confidential refers to privilege, which is a balancing test. So, as' I originally claimed, the Dept. of Emergency Services will treat it after it has been submitted as confidential. That says nothing about the very broad obligations of the SFPUC under Section 67, and if the Legislature truly wanted to create a prohibition, it should have said so in the actual Government Code using the word "prohibit" and not in some

3 Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of Californai, 17 Cal 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334 4 {6254.13 and 6254.7 refers to the answers to standardized tests, and creates an exception for the Governor to look up the right answer in advance and actual scoring of real answers.

P522 footnote to SB 92 and indirect ci~cularly referencing double negative exemptions. Confidence can always be waived: The IRS will treat tax returns as confidential, but anybody can disclose his/her tax returns. The Sunshine ordinance waives confidence of this sort.

The Respondent misquotes the Legislature's precise statement:

Section 102: "the Legislature finds and declares that the sections of this act that add Section 8589.5 to the Government Code and add Article 6 (commencing with Section 6160) to Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 3 of the Water code impose a limitation on the public's right of, access to the meetings of public bodies of the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest: [my emphasis}:

Public safety courts like that yada yada yada ... confidential... we messed up at Oroville ... yada yada~ .. my Daddy built this Dam yada yada Legacy yada yada Oh No the Sisk Dam yada Must Fund Delta yada [my paraphrase}.

In this case, we have a Higher Law (the California Constitution of 1872} in conflict with the demonstrations of the supermajority-controlled Legislature working at cross purposes to the stated purpose.

Section 3 of Article 1 of the California Constitution states: ·

SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition g9vernment for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good. (~) (1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public boc!ies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny. (2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, ' shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

"Demonstrate" raises a burden of proof. Respondent and legislature claim. a "public safety interest" but there is absolutely no rational basis for this within the constitutional public access requirement, which Article 1 Section 3 states must be narrowly construed. The Legislature's so~called findings fail to find anything. They do not demonstrate the interest, the do not demonstrate the need for such an interest, and make findings to the opposite of the substance of the interest thereof, which is not a public interest in any case. As Section 3(4} ofthe California Constitution elaborates:

(4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7.

So, when the Legislature asserted a finding that it needed to protect "information about local emergency management officials such as their personal identifying information" the Legislature violated the right to petition as well as substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property because the People have a

P523 ' .

right to know Who Their Government Officials Actually Are in order to deliver a petition to them for redress . of grievances after their property got washed away when the Dam broke.

As to "demonstrating" CJ so-called public safety need, the legislature hypothesized unconstitutionally vague "people" with "improper motivations who could use this information maliciously to expose a dam's vulnerabilities arid to disrupt a critical emergency response." Who are these people? Muslims?. Why only now? This irrational paranoia is far beyond reasonable and certainly not demonstrated. Demonstrate implies specific threats.

As to a typical dam's demonstrated vulnerabilities, they are calfed earthquake faults, design flaws, and "long term systematic failure of regulatory and general industry practices."5

Only one- design flaws- are vulnerable to unnamed vaguely malicious "people," and a stretch at thab,,The Sunshine Ordinance has provisions for redaction on specifics, but respondent is already bound by a fiduciary duty to disclose the existence of such design flaws- to SFPUC Revenue bo11d holders.

Section 8985.5 was first added to the Emergency Services Act in 2013, and I enclose the archaic ver~:)on. ·

Most of the components ofthe Emergency Action Plans are identic-al to the new-and-improved 8985.51 sq,:.:: the criteria of "demonstration;' must be based in facts- actual things that have happened, and 67.26 ref~}$'--:.:. to records exempted "in their entirety" as to such finding of fact. In May, The 9tb Circuit court of appeals found in State of Hawaii vs. Donald J. Trump (17-15589) a presidential assertion limiting immigration from several countries on the grounds it was in the "security interests of the United States" was conflicted by the statements and actions of said president evidencing security as not a motivating factor, and therefore· conflicted with an action that would be legal given the broad authori;ty in other-circumstances. .• '. -i-· ·. '.. ' ' -··· : •. • ~ -- . . The contents of the plan are not available to _evidence the real motivation of Respondent's assertion of confidence, so I conclude by asking the Task Force: how much confi.dence should be placed in Respondent, and especially the City Attorney?

The way I see it: The Sisk Dam, built at the same time as Oroville; is in imminent risk of collapse due to design flaws and newly discovered fault zones, endangering 200,000 Californians. The PUC knows this. This will stop interbasin transfers to the Santa Clara Valley water district, making Silicon Valley reliant on the PUC as a wholesaler. This is a "sensitive" issue. Personally, I wanted the Emergency Action Plan to look at the adequacy of the PUC's emergency wide-area radio communications because the curren~ ones don't work, the capital replacement rate contradicts DHS guidelines, and the Capital Projects fund ofthe SF Treasury is overdrawn.

What is Respondent hiding?

Thomas J. Busse

5 Independent Forensic Team Report Oroville Dam Spillway Incident. January 5, 2018.

P524 ., 1. ; .. , .·.:. :·. ·,·-:: :·: \"." __l ..,__:;,·, :·. __ / \,.• \ s ,\ ~-l i. ·~--~ ' ; :~c.:_ '·2. {~ 0 . Thomas J. Busse 584 Castro Street #388 San Francisco, CA 94114. 415-244-5072

I• -~' ~ ... 1 ...... -····· January 31, 2018

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force City Hall Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94103

Re: File 17134 Complainant's Answer to Respondent Darby of the SFPUC

Dear Task Force:

First, I want to thank Respondent (and ghostwriter) for the thorough answer, and for the real-world after work opportunity for civic engagement. As I am neither an attorney nor do I have a background in law or civil procedure, I am grateful for this sandbox to articulate a fairly complex legal argument about the Sunshine Ordinances' intents and purposes -namely, that it and the Public Records Act actually says what it means- shows the wider value of the Task Force's relatively free-form process and greater civil access than the Courts or the Ethics commission to focus on substantive issues without the arcane burden of civil procedure and (often tortured) cause· of action constraints to the formulation of Public Interest law.

That said, the SFPUC's response fails to hold water.

Respondent claims I fundamentally misunderstand the California Public Records Act, but this is a complaint brought under the Sunshine Ordinance, not. the California Public Records Act. As my Complaint noted, . Section 67.24(h) states: "Neither the City, nor any office, employee, or agent there.of may assert California Public Records Act section 6255 or any similar provision as the basis for withholding any documents or any 1 informatio~ requested under this ordinance" [my emphasis] .

As I will make clear, CPRA Section 6254{k) meet's the criteria of "similar provision" because the California Constitution _(Article 1 Section 3) requires that all exemptions in other laws, including as the Emergency Services Act, be adopted with findings as to their purpose. The findings asserted in ESA section 8985 from SB 92 are the balancing test exemption similar to CPRA section 6255. In other words, in this case 6254(k) is "like" 6255, and the SFPUC may not assert 6254(k) per Admin. Code 67.24{h). I suggest the term ({peregrine exemption" for 6254(k) because the fundamental exemption class can inherit changing characters based on 2 the cross-reference, but a fundamental exemption class does not and cannot go away •

1 The similar provision is not specific to the CPRA. 2 Peregrine-construction is .a well-established legal doctrine -viz charter vs. general law as a function of contextual convenience, etc.

P525 Stepping back, without the asides, section 6254(k) read~: "Records ... relating to privilege"

·Privilege is itself a balancing test. In legal jargon, privilege is the type asserted by the City Attorney and enjoyed by spouses, priests, psychotherapists, formerly slave/master/servant, all of which are subject Tarasotr limitations. It's the domain ofthose who think they can just because they can, leading them down a tautological rabbit hole beyond all reason that they should. If a dam is a danger to others, the SFPUC has an affirmative duty to warn, and some nod has to be made to the reputational and character. Gradually expanding how 6254(k) simply encodes these common law privileges into the CPRA by filling in the sentence:

Except as provided in Sections 6254.7 and 6254.13; this chapter does not require the disclosure of any of the following: records [ ... ] including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege" 4

The Circular Reference to the Emergen~y Services Act's 8589.5(g) "Nothing in Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 6250} of Division 12 of Division 7 of Title 1 shall be construed to require disclosure of an emergency action plan" leaves no express provision in 6254(k). Section 67.26 makes clear: no record shall be withheld from disclosure in its entirety "unless all information contained in it is exempt from disclosure under express provisions of the California Public Records Act or of some other statute." I If 8589.5(g) were an express provision it would use the language of an express provision, e.g.: "The Emergency Action Plans described in this chapter are not public records."

The Legisl-ative Counsel's Digest, although a Persuasive Authority, is not an· exhaustive authority~ a · - · .,. publisher's blurb rather than an author's text. These Digests for the legal reader are not written by the Legislative Analyst and are often written by lobbyists atthe behest of special interest groups. When in conflict with the text the Government code can and should be ignored (San Luis Coastal Unified School District, eta/ va John Van De Kamp, [former Second Dist. Div 6 No 8054262, Brief S019575 Judicial Notice]. A famous federal example of this Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Co. 118 US 394 (1886) where a "headnote" not part of the legal opinion overgeneralized that the court found "corporations are persons within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment."

And to pose a hypothetical, what ifthe incorporation of foreign law by statute lead to the incorporation of of an illegal law or a law repugnant to the intents and purposes of such law? Suppose there was a new provision in the Emergency Services Act exempting the location of nuclear fallout shelters or a new provision in the Revenue and Taxation code exempting disclosure of all budgets of local agencies or of the current public debt?

Sb 92 Section 102 states: "it is necessary to protect an emergency action plan submitted pursuant to this act as confidential." Confidential refers to privilege, which is a balancing test. So, as I originally claimed, the Dept. of Emergency Services will treat it after it has been submitted as confidential. That says nothing about the very broad obligations of the SF PUC under Section 67, and if the Legislature truly wanted to create a prohibition, it should have said so in the actual Government Code using the word "prohibit" and not in some

3 Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of Californai, 17 Cal 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334 4 (625.4.13 and 6254.7 refers to the answers to standardized tests, and creates an exception for the Governor to look up th.e right answer in advance and actual scoring of real answers.

P526 footnote to SB 92 and indirect circularly referencing double negative exemptions. Confidence can always be waived: The IRS will treat tax returns as confidential, but anybody can disclose his/her tax returns. The Sunshine ordinance waives confidence of this sort.

The Respondent misquotes the Legislature's precise statement:

Section 102: 11the Legislature finds and declares that the sections of this act that add Section 8589.5 to the Government Code and add Article 6 (commencing with Section 6160) to Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 3 of the Water code impose a limitation on the public's right of access to the meetings of public bodies of the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting. that interest: [my emphasis]:..

Public safety courts like that yada yada yada... confidentiaf... we messed up at Oroville ... yada yada: .. my Daddy built this Dam yada yada Legacy yada yada Oh No the Sisk Dam yada Must Fund Delta yada [my paraphrase].

In this case, we have a Higher Law (the California Constitution of 1872) in conflict with the demonstrations of the supermajority-controlled Legislature working at cross purposes to the stated purpose.

Section 3· of Article 1ofthe California Constitution states:

SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and j3SS~mble jreely to consult fqr the common good. (b) (1) The Pe.C?I?,Ie haye ~he rig~t ot. access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore·, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny" (2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of ~ccess shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

"Demonstrate" rajses a burden of proof. Respondent and legislature claim a "publicsafety interest" but there is absolutely no rational basis for this within the constitutional public access requirement, which Article 1 Section 3 states must be narrowly construed. The Legislature's so-called findings fail to find anything. They do not demonstrate the interest, the do not demonstrate the need for such an interest, and make findings to the opposite of the substance of the interest thereof, which is not a public interest in any case. As Section 3(4) ofthe California Constitution elaborates:

So, when the Legislature asserted a finding that it neede.d to protect "information about local emergency management officials such as their personal identifying information" the Legislature violated the right to petition a$ well as substantive due process rights to life, liberty, and property because the People have a

P527 right to know Who Their Government Officials Actually Are in order to deliver a petition to them for redress of grievances after their property got washed away when the Dam broke.

As to "demonstrating" a so-called public safety need, the legislature hypothesized unconstitutionally vague "people" with "improper motivations who could use this information maliciously to expose a dam's vulnerabilities and to disrupt a critical emergency response." Who are these people? Muslims? Why only now? This irrational paranoia is far beyond reasonable and certainly not demonstrated. Demonstrate implies ·specific threats.

As to a typical dam's demonstrated vulnerabilities, they are called earthquake faults, design flaws, and "long term systematic failure of regulatory and general industry practices."5

Only one- design flaws- are vulnerable to unnamed vaguely malicious "people," and a stretch at that. The Sunshine Ordinance has provisions for redaction on specifics, but respondent is already bound by a fiduciary duty to disclose the existence of such design flaws- to SFPUC Revenue bond holders.

Section 8985.5 was first added to the Emergency Services Act in 2013, and I enclose the archaic version. Most of the components of the Emergency Action Plans are identical to the new-and-improved 8985.5, so the criteria of "demonstration" must be based in facts- actual things that have happened, and 67.26 refers to records exempted "in their entirety" as to such finding of fact. In May, The 9th Circuit court of appeals found in State of Hawaii vs. Donald J. ·Trump {17-15589) a presidential assertion limiting immigration from several countries bn the grounds it was in the "security interests ofthe United States" was conflicted by the statements and actions of said president evidencing security as not a motivating factor, and therefore conflicted with an action that would be legal given the broad authority in other circ':l!!l~tan~es .. __ ·

The contents of the plan are not available to evidence the real motivation of Respondent's assertion of confiden~e, so I conclude by asking the Task Force:· how much confidence should be placed in Respondent, and especially the City Attorney?

The way I see it: The Sisk Dam, built at the same time as Oroville, is in imminent risk of collapse due to design flaws and newly discovered fault zones, endangering 200,000 Californians. The PUC knows this. This will stop interbasin transfers to the Santa Clara Valley water district, making Silicon Valley re.liant on the PUC as a wholesaler. This is a "sensitive" issue. Personally, I wanted the Emergency Action Plan to look at the adequacy of the PUC's emergency wide-area radio communications because the current ones don't work, the capital re-placement rate contradicts DHS guidelines, and the Capital Projects fund of the SF Treasury is overdrawn.

What is Respondent hiding?

Thomas J. Busse

5 independent Forensic Team Report Oroville Dam Spillway Incident. January 5, 2018.

P528 1123/2018 California Government Code Section 8589.5- California Attorney Resources- California Laws

·~ .~:: ...... ! c:·~·~·~~~.~?.~~~~~~h

Home (http://www.onecle.com/) I Federal and State Laws {I) f California Laws (fcaliforniaf) > Government Code (index.html) > California Government Code Section 8589.5 California Government Code Section 8589.5

Bloomberg Law®- Request a Free Trial Today Integrated Legal Research & Business Intelligence: 24/7 Support bna.corn!Sioornberg-Law

8589.5. (a) Inundation maps showing the areas of potential flooding In the event of sudden or total failure of any dam, the partial or total failure of which the Office of Emergency Services determines, after consultation with the Department of Water Resources, would result in death or personal injury, shall be prepared and submitted as provided in this subdivision within six months after the effective date of this section, unless previously submitted or unless the time for submission of those maps is extended for reasonable cause by the Office of Emergency Services. The local governmental organization, utility, or other public or private owner of any dam so designated shall submit to the Office of Emergency Services one map that shall delineate potential flood zones that could result in the event of dam failure when the reservoir is at full capacity, or if the local governmental organization, utility, or other public or private owner of any dam shall determine it to be desirable, he or she shall submit three maps that shall delineate potential flood zones that could result in the event of dam failure when the reservoir is at full capacity, at median-storage level, and at normally low-storage level. After · submission of copies of the map or maps, the Office of Emergency Services shall review the map or maps, and shall return any map or maps that do not meet the requirements of this subdivision, together with recommendations relative to conforming to the requirements. Maps rejected by the Office of Emergency Services shall be revised to conform to those recommendations and resubmitted. The Office of Emergency Services shall keep on file those maps that conform to the provisions of this subdivision. Maps approved pursuant to this subdivision shall also be kept on file with the Department of Water Resources. The owner of a dam shall submit final copies of those maps to the Office of Emergency Services that shall immediately submit identical copies to the appropriate public safety agency of any city, county, or city and county likely to be affected.

(b) (1) Based upon a review of inundation maps submitted pursuant to subdivision (a) or based upon information gained by an onsite inspection and consultation with the affected local jurisdiction when the requirement for an inundation map is waived pursuant to subdivision (d), the Office of Emergency Services shall designate areas within which death or personal injury would, in its determination, result from the partial or total failure of a dam. The appropriate public safety agencies of any city, county, or city and county, the territory of which includes any of those areas, may adopt emergency procedures for the evacuation and control of populated areas below those dams. The Office of Emergency Services shall review the procedures to determine whether adequate public safety measures exist for the evacuation and control of populated areas below the dams, and shall make recommendations with regard to the adequacy of those procedures to the concerned public safety agency. In conducting the review, the Office of Emergency Services shall consult with appropriate state and local agencies.

(2) Emergency procedures specified in this subdivision shall conform to local needs, and may be required to include any of the following elements or any other appropriate element, in the discretion of the Office of Emergency Services:

(A) Delineation of ihe area to be evacuated.

(B) Routes tci be used.

(D) Shelters to be activated for the care of the evacuees.

(E) Methods for the movement of people without their own transportation.

(F) Identification of particular areas or facilities in the flood zones that will not require evacuation because of their location on high ground or similar circumsiances.

(G) Identification and development of special procedures for the evacuation and care of people from unique institutions.

(H) Procedures for the perimeter and interior security of the area, including such things as passes, identification requirements, and antilooting patrols.

(I) Procedures for the lifting of the evacuation and reentry of the area,

(J) Details as to which organizations are responsible for the functions described in this paragraph and the material and personnel resources required.

(3) It is the intent of the Legislature to encourage each agency that prepares emergency procedures to establish a procedure for their review every two years.

(d) Where both of the following conditions exist, the Office of Emergency Services may waive the requirement for an inundation map:

(1) Where the effects of potential inundation in terms of death or personal injury, as determined through onsite inspection by the Office of Emergency Services in consultation with the affected local jurisdictions, can be ascertained without an inundation map.·

(2) Where adequate evacuation procedures can be developed without benefit of an inundation map.

(e) If developmEmt should occur in any exempted area after a waiver has been granted, the local jurisdiction shall notify the Office of Emergency Services of that development. All waivers shall be reevaluated every two years by the Office of Emergency Services:

(f) A notice may b.e posted at the offices of the county recorder, county assessor, and county planning agency that identifies the location of the map, and of any information received by the county subsequent to the receipt of the map regarding changes to inundation areas within the county.

(Amended by Stats. 2013, Ch. 352, Sec. 139. Effective September 26, 2013. Operative Jufy 1, 2013, by Sec. 543 ofCh. 352.)

Section: Previous (8589.4.html) 8588.5 (8588.5.html) 8588.7 (8588.1.html) 8588.10.a (8588.10.a.html) 8588.11 (8588.11.html) 8588.12 (8588.12.html) 8588.15 (8588.15.html) 8589 (8589.html) 8589.1 (8589.1.html) 8589.2 (8589.2.html) 8589.3 (8589.3.html) 8589.4 {8589.4.html) 8589.5 8589.6 (8589.6.html) 8589.7 (8589.7.html) Next (8589.6.html)

P529 Young, Victor

From: Thomas Busse Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 9:06 PM To: SOTF, (BOS); Calvillo, Angela (BOS); Pelham, Leeann (ETH); Ng, Wilson (BOS) Subject: Re: SOTF- Notice of Special Hearing- Sunshine Ordinance Task Force: December 19, 2017, 4:00p.m. Attachments: FW_ Board of Equalization Review of Special Taxing Jurisdiction- 051_Redacted.pdf; FW_ Board of Equalization Review of Special Taxing Jurisdiction- 051-3_Redacted.pdf; FW_ Board of Equalization Review of Special Taxing Jurisdiction- 051-7 _Redacted.pdf; FW_ Board of Equalization Review of Special Taxing Jurisdiction- 051-S_Redacted.pdf; FW_ Board of Equalization Review of Special Taxing Jurisdiction- 051-2_Redacted.pdf

I do not know the eventu~l disposition of my complaint at the SOTF, but a series of documents have surfaced (attached) that warrants reconsideration, so if the complaint was dismissed, I formally ask a reconsideration. If it was continued, I ask this be appended to the complaint. ·

By this e-mail, I also formally and publicly accuse Ben Rosenfeld of official misconduct: He knowingly appropriated Public Finance Authority special tax revenue for other purposes when he had no legal authority to do so. He made executive decisions regarding the allocation of such revenue, willfully withholding funds from politically-unpopular charter schools. He failed in his ministerial duties .under the Revenue and Taxation Code to ensure an audit of every special district in the county. He issue warrants of payment in the absence of a budget resolution. He allowed false minutes of public meetings, and purposefully held meetings in a hearing room without a recording device. Finally, he covered it up, blamed other public servants, lied to a member of the public about the location and content of public records, and willfully obstructed access to public information.

I am cc'ing Ethics ED LeeAnn Pelham, both in the event my complaint was referred to ethics, but also because she is a witness to my presence at the Budget and Finance Subcommittee on June 8, 2017 in this regard, and SFGOVTV records me having a conversation with Controller Ben Rosenfeld at the conclusion of that meeting. If the PFA matter will be taken up by Ethics, I ask this communication and attachments be added to the investigative file.

On May 4th, the Board of Equalization sent a letter to the Public Fmance Authority copied to Ben Rosenfeld requesting they update contacts. In that letter (attached), the Board of Equalization's Local Tax Allocation Department indicated the contacts they had on file were: Ben Rosenfeld, Jose Cisneros, and Paulette Terrell. In fact, they have sent out the same communication every month this year, and it was:answered by Reeta Madhavan; however, the form was never completed, and per the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, they are still awaiting a reply as well as a signature from the Chairperson ofthe Public Finance Authority. Interestingly enough, the Board of Equalization's last communication from the PF A, submitted with my SOTF complaint, indicated Joseph Grazioli (Ms. Madhaven's predecessor) was the primary contact, so sometime between 2011 and the present, Somebody updated the Board of Equalization's records upon Grazioli's departure to replace him with Rosenfeld.

· Rosenfeld told me on June 8th that he was following up with the School District to learn about the sales tax and not to talk to anyone about it- especially Maura Lane and Jamie Whittaker. As the attached indicates BOE indicated to the School District and to Rosenfeld on May 4th that it always contacted Rosenfeld. In· my SOTF complaint, I included Mr. Rosenfeld's personal response to me in May (from the "con" e-mail) saying he had no records of the Sales tax and I would have to call Ms. Madhavan. In my SOTF complaint, I also included a 2004 memo from Rosenfeld's predecessor, Mr. Harrington, to SOTF administrator Victor Young stating he had nothing to do with the sales tax. Ex analogia: Harrington was probably lying as well, because another memo

P$30 from that year faxed from the SF Controller's office to Rosenfeld in his capacity in the Mayor's office indicates the disposition of the sales tax.

After Ms. Calvillo's response to the SOTF was submitted, I followed up with Calvillo and Wilson Ng pointing out the inconsistencies in Reeta Madhaven's statements and voicing my concern that Ben Rosenfeld was lying and/or had engaged in illegal formula manipulation dating from his time as Newsom's budget director, based on a memo to him regarding how Prop 98 fonnulas work. Mr. Ng called Ms. Madhavan and wrote to me that Ms. Madhavan meant to say the "state controller." The attached proves she was lying. This seemed ludicrous to me at the time, and I now know she was lying because her response to the Board of Equalization to their letter asking for confirmation the CITY controller should remain the primary contact predates Mr. Ng's phone call with Ms. Madhavan and was sent as early as May (before Ms. Madhavan wrote to me on two occasions saying . she had nothing to do with the Public Finance Authority). As the BOE communication indicates, the state controller (Betty) has nothing to do with this. Moreover, Ms. Madhaven and Ben Rosenfeld meet regular~y as members of the Treasury Oversight Committee.

To be thorough, I have reviewed Ms. Madhavan's. and Ms. Terrell's AB 1234 cetiificate of ethics training, both of which pre-date this communication.

I also can provide a witness to support my accusation: Mr. Ronald Gerhard now at Chabot College, was VP of Finance and Administration at SF City College and a member of the Treasury Oversight Committee. He can testify regarding 1) the inaccuracy of the minutes of the Treasury Oversight Committee on May 26, 2017, taken by Rosenfeld's Executive Assistant, Maura Lane, to whom I personally presented my initial public records request in April, and 2) the discussion of the PF A at that meeting, which was not recorded, in violation of the charter. The inaccuracy of the minutes may be a reason they are conspicuously missing from the website.

In summary: Ms. Madhavan's original communication that the sales tax allocation is handled by the CITY controller is the truth, and the City Controller engaged in official misconduct when he withheld public information about it. Granted, Rosenfeld inherited a rness, instead of cleaning it up, he used it to his owrt advantage and hid it from oversight. Rosenfeld terms out this year, and ifNewsom wins the Governor's race, Rosenfeld would likely be appointed State Budget Director. The public interest requires inquiry.

Thomas James Busse San Francisco, January 14, 2018

PS: In my answer to Ms. Calvallo, I mentioned the issues surrounding the 1993 election. I have been in touch of the original programmer of the DEC Eclipse tabulation computers used by the Dept. of Elections in 1993 with custom code, and he has identified the person who transported the ballots in the 1997 special election. It was James Hansell, a subcontractor of City College President Bob Varni's who had founded a struggling same-day delivery service startup in Santa Cruz county. Hansell was paid from the City College Foundation.

PS31 On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:00 PM, SOTF, (BOS) wrote:

Dear Mr. Busse:

I will provide your email to members of the SOTF. Please clarify if you want to continue your complaint to a future date or if you would like the SOTF to proceed and consider your complaint. Note that it will be at the discretion of the S OTF to determine how to proceed.

Victor Young 415-554-7724

Administrator, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

From: SF Kelvin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 1:22 AM To: SOTF, (BOS) Subject: Re: SOTF- Notice of Special Hearing- Sunshine Ordinance Task Force: December 19, 2017, 4:00 p.m.

I am afraid I am unable to attend this meeting, as I have a preexisting contract with Philharmonia Baroque Orchestra at Skywalker Sound in Nicasio to participate in a recording session. This engagement has been in my calendar for five months.

If the Task Force considers this complaint, I emphasize the following:

1. The SFPFA was created by a BOS resolution. Section 67 clearly applies to bodies created by Board Resolution.

2. The resolutions from September 1.993 were not approved as to form or legality by the City Attorney. The City Attorney also refuses to disclose the public memorandum regarding the legal status of the SFPF A explicitly referred to by Mayor Frank Jordan.

PS32 3. I still do not have a fmancial statement showing how the funds were distributed between the SFUSD, Charter Schools, the County Office of Education, and City College. The SFUSD's Financials show no Sales Tax income. The SFUSD did not provide this info in their answer to the SOTF. It disappears into a black hole.

4. I have a document :from Susan Leal's office from 2004 where staff working in FAMIS services under the Controller represent themselves to the Board of Equalization as staff of the Public Finance Authority.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 5, 2017, at 9:38AM, SOTF, (BOS) wrote:

Good Morning:

You are receiving this notice because you are named as a Complainant or Respondent in one of the following complaints scheduled before the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to: 1) hear the merits of the complaint; 2) issue a determination; and/or 3) consider referrals :from a Task Force. Committee.

Date: December 19, 2017

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 4:00p.m.

Complainants: Your attendance· is required for this meeting/hearing.

Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) ofthe Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required. at the meeting/hearing.

Complaints: File No. 17039: Complaint filed by Thomas Busse against the San Francisco Public Finance Authority for allegedly violating Administrative_ Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Chapter 67, by failing to notice and conduct public hearings P533 and failing to respond to request for public records.

' . ~

Reconsideration of Complaint: File No. 17009: Complaint filed by William Clark against Tom DeCaigny and the Arts Commission, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.5 and 67.7, by failing to comply with regulations for policy bodies and post agendas for the Community Working Group of the Arts Commission. (attachment) ·

(On August 2, 2017, the SOTF granted a request for reconsidered ofthe Order ofDetermination issued on the complaint.)

File No. 17070: Complaint filed by Michael Addario against Kate Patterson and the Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.24, by failing to respond to a public records request in a complete manner.

File No. 17096: Complaint filed by Kevin Williams against Kate Patterson and the Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67:25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner. (Complaint 9/26/17)

Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

For a document to be considered, it must be receivc;d at least five (5) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure).

For inclusion in the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00pm, December 13,2017.

Victor Young Administrator, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall., Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102 phone 415-554-7724 I fax 415-554-5163

[email protected] I www.sfbos.org

Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer S~rvice Satisfaction form. . P§34 The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: Personal information that is provided in communications to the Board ofSupervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifYing information when. they communicate 1vith the Board ofSupervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board ofSupervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

P$35 From:. Norono. Kimberly To: Bardessono. John ·subject: FW: Board of Equalization Review of Special Taxing Jurisdiction- 051 Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 7:32:13 AM . Attachments: Item #06 Address Form.odf Item #09 Jurisdiction Contact Form - Notification & Apoeals.pdf image001.png San Francisco County Office of Education.pdf

From: Norono, Kimberly· Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:49 AM To: '[email protected]' Cc: Bardessono, John Subject: Board of Equalization Review of Special Taxing Jurisdiction - 051 Dear Ms. Leigh, A letter was mailed out to you today, as the Board of Equalization would like to verify the address and contact information for the Special Taxing Jurisdiction 051 San Francisco County Public Finance Authority. Please take a moment to review the letter and attachments as by Resolution your contact position may have been authorized to represent the San Francisco County Public Finance Authority. Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, XimGer(y Norono Senior Tax .Audltor Ca(ifornia State 'Boar a of 'Equafization Loca('Revenue .A((ocation 'Unit, JvUC: 27 Ph. (916) 324-1307 :fax (916) 324-8117 !Description: untitled · I .

[ . [g I ***Confidential information of the California StateBoard Of Equalization - unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly proh bited by law. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the Board by return E-mail and delete this message from your computer, without printing the message, and without disclosing its contents to any person other than the sender or recipient. Persons who copy or disclose such confidential information are subject to applicable legal penalties .. .***

P536 LOCALREVENUEBRANCH-CONTACTFORM

Please complete and return this form to our office any time there is a change of information to ensure our records are always up to date. Thank you!

Cicy/Councy: __-=~------Please check one: 0 Local Tax OTransactions and Use Tax 0 Mobile Telephony Surcharge

:A:J.rlegal corresnondeliceslioilld be mailed totlie followitlgo 'addi'es"s:' ~"-··'-'·"--.:...·~ ...::.-~ "· -·· •· • ·-···· ..J:'__ ,.,-__;,_ __ ·-----. ·'· ... • . "'---'-·------·- ·--· ., .. - .. '· • -·. --···· .. -···•· ---- . .. -·····-<-·-·'-"-• c..c..J

Jurisdiction: ------~------Name: ______Position Title: ______

Address: ______

Phone: ______E~m~a~il~: ______

¥iAl!i~iil ~orr_espQ~~4~1! ~~- s_~ ~ul{I._~~.!ti~!i~~- tQ -!11~-[oJlb~Milg_:a_~_ti!~ss :] Note: Confidential information may be sent on(v to positions authorized by resolution Jurisdiction:. ______-:- ______

Name: ______----'Position Title:-'------'--

Address: ______

Phone: ______~E~m~m~l:~------

._...... , ...... ·· --·•·:::· ...... · ·.···:--·--- ·-·· -•c·.-;·'• cc-c···.--·.··.·· ··· ...... ·····• • ···1 :r~:P~ W~E:t:l1n ts (if is~~~

Name: ______~Position Title: ______

Address: ______~----'------

Phone: ______~E=m==a=il~: ______

Geire-ral Office Coritact--for}goeneral information and reminders:i ___,__,..;:,.._:_ __ • __..;_ ------·----·•• _,_, __ ; ______:__.__ ....£.o.,:S:~~.:..:-.. :. ______:.__ ------·-· ·-·- ~--··-"-=-..::....:J

Jurisdiction:. ______

Address: ______

Phone: ______~E=m==a=il~: ______

Print Name:_·------Signature: ______

·Position Title: ______:.______-,-- ___Date: ______

P537 JURISDICTION CONTACT FORM NOTIFICATIONS & APPEALS

CITY/COUNTY OF: ------Tax Area Code: ------Sales and Use. Tax/ Transaction &UseTax

Pl£sital?ifo Rii;~!izilMd/l[ii,~{lti"o1{(Jod?f 7'o5fih,fm 1i1ay $.eleCt 6nly off{cers and employees authorized by Resoluiimi orl:~tt.b:_o_tJisz"lr}tatio1Uo eximiine AifBoad.J?~jaY;.I,i¢cords ./orJ;our,[l irisdicti on. If the qfficer. oi empl~yee 's tith~'hBs·n~'ti)!~t"ll?~ifq!1IiQJKY}~Ilil;o;.1zM; i?l~~i!i~h~d_?_a_ ~~ii!lqft91J lett_ir. See. attached :.m1ipf.~ pesfgnatio}j_H!lte}':: ------.------

Prima1.y Contact Secondarv Contact

Title of Authorized Officer/Employee Title of Authorized Officer/Employee

Mai.liug Address Line 1 Mailing Address Line 1

Mailing Address Line 2 Mailing Address Line 2

City, State,.Zip City, State, Zip

Phone Phone

Fax Fa"'L

Email Email

BOARD- - . -. USE ONLY ~P:r~~~~t ~()_S~cticui 705G(b )~ ·thjs form~ iiieff~d:tve ~~~;.ss ~!tfu~i(~-)~)11~ oU1l~ fo_)l_~~g~~~:X:~~,~11~1:!{_(':d): D City/Cmmty Administrator D AdministJ:ative Officer D City/Colmty Controller D ______(Specify)

Print Name: --~------Title:------,------Signature: ______Date:------Return this form by e-mail to: [email protected]

QUESTIONS: CALL THEWARR<\.r\'T DESK AT (916) 324-1307 Note: Titles held by more than one employee need to be made a unique identifier for function. For example: Accountant IT (Revenue Desk) STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION SEN. GEORGE RUNNER (RET.) 450 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA First District, Lancaster PO BOX 942879, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94279-0027 FIONA MA, CPA 1-916-324-1307 • FAX 1-916-324-8117 Second District, San Francisco www. boe. ca.gov JEROME E. HORTON Third District, Los Angeles County

May4, 2017 DIANE L. HARKEY Fourth District, Orange County

BETTYT. YEE Myong Leigh, Superintendent State Controller San Francisco County Office of Education DAVIDJ. GAU 555 Franklin Street Executive Director · San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: 051 -San Francisco County Public Finance Authority

Dear Ms. Leigh,

The Board of Equalization (BOE) is conducting a routine file review of the Special Taxing Jurisdiction 051 -San Francisco County Public Finance Authority and would like to verify the address and contact information.

Under authority granted by Resolution #3 signed and adopted on September 20, 1993 by the San Francisco County Public Finance Authority, the San Francisco County Superintendent of Schools (SFUSD) and the Chancellor for the San Francisco Conununity College District (SFCCD) jointly have been authorized to represent the San Francisco County Public Finance Authority.

According to our records the following contact positions were listed to receive non-confidential tax notifications and financial correspondence:

Primary Contact: Secondary Contact: Additional Contact: Benjamin Rosenfield Jose Cisneros Paulette G. Terrell Controller Treasurer Director of Fiscal Services One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett 135 Van Ness Avenue City Hall Room 300 City Hall Room 140 Room 317 San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco, CA 94102

Enclosed are the Address Form and Jurisdiction Contact Form that will need to be signed by the Chairperson of the San Francisco County Public Finance Authority and/or their authorized representative San Francisco County Superintendent of Schools or Chancellor for the San Francisco Community College District.

Please complete bot4 the Address Form and Jurisdiction Contact Form to identify for us a contact position(s) for receipt of Sales and Use Tax, and Transactions and Use Tax notifications sent to your jurisdiction. The BOE notifies jurisdictions by letter to all parties when a decision on a petition results in a decrease to its total distributions of 5% or more of the district's average quarterly revenue, or $50,000 or more, whichever is less, is contemplated under Regulation 1828, Petition for Distribution of Sales and Use Tax and Transactions and Use Tax.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (916) 324-1307.

Sincerely,

Kimberly Norono Associate Tax Auditor Local Revenue Branch Enclosures Cc: Susan Lamb, Interim Chancellor Cc: Reeta Madhavan, Chief Financial Officer City College of San Francisco San Francisco Unified School District 50 Phelan Avenue, E200 135 Van Ness Avenue- Room 300 San Francisco, CA 94112 ,San Francisco, CA 94102 P539 From: Norono. Kimberly .To: Bardessono. John Subject: FW: Board of Equalization Review of Special Taxing Jurisdiction - 051 Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 7:31:52 AM Attachments: Item #06 Address Form.pdf Item #09 Jurisdiction Contact Form - Notification & Appeals. pdf image001.png San Francisco Unified School District.pdf imaqe004.png Importance: High

From: Norono, Kimberly Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 9:42 AM To: Madhavan, Reeta ([email protected]) Cc: Bardessono, John Subject: FW: Board of Equalization Review of Special Taxing Jurisdiction - 051 Importance: High Good M·orning Ms. Madhavan, This is a follow-up to an email and letter sent and dated May 4, 2017 regarding the Special Taxing Jurisdiction- 051. To date, we have not received the Address Form and Jurisdiction Form for the San Francisco County Public Finance Authority. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, Xim6er[y Norono Senior Tax .Auditor Ca[ifornia 'Deyt. of Tax ana:fee :A..aministration Loca['Revenue 'Branch, :M.IC: 27 Pli. (916) 324-1307 :fax (916) 324-8117

I rn 1 . I . . _j ***Confidential information of the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration- unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited by law. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the CDTFA by return E-mail and delete this message from your computer, without printing the message, and without disclosing its contents to any person other than the sender or recipient Persons who copy or disclose such confidential information are subject to applicable legal penalties ... *** From: Norono, Kimberly Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:48 AM To: '[email protected]' Cc: Bardessono, John Subject: Board of Equalization Review of Special Taxing Jurisdiction - 051 Dear Ms. Madhavan, A letter was mailed out to you today, as the Board of Equalization would like to verify the address and contact information for the Special Taxing Jurisdiction 051- San Francisco County Public Finance Authority. Please take a moment to review the letter and attachments as by Resolution your contact position may have been authorized to represent the San FranCisco County Public Finance Authority. Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or concerns, ple.ase feel free to contact me. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, · Xim6er[y Norono Senior Tax .Auditor Ca[ifornia State 'Boar a of 'Equaf1zation

P540 Loca('ReVe1tue .Jtllocation 'Unit, :MIC 27 Tfi. (916)324-1307 :fa.x; (916) 324-8117 ~'esci11Jt1ail:-lill!ltfea~------.... ·- --·-- ·· · · ! ~ I . - .. , •••co'iifiaeniiarinformanoiloftfi"iil~alifo-mla'siate-Bo-iiruofEqualization -unauthorized use or

P541 LOCAL REVENUE BRANCH- CONTACT FORM

Please complete and return this form to our office any time there is a change of information to ensure our records are always up to date. Thank you!

Cicy/Councy: __-=~------Please check one: 0 Local Tax OTransactions and Use Tax 0 Mobile Telephony Surcharge

Jurisdiction: ______

Name: ______.Position Title: ______

Address: ______~_

Phone: ______~E~m~m~·l~: ______

~mK~si'hlsorie_s:P~-~~~-s~ sJ:tQ_ui~(~~jna__i~~- tti_ih~J~)io~!i ll£i_~~~I~ Note: Confidential information may be sent only to positions authorized by resolution

Jurisdiction: ------~------Name:' ______,---:------·Position Title: ______

Address: ______...._,...----:---:------

Phone: ______~E~m~m~·l~: ______~------

·~,=--··-·· ·c··.·c:--··---·--c···.-·:··.,•."" · ··.·.""·."co····• .•·· ···.···.-"~~"··,--·· ·· ...... ,·.·;•"•"'··co·.-··-----·-:·•-.•··:·-c---··-· ·· "',1 f_~.BfL."\_V:p:_-~~f§_{!!_i~sl_l~.t!Jll!A~-!~ t.J;l.ef@Q~K:t~

Name: ______P.osition Title: ______

Address: ______

Phone: ______E==m~a=il~: ______

Jurisdiction:. ______

Address: ______

Phone: ______~E~m==m~l:~--~-----~------~

Print Name: ______

Signarure: ______

Position Title: ______Date: ______

P542 JURISDICTION CONTACT FORlVI NOTIFICATIONS & APPEALS

CITY/COUNTY OF: ______Tax Area Code: ____Sales and Use Tax/ Transaction &Use Tax

Ppr;suant to Revemie and Taxation Code§ 705~ you may selecton(v officers and employee~r:mthort:ed by 0 Risolution or letter ofdesiKnatimz to examine the Board's tax records for your Jzn7sdictfon. rr tlie qfficer or ~ljiployee 's title has not yet been fm:mally QIJthorized, please include adesignation letter. .Seeattacheti sanple (fesigr!_q}jon_]ette':_~------

Primaiy Contact Secondarv Contact

Title of Authorized Officer/Employee Title of Authorized Officer/Employee

Mailing Address Line 1 Mailing Address Line 1

lviailing Address Line 2 Mailing Address Line 2

City, State, Zip City, State, Zip

Phone Phone

Fax Fax

It is recoi!l1llended, if possible, that you use an Email address It is recolll1llended, if possible, that you use an Email address that coincides with the authorized position title. For example: that coincides with the authorized position title. For example: · cityrnanager@cityof_.gov. citymanager@cityof_.gov. ·

BOARD USE Oi'"ILY J>nrsnant (() ~ecfion -70S6{J>)~ t.JI.i:s fo~~~ is ineffective 1lll1ess sig11ed by 01le ()f!l!e [()],lo~g (boxes checke(i): D City/County Administrator D Administrative Officer D City/County Controller D ______(Specify)

Print Name:------Title:------Signature: ______Date:------Return this form by e-mail to: [email protected]

QUESTIONS: CALL THEWARR.<\NI DESK AT {916) 324-1307 . Note: Titles held by more than one employee need to be made a unique identifier for fhnction. For example: Accountant II (Revenue Desk) STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION SEN. GEORGE RUNNER (RET.) 450 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA First District, Lancaster PO BOX 942879, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94279-0027 FIONA MA, CPA i-9i6-324-i307 • FAX i-916-324-Bi i7 Second District, San Francisco www.boe.ca.gov JEROME E. HORTON Third District, Los Angeles County

May4, 2017 DIANE L. HARKEY Fourth District, Orange County Reeta Madhavan, Chief Financial Officer BETTYT. YEE State Controller San Francisco Unified School District 135 Van Ness Avenue- Room 300 DAVID J. GAU . San Francisco, CA 94102 Executive Director

Re: 051- San Francisco County Public Finance Authority

Dear Ms. Madhaven,

The Board of Equalization (BOE) is conducting a routine file review of the Special Taxing Jurisdiction 051- San Francisco County Public Finance Authority and would like to verify the address and contact information.

Under authority granted by Resolution #3 signed and adopted on September 20, 1993 by the San Francisco County Public Finance Authority, the San Francisco County Superintendent of Schools (SFUSD) and the Chancellor for the San Francisco Community College District (SFCCD) jointly have been authorized to represent the San Francisco County Public Finance Authority.

According to our records the following contact positions were listed to receive non-confidential tax notifications and . financial correspondence:

Primary Contact: Secondary Contact: Additional Contact: .. Benjar:nin Rosenfield Jose Cisneros Paulette G. Terrell Controller Treasurer Director of Fiscal Services One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett 135 VanNess Avenue City Hall Room 300 City Hall Room 140 Room 317 San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco, CA 94102

Please complete both the Address Form and Jurisdiction Contact Form to identify for us a contact position(s) for receipt of Sales and Use Tax, and Transactions and Use Tax notifications sent to your jurisdiction. The BOE notifies jurisdictions by letter to all parties when a decision on a petition results in a decrease to its total distributions of 5% or more of the district's average quarterly revenue, or $50,000 or more, whichever is less, is contemplated under Regulation 1828, Petition for Distribution of Sales and Use Tax and Transactions and Use Tax.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (916) 324-1307.

Sincerely,

Kimberly Norono Associate Tax Auditor Local Revenue Branch Enclosures Cc: Myong Leigh, Superintendent Ct;: Susan Lamb, Interim Chancellor San Francisco County Office of Education City College of San Francisco 555 Franklin Street 50 Phelan Avenue, E200 San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco, CA 94112

P544 From: Norono, Kimberly . To:· Bardessono, Johh Subject: FW: Board of Equalization Review of Special Taxing Jurisdiction - 051 Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 7:31:08 AM Attachments: Item #06 Address Form. pdf Item #09 Jurisdiction Contact Form - Notification & Appeals.pdf City College of San Francisco.pdf image001.png imaqe004.png

Hi John, I'll be forwarding correspondence and emails that were sent out for STJ 051- San Francisco County Public Finance Aufhority forTeri. Sincerely, :Ximher(y Norono Senior 'lax .Jtudltor California 'Deyt. of 'lax anc[ :fee .Jtd'ministration Loca{'Revenue :Brancft, Jvi.IC: 27 Pli. (916) 324-1307 :fax (916) 324-8117 l g ___ j Confldent1allnformat1on of the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration- unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly prohibited by law. If you receive this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the CDTFA by return E-mail and delete this message from your computer, without printing the message, and without disclosing its contents to any person other than the sender or recipient. Persons who copy or disclose such confidential information are subject to applicable legal per;!':lties. ______From: Norono, Kimberly Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2017 11:51 AM To: '[email protected]' Cc: Bardessono, John Subject: Board of Equalization Review of Special Taxing Jurisdiction - 051 Dear Ms. Lamb, A letter was mailed out to you today, as the Board of Equalization would like to verify the address . and contact information for the Special Taxing Jurisdiction 051- San Francisco County Public Finance Authority. Please take a moment to review the letter and attachments as by Resolution your contact position may have been authorized to represent the San Francisco County Public Finance Authority. Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, :Ximher(y Norono Senior 'lax .Jtudltor Ca[ifornia State :Board' of '.Equafization Loca{'Revenue .Jt{{ocation 'Unit, :M.IC: 27 P.li. (916) 324-1307 :fax (916) 324-8117 lhescription: untitled

rI BJ I : . '•••corifide-iit1a1Tnforrriati0ilofthe· California State BCiafcfofE:qii~lization- unauthorized use or disclosure is strictly proh bited by law. If you receive this e-rnail in error, please immediately notify the Board by return E-mail and delete this message from your computer, without printing the message, and without disclosing its contents to any person other than the sender or recipient. Persons who copy or disclose such confidential information are subject to applicable legal penalties .. .***

P545 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION SEN. GEORGE RUNNER (RET.) 450 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA First District, Lancaster PO BOX 942879, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94279-0027 FIONA MA, CPA 1-916-324-1307 • FAX 1-916-324-8117 Second District, San Francisco www.boe.ca.gov JEROME E. HORTON Third District, Los Angeles County

May4, 2017 DIANE L. HARKEY Fourth District, Orange County

Susan Lamb, Interim Chancellor BETTYT. YEE City College of San Francisco State Controller

.50 Phelan A venue, E200 DAVIDJ.GAU Sari Francisco, CA 94112 Executive Director

Re: 051- San Francisco County Public Finance Authority

Dear Ms. Lamb,

Under authority granted by Resolution #3 signed and adopted on September 20, 1993 by the San Francisco County Public Finance Authority, the San Francisco County Superintendent of Schools (SFUSD) and the Chancellor for · the San Francisco Conununity College District (SFCCD) jointly have been authorized to represent the San Francisco County Public Finance Authority.

According to our records the following contact positions were listed to receive non-confidential tax notifications and financial correspondence:

Primary Contact: Secondary Contact: Additional Contact: Benjamin Rosenfield Jose Cisneros Paulette G. Terrell Controller Treasurer Director of Fiscal Services One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett 135 VanNess Avenue City Hall Room 300 City Hall Room 140 Room 317 San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco, CA 94102

Please complete both the Address Form and Jurisdi9tion Contact Form to identify for us a contact position(s) for receipt of Sales and Use Tax, and Transactions and Use Tax notifications sent to your jurisdiction. The BOE notifies jurisdictions by letter to all parties when a decision on a petition results in a decrease to its total distributions of 5% or more of the district's average quarterly revenue, or $50,000 or more, whichever is less, is contemplated under Regulation 1828, Petition for Distribution of Sales and Use Tax and Transactions and Use Tax.

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (916) 324-1307.

Sincerely,

Kimberly Norono Associate Tax Auditor Local Revenue Branch Enclosures Cc: Myong Leigh, Superintendent Cc: Reeta Madhavan, Chief Financial Officer San Francisco County Office of Education San Francisco Unified School District 555 Franklin Street 135 Van Ness Avenue- Room 300 San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco, CA 94102

P546 LOCALREVENUEBRANCH-CONTACTFORM

Please complete and return this fonn to our office any time there is a change ofinfonnation to ensure our records are always up to date. Thank you!

Cicy/Councy: ______Please check one: D Local Tax DTransactions and Use Tax 0 Mobile Telephony Surcharge

Jurisdiction: ______

Name: ______Position Title: ______

Address: ______

Phone: ______~E~m==m~l:~------

!i;i¥_~!i£!a_I ~():t_:ri~PQ!l~-~6~:~ __s_~i~!<:IJ:le_ll1~_i~ed to_!~~fQ.!!~~g_ll:

Jurisdiction: ______~--

Name: ______.Position Title: ______

Address: ______

Phone: ______~E==m=a=il~: ______

Jurisdiction: ______

Name: ______Position Title: ______

Address: ______

Phone: ______~E==m~a=il~: ______

Jurisdiction: ______~------'------,------Admess:_· ______

Phone: ______~E~m~a~il~: ______

Print Name: ______

Signature: ______:______

Position Title:. ______Date: ______

P547 JlJRISDICTION CONTACT FORM: NOTIFICATIONS &-APPEALS

CITY/COUNTY OF: ------Tax Area Code: ------Sales and Use Tax/ Transaction &UseTax

~------~~~--~------~~~·------P~!i'i!imttto ReveliiJe and Taxation Code{7056, you may selel:i onlv officers and employees authonzed by Rci'oluitJn o1· letter ofdesiKiwtiiJ,1 to exa1nine 'the Board's tax 1·ec_ordsjor youi~ Jw-tsdiction. Ifthe qffi.cer or eTiiplo§ee :s title hasr~ot yet been fon1w1ly ;lliii1orized, pieas!3 includi (1-_d_eiigrja.tion letter. See attached"samp[e rJes~¥f16_tj()n_ItfJterL______------

Primary Contact Secondary Contact

Title of Authorized Officer/Employee Title of Authorized Officer/Employee

Mailing Address Line I Mailing Address Line 1

Mailing Address Line 2 Mailing Address Line 2

City, State, Zip City, State, Zip

Phone Phone

Fax Fax

Email Email

It is recommended, if possible, that you use an Email address It is recommended, ifpossible, that you use an Email address that coincides with the authorized position title. For example: that coincides with the authorize.d position title. For example: citymanager@cityof_·_.gov. citymanager@cityof_.gov. BOA!ID ust'o:NLY ~ll~~snantto S-ection _70~§(lJ), tpi~ fC)rmiS,iil~:ff~#_v~ nill~ss signe.~ by one oft1te. !'?ll(n'ljJ!g (boxes check_edj~ D City/County Administrator D Administrative Officer D City/County Controller D ______(Specify)

PrintNarne:------~----~ Title:------Signature=------~------Date:------Return this form by e-mail to: [email protected]

QUESTIONS: CALL THEw.ARR.A1 .... "'T DESK .AT {916) 324-1307 Note: Titles held by more than one employee need to be made a unique identifier for function. For example: Acconntant ll (Revenue Desk) From: Norono, Kimberly To: Bardessono. John S~bject: FW: Board of Equalization Review of Special Taxing Jurisdiction - 051 Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 7:32:18 AM Attachments: Item #06 Address Form.pdf Item #09 Jurisdiction Contact Form - Notification & Appeals.pdf imaqeOOl.pnq San Francisco County Office of Education.pdf image004.png

From: Norono, Kimberly Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2017 9:43AM To: [email protected] Cc: Bardessono, John Subject: FW: Board of Equalization Review of Special Taxing Jurisdiction - 051 Good Morning Ms. Leigh, This is a follow-up to an email and letter sent and dated May 4, 2017 regarding the Special Taxing Jurisdiction- 051. To date, we have not received the Address Form and Jurisdiction Form for the San Francisco County Public Finance Authority. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, J(imher[y :Norono Senior Tax .Auditor California 1Jeyt. of Tax am£ ]'ee .Jtaministration Loca{ Revenue 'Branch, Jv!.IC: 27 Pfi (916) 324-1307 ]'ax (916) 324-8117

loofideotia! the Mtmer.oepert1\ o!Te> eod Feo Admtol;batioo " oooofumt'ed Offi m t; ;bfctly prohibited by law.

P549 iDe-scl-1i)11o~D.:-lmHHea- I ~ i :'"'Conllcfenilai intoffiialion oftlieCatlforri'iastatitEfoanrofEqu~lization- unauthorized use or disdosure is sirictiy proh bited by taw.lfyou receive this e-mail in error, please immediately notifY the Board by return E-mail and delete this message from your computer, without printing the message, and without disdosing its contents to any person other than the sender or recipienl Persons who copy or disdose such confidential infOrmation are subject to applicable legal pena!ties .. !u

P550 LOCALREVENUEBRANCH-CONTACTFORM

Please complete and return this form to Olfr office any time there is a change of information to ensure our records are always up to date. Thank you!

Cicy/Councy: ______Please check one: D Local Tax OTransactions and Use Tax 0 Mobile Telephony Surcharge

Jurisdiction: ______

Name: __~------____;Position Title: ______

Address: ______...:_ __

Phone: ______~E=m==a=il~: ______

JiiJ!~JIS!~l)::<}IT~PI)l1~ence ,sh.~ttlc'!..l:Jt! !n:~!l~Qj:_o _the f()l~~r~v~g~~j!4_~§i) Note: Confidential information may be sent only to positions authorized by resolution Jurisdiction: ______

Name: ------Position Title: ------Address: ______

Phone: ______~E~m~ai~l:~------

Jurisdiction: ______

Name: Position Title: ------~------Address: ______,--,------

Phone: ______~------~E=m==a=il~: ______

• ••.c .·. '-'"...... •c-·· c.•c· .• o••··.. ·c;~c·.• • • •.• • •· ,. .·• ••.•• . .. I G~l1~f;ll_Qffict::~()~!a.:~L-::.!!>r·:g~li~IT!l!l.!fo!lll.l!.!ioll_l!!l.d re1lli1l~~!~=J Jurisdiction: ______

Address: ______

Phone: ______~E=m==m=·l~: ______

Print Name: ______

Signmure: ______

Position Title: ------Date: ------

P551 JURISDICTION CONTACT FORM NOTIFICATIONS & APPEALS

CITY/COUNTY OF: ______Tax Area Code: ____Sales and Use Tax! Transaction &Use Tax

PiJrs1/a1ltto. Revenue r.tnii'raxation cod~'§ jo5~ you may sided~o~~v qff(diif,a_'nd ei1iplo~1ees autliorized b); Resolution;or l¢tter qfdes.if{nation to exd.b£iii"eiheBoard's fax 7:ecordsfor)i61.il'VtidUiction: Jfthe qfficei· or ~ltlplo_ye~:'i, titl~ has n~iyet been forn}ally-'1uii(igifzed, please ili.Clude ac/esiin_Z{ti_g~Jettei'. See attgched smnpl~ l/?~{iJ1aif(?jjJetteiL ______.__ .______~------

Primm.y Contact SeconQar:y Contact

Title of Authorized Officer/Employee Title of Authorized Officer/Employee

Mailing Address Line 1 Mailing Address Line 1

Mailing Address Line 2 Mailing Address Line 2

City, State, Zip City, State, Zip .

Phone Phone

Fax Fax

Email Email

It is recommended, if possible, that you use an Email addi:ess It is recommended, ifpossible, that you use an Email address that coincides with the authorized position title. For example: that coinci.des v;

}3Q~ USE -O~Y ~t.ll~#!!:l~. to ~e~~ri.~;}_Q?G(b): JWtfQl~-is iii~ff~Etiv~u1lless si@?4~Y_()~f: of thefo~()~g__ (bo:xii;~~~~~e~): 0 City/County Administrator D Adminisu:ative Officer 0 City/County Controller 0 ______(Specify)

Print Name:------..,.------Title:------Signature: ______Date:______

Return this form by e-mail to: [email protected]

QUESTIOl'.'S: CALL THE W .ARRA!\,"T DESK AT (916) 324-1307 Note: Titles held by more than one employee need to be made a unique identifier for function. For exiUllple: Accountant ll (Revenue Desk) STATE OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION SEN. GEORGE RUNNER (RET.) 450 N STREET, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA First District, Lancaster PO BOX 942879, SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 94279-0027 FIONA MA, CPA 1-916-324-1307 • FAX 1-916-324-8117 Second District, San Francisco www.boe.ca.gov JEROME E. HORTON Third District, Los Angeles County

May 4, 2017 DIANE L. HARKEY Fourth District, Orange County

BETTYT. YEE Myong Leigh, Superintendent State Controller San Francisco County Office of Education DAVIDJ. GAU 555 Franklin Street Executive Director San Francisco, CA 94102

Re: 051- San Francisco County Public Finance Authority

Dear Ms. Leigh,

The Board of Equalization (BOE) is conducting a routine file review of the Special Taxing Jurisdiction 051 - San Francisco County Public Finance Authority and would like to verify the address and contact information.

According to our records the following contact positions were listed to receive non-confidential tax notifications and financial correspondence:

Primary Contact: Secondary Contact:· Additional Contact: Benjamin Rosenfield Jose Cisneros Paulette G. Terrell Controller Treasurer Director of Fiscal Services One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett One Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett 135 Van Ness Avenue City Hall Room 300 City Hall Room 140 Room 317 San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco, CA 94102 San Francisco, CA 94102

If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at (916) 324-1307.

Sincerely,

Kimberly Norono. Associate Tax Auditor Local Revenue Branch Enclosures Cc: Susan Lamb, Interim Chancellor Cc: Reeta Madhavan, Chief Financial Officer City College of San Francisco San Francisco Unified School District 50 Phelan Avenue, E200 135 Van Ness A venue- Room 300 San Francisco, CA 94112 San Francisco, CA 94102 P553 fl"llm: ~ To: ~ Subject: FW: Beard er Equa!!zatllll R~vlew ors~JalTidng Jurlsdlttion • 051 Date: Wednesday,Octebefl8,20177:32:01AM Attachments: .....,.,_,. Imporbnce: -Hlgh From: Norono, Kimberly Sent: Monday, August 07,2017 8 00 AM To: 'Madhavan, Reeta' Cc: Bardessono, John; Paulette G Terrell; Hyong leigh Subject: RE: Board of Equalization Review of Spedal Taxing Jurisdiction· 051 Importance: High Good Momlng Thank you for1he reply. can you also please assist us in providing any documentation on who the successors are for each position listed on the Resolution for each Agency? The Resolution was adopted back In 1993 however it appears that each agency has transferred or was combined thus resulting in a new name and/or contact positions. ForExa~p!e 1. The San Francisco County of Schools is The San Francisco County of Education. 2. The San Francisco ·community College District is now The City College of San Francisco. lastly according to prior records the Chalrper~on listed for the San Francisco County Public Finance Authority was Mr. Robert Galton who was the Associate Superintendent for the San Francisco Unified School District. We would !ike to verify who Is Mr. Robert Galton's successor. We are contacting ali parties listed on the Resolution as we would like to update our records to confirm those contact posltlons ~ave authority to examine the Boards Sales Transactions and Use Tax records for the Oistrlct {Specia!Taxing Jurisdiction- 051 San Francisco County Public Finance Authority). · If you have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact me. Sincerely XimGu{y Norono. Senior 'T'ax 5\.tufitor Caf![omia 'Deyt. f!.(iax and:f!!!! Ji\dinfnistratlon Loca(1Uwenuc 2Jraucli, J>IIC :q Pfi. {g~qJ 324-1307 'Fax (916) 324-·8JJ7 [ ~ j "'c0ii!iilimii;.:r;nriii.ir.iii91ili!thllc;ilifofiilii Oijiiilffienl ol Ta~ and fee Adminlstlatloo • unautlw~ed use or drs.elosu1e 1s &toclly prolnl.>1l6d by law.lf you rec.me !Ius e·maa rn error, pl'luse lmrned~<~le1y not~y the COTFA h-t 1etum E-mall and delete !his meslo'lye from your ron~p~~ler, Without printing the m~ssage, and without dis~loslng ~s conlenb 111 any person olher than thesend~ror reeipient. Pernonswl1o WPi' Qftlisclose s.u~ eonfldenllal inlorm;~llon a1e s:trbjeclle applici!ble let:Ji!l pana~in •. :- From: Madhavan, Reeta (mailto madhayanr@sfusd edu] Sent: Friday, August 04, 2017 11 55 AM To: Norono, Kimberly Cc: Bardessono, John; Paulette G Terrell; Myong leigh Subject: Re: Board of Equallzatlon Review of Spedal Taxing Jurisdiction· 051 Good afternoon Ms. Norono, I will print and sign the forms on Monday, and email these to you immediately. My apologies for the delay in getting these out. Thank you, Reetl

r · 1 ~~~~~,~~i;~;,::,':U!'~;~;~:~::::rw;~{v,:~,';gs;~~;;;z~o;~~:xx;:~~:;~;~~r~~~~2~''~~~i~I;~;;~:I;JXllk'-.'rVwnHGWXRv!p,1HjZ2~~CNihllhKtZt•.,-.,.xn,:h!!"t!·ZwwKWXRPGGhZv1 hF.:KOQ6[10Q.II-17AV3t•U ·tNnOf.l3, GoN~njfKlci/DSU~dZJJ{jSSf!KfnAOZih(!NJbnuOJ9NQrWBOihltn%_1A":f.{"f%"EWWW SEllSQ Epl! • Reetu Madhav11n Chief Financial Officer San Francisco Unified School District 135 Van Ness Avenue, Room 315 San Francisco, CA 94102 T 4'15-241-6542 F 415-241-6482 mqdhro.oqnnii·~·tit' wrote: . Dear Ms Madhavan, A letter was mailed out to you today, as the Board of Equalization would like to verify the address and contact information for the Special Ta-xing Jurisdiction 051- San Francis.co County Public Finance Authority. Please take a moment to review the letter and attachments as by Resolution your contact position may have been authorized to represent the San Francisco County Public Finance Authority Your assistance in this matter would be greatly appreciated If you have any questions or concerns, please fee! free to contact me Thank you for your time Sincerely, XimGe1·[y Norono SeJtior Tax 5\.tld!tor CaCifvmia siate 1Joan£ vf'Equafization £oca(1Urvenue J\lTocation 'Unit, :JvlJC: 27 Tli. fm6) ~?a-r:;nz:Jax~ ~- J" . oi '''"'"oo -oooo>h<>hoot '"""' Oho LCOol""'iiC"'•~•i•om~o.suge, noll willloul dlsdeoslng ~C"!Oiiili"""'B""Oi Is &Onleols loan~ pemon olh~r lllan the semlar or r-ecipient.•~ Pen;on&v.tlo oopy ordi5l.:loS'l sueh CGnllden1lal~•• information ~~it ar;,wbjecl >••~lo appUcable legalpen;hies .• :" ~~''''""""romp'"'·

P554 ,Young, Victor

From: Thomas Busse Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 12:36 PM To: SOTF, (BOS); Pelham, Leeann (ETH) . Cc: Public Records; GUZMAN, ANDREA (CAT); Calvillo, Angela (BOS) Subject: Re: SOTF- Receipt of additional documents for File No. 17134

The complaint against Rosenfeld is best served to the attention of the Clerk of the Board for referral to the President in the capacity of Acting Mayor.

Ethics authority is limited in the case of appointed officials, and the position of the Controller is especially protected because the City Services Auditor, who runs the whistleblower program works for and appointed by the Controller and exempts whistleblower protection for violations of the Revenue & Taxation Code and the Government Code. Enforcement action against the Controller is limited to the Mayor or Board en bane at their discretion and may only be for cause of official misconduct.

Based her assessment of the evidence presented and scale of the misconduct, which is best considered contextextually against the Controller's performance, potentially gives the Acting Mayor cause, should she so choose, to suspend Rosenfeld and appoint an accountant more to her taste or desired trustworthness. Alternatively, she may decide on a suitable remediation plan and, in the process, work with him to create financial accounting treatments more in sync with her strategic direction of her administration's priorities.

Ontogeny recapitulates ontology: When asking what exactly the financial position is anyway, the answer is · more often than not what it has become. ·

On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 10:29 AM, SOTF, (BOS) wrote:

Dear Mr. Busse:

I am in receipt of your additional documents and will place them into your complaint file.

I do not believe your complaint against Controller Ben Rosenfeld is under the jurisdiction of the Sunshine Ordinance and may need to be file directly with the Ethics Commission. If you wish to proceed with a complaint against Mr. Rosenfield with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force please ·provide details as to which provision ofthe Sunshine Ordinance was violated and supporting documents.

Thank you ..

Victor Young 415-554-7724 PS55 Administrator, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

From: Thomas Busse [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2018 9:06 PM To: SOTF, (BOS) ; Calvillo, Angela (BOS) ; Pelham, Leeann (ETH) ; Ng, Wilson (BOS) Subject: Re: SOTF- Notice of Special Hearing- Sunshine Ordinance Task Force: December 19, 2017, 4:00 p:m.

I do not know the eventual disposition of my complaint at the SOTF, but a series of documents have surfaced (attached) that warrants reconsideration, so if the complaint was dismissed, I formally ask a reconsideration. If it was continued, I ask this be appended to the complaint. ·

By this e-mail, I also formally and publicly accuse Ben Rosenfeld of official misconduct: He knowingly ; · appropriated Public Finance Authority special tax revenue for other purposes when he had no legal authority to do so. He made executive decisions regarding the allocation of such revenue, willfully withholding funds from politically-unpopular charter schools. He failed in his ministerial duties under the Revenue and Taxation Code to ensure an audit of every special district in the county. He issue warrants of payment in the absence of a budget resolution. He allowed false minutes of public meetings, and purposefully held meetings in a hearing room without a recording device. Finally, he covered it up, blamed other public servants, lied to a member of the public about the location and content Of public records, and willfully obstructed access to public information.

I am cc'ing Ethics ED LeeAnn Pelham, both in the event my complaint was referred to ethics, but also because ! she is a witness to my presence at the Budget and Finance Subcommittee on June 8, 2017 in this regard, and SFGOVTV records me having a conversation with Controller Ben Rosenfeld at the conclusion of that meeting. If the PF A matter will be taken up by Ethics, I ask this communication and attachments be added to the · investigative file. ·

On May 4th, the Board of Equalization sent a letter to the Public Finance Authority copied to Ben Rosenfeld requesting they update contacts. In that letter (attached), the Board of Equalization's Local Tax Allocation Department indicated the contacts they had on file were: Ben Rosenfeld, Jose Cisneros, and Paulette Terrell. In fact, they have sent out the same communication every month this year, and it was:answei·ed by Reeta Madhavan; however, the form was never completed, and per the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, they are still awaiting a reply as well as a signature from the Chairperson ofthe Public Finance Authority. Interestingly enough, the Board of Equalization's last communication from the PF A, · submitted with my SOTF complaint, indicated Joseph Grazioli (Ms. Madhaven's predecessor) was the primary contact, so sometime between 2011 and the present, Somebody updated the Board ofEqualization's records upon Grazioli's departUre to replace him with Rosenfeld.

P556 Rosenfeld told me on June 8th that he was following up with the School District to learn about the sales tax and not to talk to anyone about it- especially Maura Lane and Jamie Whittaker. As the attached indicates BOE indicated to the School District and to Rosenfeld on May 4th that it always contacted Rosenfeld. In my SOTF complaint, I included Mr. Rosenfeld's personal response to me in May (from the "con" e-mail) saying he had no records of the Sales tax and I would have to call Ms. Madhavan. In my SOTF complaint, I also included a 2004 memo from Rosenfeld's predecessor, Mr. Harrington; to SOTF administrator Victor Young stating he had nothing to do with the sales tax. Ex analogia: Hanington was probably lying as well, because another memo from that year faxed from the SF Controller's office to Rosenfeld in his capacity in the Mayor's office indicates the disposition of the sales tax.

After Ms. Calvillo's response to the SOTF was submitted, I followed up with Calvillo and Wilson Ng pointing . out the inconsistencies in Reeta Madhaven's statements and voicing my concern that Ben Rosenfeld was lying . and/or had engaged in illegal formula manipulation dating from his time as Newsom's budget director, based on a memo to him regarding how Prop 98 formulas work. Mr. Ng called Ms. Madhavan and wrote to me that Ms. Madhavan meant to say the "state controller." The attached proves she was lying. This seemed ludicrous to me at the time, and I now know she was lying because her response to the Board of Equalization to their letter asking for confirmation the CITY controller should remain the primary contact predates Mr. Ng's phone call with Ms. Madhavan and was sent as early as May (before Ms. Madhavan wrote to me on two occasions saying she had nothing to do with the Public Finance Authority). As the BOE communication indicates, the state controller (Betty) has nothing to do with this. Moreover, Ms. Madhaven and Ben Rosenfeld meet regularly as members ofthe Treasury Oversight Committee.

To be thorough, I have reviewed Ms. Madhavan's and Ms. Terrell's AB 1234 certificate of ethics training, both of which pre-date this communication. ·

I also can provide a witness to support my accusation: Mr. Ronald Gerhard now at Chabot College, was VP of Finance and Administration at SF City College and a member of the Treasury Oversight Committee. He can testify regarding 1) the inaccuracy of the minutes of the Treasury Oversight Committee on May 26, 2017, taken by Rosenfeld's Executive Assistant, Maura Lane, to whom I personally presented my initial-public records request in April, and 2) the discussion of the PF A at that meeting, which was not recorded, in violation of the charter.. The inaccuracy of the minutes may be a reason they are conspicuously missing from the website.

Additional character evidence to support my claim comes from the June 8th Budget and Finance Committee (witnessed by Pelham and recorded on video) as well as City Attorney memo 91-02, which outlines the Controller's duties and limitations in regard to the School and Community College districts. The minutes of that meeting indicate a budget presentation the following week by the "Unified School District;" however, my memory and the video show the clerk stated "County Office of Education," which appears in the actual proposed appropriation ordinance. Mr. J:(osenfeld smiles and then digresses about the special nature of the County Office of Education in San Francisco. He is clearly interested in the intricacies of this- it excites him. The supervisors and clerk yawn, but I perk up. It excites me. It follows that Rosenfeld would have had equal interest in the Public Finance Authority. He asked me, "what type of person looks back at 25 year old ballot handbooks." The answer: He's not the only one. PS57 In summary: Ms. Madhavan's original communication that the sales tax allocation is handled by the CITY controller is the truth, and the City Controller engaged ih official misconduct when he withheld public inforniation about it. Granted, Rosenfeld inherited a mess, instead of cleaning it up, he used it to his own advantage and hid it from oversight. Rosenfeld terms out this year, and if Newsom wins the Governor's race, Rosenfeld would likely be appointed State Budget Director. The public interest requires inquiry.

Thomas James Busse

San Francisco, January 14, 2018

PS: In my answer to Ms. Calvallo, I mentioned the issues surrounding the 1993 election. I have been in touch of the original programmer of the DEC Eclipse tabulation computers used by the Dept. of Elections in 1993 with custom code, and he has identified the person who transported the ballots in the 1997 special election. It was James Hansell, a subcontractor of City College President Bob V ami's who had founded a struggling same day delivery service startup in Santa Cruz county. Hansell was paid from the City College Foundation. 'l

On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:00 PM, SOTF, (BOS) wrote:

· · Dear Mr. Busse:

I will provide your email to members of the SOTF ..Please clarify if you want to continue your complaint to a future date o:t if you would like the SOTF to proceed and consider your complaint. Note that it will be at the discretion ofthe SOTF to determine how to proceed.

Victor Young 415-554-7724

Administrator, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

P558 From: SF Kelvin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, December 16,2017 1:22AM To: SOTF, (BOS) Subject: Re: SOTF- Notice of Special Hearing- Sunshine Ordinance Task Force: December 19, 2017, 4:00 p.m .

. ' '

If the Task Force considers this complaint, I emphasize the following:

1. The SFPF A was created by a BOS resolution. Section 67 clearly applies to bodies created by Board Resolution.

2. The resolutions from September 1993 were not approved as to form or legality by the City Attorney. The City Attorney also refuses to disclose the public memorandum regarding the legal status of the SFPFA explicitly referred to by Mayor Frank Jordan.

3. I still.do not have a financial statement showing how the funds were distributed between the SFUSD, Charter Schools, the County Office of Education, and City College. The SFUSD's Financials show no Sales Tax income. The SFUSD did not provide this info in their answer to the SOTF. It disappears into a black hole.

4. I have a document from Susan Leal's office from 2004 where staff working in F AMIS services under the Controller represent themselves to the Board of Equalization as staff ofthe Public Finance Authority.

Sent from my iPhone

On Dec 5, 2017, at 9:38AM, SOTF, (BOS) wrote:

P§59 Good Morning:

Date: December 19, 2017

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 4:00p.m.

Complainants:. Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing. i . Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.

Complaints: File No. 17039: Complaint filed by Thomas Busse against the San Francisco Public Finance ' . i Authority for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance),

' . Chapter 67, by failing to notice and conduct· i : ; ·.

J . public hearings and failing to respond to request for public records. ; i

(On August 2, 2017, the SOTF granted a request for reconsidered of the Order ofDetermination issued on the complaint.)

File No. 17070: Complaint filed by Michael Addario against Kate Patterson and the Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), PS60 Sections 67.21 and 67.24, by failing to respond to a public records request in a complete manner.

File No. 17096: Complaint filed by Kevin Williams against Kate Patterson and the Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner. (Complaint 9/26/17)

Documentation (evidence supporting/ disputing complaint)

For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure).

For inclusion in the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00 pm, December 13, 2017. ·

Victor Young Administrator, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall., Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102 phone 415-554-7724 I fax 415-554-5163

[email protected] I www.sfbos.org

Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: Personal ihjormatton that is provided in communications to the Board ofSupervisors is subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act and the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance. Personal information provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal Identifying information when they communicate with the Board ofSupervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all membq·s of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members ofthe public may inspect or copy.

P561 Respondents Document Submission

P562 C!N AND COUNN OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CIN ATTORNEY DENNIS J. HERRERA ANDREA GUZMAN City Attorney Deputy Press Secretary

Direct bioi: (415) 554-4653 Email: [email protected]

January 23, 2018

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Honorabk Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force c/o: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Attn: Victor Young, Administrator Room 244, City Hall 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place Sail Francisco CA 94102 victor. young@ sfgov .org

Re: Sunshine Ordinance TaskForce Complaint No. 17134 (Thomas Busse v. Public Utilities Commission and the Office of the City Attorney) ·

Dear Honorable Task Force Members:

By letter dated December 21, 2017 (copy attached), the City Attorney's Office explained:

"[T]here is no violation of Section 67 .21(i) where . ; . a deputy city attorney provides legal advice to a department or commission in furtherance of this Office's Charter-mandated role to act as legal counsel for the City. In other words, there can be no violation here, because the deputy city attorney, in . providing legal advice to the SFPUC, was simply doing his or her job under the Charter."

The Task Force's complaint process is designed to reach a conclusion as to whether the respondent department or commission violated the Sunshine Ordinance. But, for the reasons stated in our December 21letter, the City's Charter does not leave room for the Task Force to find a violation by this Office for carrying out its Charter-mandated duty to provide legal.advice to its clients. This is true even if a department or commission considers that advice in deciding to withhold or redact a record in response to a public records request. And it is true even if the Task Force were to disagree with the advice. In sum, while the Task Force is not required to agree with the advice, the Task Force may not find this Office in violation for exercising its professional judgement in rendering the advice.

Accordingly, the Task Force lacks jurisdiction to hear a complaint, such as Mr. Busse's, alleging that this Office has violated the Sunshine Ordinance by performing its Charter-mandated role of providing legal advice to a City department or commission.

CllY }-lALL • 1 DR, CARLTON B. GOODLETT PL. RM 234 · SAN FRANCISCO, CAUFORNIA 94102-5408 RECEPTION: (415) 554-4700 • FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4715

P563 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ADORNEY

Page2 January 23,2018

Very truly yours, ""' 0\_ n an Deputy Press Secretary ·

P564 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

DENNIS J. HERRERA ANDREA GUZMAN . Ciiy Attorney Depuiy Pre~s Secretary

Direct Dial: (415) 554c4653 Email: andrea:[email protected]

December 21,2017

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Honorable ::rv.I~mbers of ~l:le .Sunshine Ordirmnce Task Force c/o: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Attn: Victor Young, Adrhinistrator Room 244, Clty Hail 1 Dr. Carlton B. Ooodlert Place San' Francisco CA 94102 vktor.yourig@ sfgov .org

Re: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint No. 17134 (Thomas Busse v. Public Utilities Commission and the Office·ofthe City Attorney)

Dear Honorable Task Force Members;

This letter responds to the complaint flled against the Office of the City Attorney by Thomas J. Busse, claiming that this Office violated Section 67.21(i) ofthe Sunshine Ordinance "for acting as legal counsel to the SFPUC [San Francisco Public Utilities Commission] for denying access to~ public record."1 Section 67.21(i) states in relevant part: "The ~an Francisco City Attorney's office shall act to protect and secure the rights of the people of S;m Francisco to access public information and public meetings and shall not act as legal counsel for any city employee or any person having custody of any public record for purposes of denying access to the public ...." ·sUMMARY As explained below, there is no violation of Section 67.2l(i) when, as here, a deputy city attorney provides legal advice to a department or commission in furtherance of this Office's Charter-mandated role to act as legal counsel for the City. In other words, there can be no violation here, because the deputy eity .attorney, in providirlg legal advice to the SFPUC, was simply doing his or her job under the Charter. · DISCUSSION Section 67,21 (i) must be interpreted in light of the City Charter; the City's supreme law, which is equivalent to a muniCipal constitution and supersedes ordinances ihtonsistertt with it. (St. Croix v. Superior Court (20i4) 228 Cal.App.4th 434, 442 (citing Stu,art v. Civit Servic.e Comm'n (1985) 174 Cai.A.pp.3.d2bl, 206); C:urrieri v .. City of Roseville (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 997; 1001.) The Charter requires the City Attorney to p:r;oviO.e a.dvice and represeutation as legal counsel to all components of City government. (See generally S.F. Charter§ 6.102.) . Interpreting this provision, .the CoUrt: of Appeal has held that the Charter, "by estal:Jlishing the

1 Mr. Busse's complaint ;lisa allegys that the SFPtJC violated the Sunshine Ordinance. This letter does not address the allegations a,gainst the SFP{JC,

CITY HALL • 1 DR. CARLTON B. GodDLEIT PL, RM 234 • SAN FRANCISCO, CAUFORNIA 941 02"5408 RECEPTION: (415) 554-4700 • FACSIMILE: (415) 554-4715

P565 ..

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

Page2 December 21,2017

office ap.d responsibilities of th~ city attorney, establish[es] an attorn~y-client relationship between the city attorney on the one hfl.Qd, and [the] City and its officers and agencies ... Oil the other." (St. Croix, supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at 442.) This Charter-mandated attorney~client relaJionship encompasses the full range of tasks that an attorney may perform for a client These. tasks include, of course; the provision of legal advice and opinions to the client. (See S.F. ~harter § 6.102(4) (including as ·part of the City Attorney's duties the provisionof ''legal advice and written opinion" to City departments).) Jfideeci, "the l1eartland of the [attorney client] privilege protects those co.n:inlunic.ations that bear some relationship to the attorney's provision of legal consultation." (Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors v. Superior Court (2016) 2Cal.5th 282, 295.) . The ablllty to provide legal advice to C~ty departm.eqts and co:mnllssio11s regardin.g p~blic records requests.is critically important. When a department or commission responds to a public records request, the City's tights and duties are necessarily involVed; lll'\d third..:party rights are often implicated as well. A plethora: of laws, often requiring interpretation, prohibits . depaJiments from disclosing, or pern;rits them to withhold, certain types of records; and the rules that bear on the public records request process are often technical, miclear, or co111plex, also often requiring legal interpretation. In short, when providing advice regarding a public records request, a deputy city attorney is performing one of a lawyer's quintessential and most important functions. This principle cioes n,ot change based on the sl)bstance of j;he advict:l- for .ex;unple, advising that the law requires or permits withholding or redacting a record~ or advising to the contrary. Nor does the principle change if someone -for example, Mr. Busse- disagrees with the advice. The Charter _ · safeguards, without quali:fi,cation, the right of the City to receive legal advice from the City Attorney's Office. Accordingly, in advising the SFPUC regarding the publlc records requestin questioo.i. the deputy city attorney was acting squarely within the attorney-client relationship created by the Charter. Interpreting Section 67.21(i) to preClude this Office from providing legal advice ori public records matters simp~y.b!'!cause that advice would provide legal support.for or facilitate a <;lepartment' s withholding or redacting a record would be inconsj.stent vyith the Charier-mandated attorney-client relationship between this Office and the City. . Given that clear inconsistency; a court would likely wnsider such an interpretation of Section 67.21 (i) ~ absurd result, to be ayoided if possible. This Office, lil;ce a qourt, must strive to interpret Section 67.21(1) to avoid such a result (Cf John v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 91,. 96 (importance of avoiding absurdresults when construing statutes); SackS v: City of _ Oakland (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 1070, 1088 (favoring commonsense interpretation Of ordiniince tQ ayoid an absurd result).) F~rther, this Office; like a court, .must strive to.interpret -Section 67 .21(i) jn a manne.r that av()ids a conflict witb the Ch_aner ~d thereby affirms th~ validity of Section 67 .21(i). (Cf Kash Enterpris_es, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 19 Cal·. 3d 294, 305 (an ordinance should he construed if possible to preserve its constitutionality).} If Section 67.21(i) were interpreted to prohibit or limit the Ci~y Attorney':s Office in providing legal ass_istance to departmel,ltS and C()mmissio:o:s pertaining to pubUc records law, there would be a cqnflict between the Charter and the Sunshine Ordinance, ai:J.d· Section 67;21(i) would be invalid, at least td the extent of the conflict (St. CroiX, supra, 228 Cal.App.4th at 445, citing Domar Electric, Inc. v. City ofLos_ Angeles (1994) 9 Ca,l.4th 161, 171).) To avoid this restdt, courts must reject an interpretation of Section 67.21(i) that constrains the authority and duties of the City Attorney under the Charier. To avoid infirmity under the Charter, that section must be understood merely to reflect the voters' intent to affirm that the City Attorney's Charter obligation to properly advise all official.s with regarcl to all of their legal duties, includes those duties that arise from the Sunshine Ordinance and the Public

P566 CllY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE OF THE C!TY ATIORNEY

Page3 December 21,2017

Records Act and other open government laws, as understood by the City Attorney's Office. Under this reading, where, in the view of this Office, the Public Records Act or any other law forbids disClosure or authorizes redaction or nondisclosure of a record, Section 67 .2l(i) does not prevent the City Attorney from advising departments of their duties and privileges under such. laws. Any more expansive interpretation of its prohibitory language would be legally untenable because of the potential Charter conflict. The St. Croix decision, cited earlier, suppm;ts our reading of Section 67.21(i) and our conclusion that the deputy city attorney advising the SFPUC ort a public records matter did hot violate tbe Sunshine Ordinance. (St. Croix v. Superior Court (2014) 228 Cru.App.4th 434.) St. Croix involved Section67.24(b)(l) of the Sunshine Qrdin~ce, which states '''[n]otwi~tanding any exemptions otherwise provided by law," certain types ofrecords "are public records subject to disclosure under this Ordinance," including records constituting ''[a]dvice ori compliance With, .analysis of, an opinion concerning liability under, or any communication otherwise concerning the California Public R~cords Act~ the Ralph M .. Brown Act, the Political Reform Act, any San Francisco Governmental Ethics Code, or this Orqinance~" The Ethics Commission had received a public records request for comrriunications between it and the City Attorney's Office that fell under this provision but were also covered by the attorney-client privilege. It· withheld the records, asserting the privilege. The requester sued, claiming that the Surrsbine Ordinance provision mandated disclosure. The Court disagreed, citing the City Attorney's Charter-mandated role: "Because the charter incorporates the attorney-clientprivilege, an ordinance cannot eliminate the priyilege fo~ a class of communications between the city attorney and his or her clients.'' (Id., at 446.) Accordingly, "[t]o the extent [Section 67.24(b)(l)] purports to compel disclosure of materials that fall within the scope of the ... privilege, such as the written communications between the Ethics Commission and the city attorney at issue here, it conflicts with the charter's protection of such materials. The trial court therefore erred in ordering disclosure of the documents purusant to the ordinance.'' (Id.) The same reasoning applies here. If Section 67.21 (i) were read to limit or modify the attorney-client relationship that the Charter creates between the City Attorney's Office and the City, it WOI!ld to that extent be in conflict with the Charter, and hence invalid. Our reading of Section 67.21(i)- the only reading consistent with the Charter -preserves it as part of the Sunshine Ordinance, while making clear that Mr. Busse's clain:J. of a violation is without merit. ·CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, Mr; Busse's complaint shotild be dismissed.

Very truly yours,

DENNIS J. HERRERA City Attorney /l,rJ;ua_ ~ ~e~ Guzman '7/ f . Deputy Press Secretary ·

P567 Young, Victor

From: Peters, Michelle D on behalf of Public Records Sent: Friday, March 16,2018 1:56PM To: SOTF, (BOS) . Cc: [email protected] Subject: SFPUC Written Response to Complaint Filed with the Sunshine Task Force #17134 Attachments: Cal Gov Code 8589.5.pdf

Dear Honorable Task Force Members:

Please find attached response on behalf of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to Complaint No. 17134, filed with the Task Force by Thomas Busse on December 13, 2017, and emailed to the SFPUC on December 14 regarding the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (SOTF) hearing on complaints listed below to:

1) Determine if the Task Force has jurisdiction

2) Review the inerits ofthe complaints

3) Issue a report and/or recommendation to the Task Force.

Hearing Date:

Date: February 27, 2018

. . Location: City Hall, Room 408

Tirrie: 5:30p.m.

Please know that we take our obligations under the Sunshine Ordinance very seriously, and SFPUC staff members make ·every effort to honor all requests within what is allowable by law and what is necessary to protect the public health and safety. ·

Sincerely,

Michelle Peters SFPUC Public Records Coordinator

Public Records San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 525 Golden Gate Ave., 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103

Public Records Main Line: ·415-934-57 53 Public Records Fax: 415-554-3282 [email protected]

P568 ~ .

\@) STATE OF CALIFORNlA Ltg(~~·m' AUTHENTICATED SL!RL\U ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL

State of California

GOVERNMENT CODE

Section 8589.5

8589.5. (a) For the purposes ofthis section, "emergency action plan" means a written document that outlines actions to be undertaken during an emergency in order to minimize or eliminate the potential loss of life and property damage. (b) An emergency action plan shall do all of the following: (1) Be based upon an inundation map approved by the Department of Water Resources pursuant to Section 6161 of the Water Code. (2) Be developed by the dam's owner in consultation with any local public safety agency that may be impacted by an incident involving the dam, to the extent a local public safety agency wishes to consult. (3) Adhere to Federal Emergency Management Agency guidelines, and include, at a minimum, all of the following: (A) Notification flowcharts and contact information. (B) The response process. (C) .The roles and responsibilities of the dam owner and impacted jurisdictions following an incident involving the dam .. (D) Preparedness activities and exercise schedules. (E) Inundation maps approved by the Department of Water Resources pursuant to Section 6161 ofthe Water Code. (F) Any additional information that may impact life or property. (c) At least once annually, an owner of a dam shall conduct an emergency action plan notification exercise with local public safety agencies, to the extent that a local public safety agency wishes to participate. This annual exercise is to ensure that emergency communications plans and processes are current and implemented effectively. (d)· (1) The appropriate public safety agencies of any city, county, or city and county, the territory of which includes any ofthose areas identified in an inundation map and the emergency action plan, may adopt emergency procedures for the evacuation and control of the potentially affected areas. The Office of Emergency Services may provide guidance to these agencies on incorporating the emergency action plan into the local all-hazard emergency response plans and local hazard mitigation plans. (2) Local public safety agencies may adopt emergency procedures that incorporate the information contained in an emergency action plan in a manner that conforms to local needs, and that includes all of the following elements: (A) Methods and procedures for alerting and warning the public. (B) Delineation of the area to be evacuated.

P569 (C) Routes to be used. (D) Tniffic control measures. (E) Shelters to be activated for the care of the evacuees. (F) Methods for the movement of people without their own transportation. (G) Identification of particular areas or facilities in the flood zones that will not require evacuation because of their location on high ground or similar circumstances. (H) Identification and development of procedures for the evacuation and care of people with access and functional needs and for the evacuation of specific facilities, such as schools, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and other facilities as deemed necessary. (I) Procedures for the perimeter and interior security of the evacuated area. . (J) Procedures for the lifting of the evacuation and reentry of the area. (K) Details as to which organizations are responsible for the functions de'scribed in this paragraph and the material arid personnel resources required. (3) Each agency that prepares emergency procedures may review and update these · procedures in accordance with its established schedules. (e) Nothing in Chapter 3 5 (commencing with Section 6250) of Division 7 ofTitle 1 shall be construed to require disclosure of an emergency action plan. (f) The Office of Emergency Services may promulgate emergency regulations, as necessary, for the purpose ofthis section in accordance with the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3). The adoption of these regulations shall be deemed to be an emergency and necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, or general welfare. (Repealed and added by Stats. 2017, Ch. 26, Sec. 61. (SB 92) Effective June 27, 2017.)

P570 Commwnications San Francisco 525 Golden Gate Avenue, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94.1 02 \'Vater , Seniv~~~r T 4 i 5.554-3289 Operator ofthe Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System F 415.554.3282 TTY 4 i 5,554.3488

December 21, 2017

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force c/o: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Attn: Victor Young, Administrator 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place; Room 244 San Francisco CA 941 02 victor. young@ sfgov.org

Re: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint No. 17134 (Thomas Busse v. Public Utilities Commission arid the Office of the City Attorney)

Dear Honorable Task Force Members:

This letter responds on behalf of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to Complaint No. 17134, filed with the Task Force by Thomas Busse on December 13, 2017, and emailed to the SFPUC on December 14. The Complaint alleges that the SFPUC violated the Sunshine Ordinance by withholding from disclosure "emergency action plans," which are exempt from disclosure. under the California Emergency Services Act. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the SFPUC violated these provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance: (1) Section 67.27(a); by relying on ar exemption specifically codified in the California Emergency Services Act rather than tn the London Breed Public Records Act; (2). Sections 67.24(g) and (i), which pro.hibit City agencies President of from relying on the general "balancing test" in Section 6255 of the Publ.ic the Board of Supe1visors and Records Act to withhold records; and (3) Section 67.24(d), which requires Acting fv1ayor

disclosure of certain "law enforcement" records. lkeKwon President

We respectfully request that the Task Force dismiss the Complaint. Vince Courtney Vfce President Ann Moller Caeo Summary Gqmmissioner Francesca Vietor Commissioner As explained below, Mr. BU$se's complaint is based on a fundamental Anson Moran misunderstanding of exemptions under the Public Records Act and the Commissioner Sunshine Ordinance. Section 6254(k) of the PubLic Records Aot exempts from Harlan.L Kelly, Jt. General Manager

·Services of the San Frqncisco Public· Utiliiies Commission

OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer se1vices iii~ manner that vaiues ?nviwnmen!al and cori1munity interests .and sustains the resouro?S entrusted to our care. P571 Respondents ocument · Submission

P572 Young, Victor

From: Public Records Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2018 4:41 PM To: Young, Victor; SOTF, (BOS) Cc: Public Records; [email protected] Subject: FW: SOTF- Notice of Hearing- Complaint Committee: February 27, 2018, 5:30p.m. Attachments: SFPUC_SOTF_022118.pdf; DOC201712211457351.pdf ·

Dear Honorable Task Force Members,

Please find attached a letter of response on behalf of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to Complaint No. 17134. We have also included our previous correspondence we shared with you on Thursday, December 21.

The SFPUC takes our obligations under the Sunshine Ordinance very seriously, and we make every effort to honor all requests within what is allowable by law and what is necessary to protect the public health and safety.

Sincerely, · SFPUC Public Records Coordinator

Public Records San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 525 Golden Gate Ave., 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103

Public Records Main Line: 415-934-5753 Public Records Fax: 415-554-3282 [email protected]

From: SOTF, (BOS) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 10:04 AM To: [email protected]; Patterson, Kate (ART); Trickey, Anne (ART); Magick Altman; Kilshaw, Rachael (POL); Rodriguez, Angela (POL); Public Records; GUZMAN, ANDREA (CAT); Cityattorney Cc: Calvillo, Angela (BOS) Subject: SOTF- Notice of Hearing- Complaint Committee: February 27, 2018, 5:30 p.m.

Good Morning:

Notice is hereby given that the Complaint Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force shall hold hearings on complaints listed below to: 1) determine if the Task ·Force has jurisdiction; 2) review the merits of the complaints; and/or 3) issue a report and/or recommendation to the Task Force.

Date: February 27, 2018

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 5:30p.m .

. Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing. P573 Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.

·Complaints:

File No. 17120: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against Anne Trickey, Arts Commission, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.13 and 67 .15(b )(c)(d), by failing to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address a policy body without abridging or prohibiting public criticism of the policy, procedures, programs or services of the City.

File No. 18003: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against Arts Commission, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.7, 67.20, 67.25 and 67.27, by failing to make supporting documents available, failing to response to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a complete manner and failing to provide justification for withholding records.

File No. 17131: Complaint filed by Magick Altman against the Police Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.5, 67.7-1, 67.15 and 67.34, by willfully failing to make meetings open to the public, creating barriers to attendance and failing to allow public comment, to provide adequate public notice and failing to provide an opportunity for public comment.

File No. 17134: Complaint filed byThomas Busseagainst the San Francisco Public Utilities for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine· Ordinance), Section 67.21, 67 .24(g)(i), 67 27 by. failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner and against the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance),· SeCtion 67.21(i), for actmg as legal counsel for denyingaccess to a public record.

Documentation (evidence supportingidisputing complaint)

For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing. For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00pm, February 21,2018.

Victor Young Assistant Clerk Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall., Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102 phone 415-554-7724 I fax 415-554-5163 · [email protected] I www.sfbos.org

lEO• Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: 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 provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation .or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone·numbers, addresses and ~imilar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

P~74 525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor San Francisco San Francisco, CA 941 02 T 415.554.3155 Water Power Sewer F 415.554.3161 Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 1Tf 415.554.3488

February 21, 2018

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force c/o: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Attn: Victor Young, Administrator 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102 [email protected]

Re: .Follow-Up Response to Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint No. 17134 (Thomas Busse v: Public Utilities Commission and the Office of the City Attorney) ·

Dear Honorable Task Force Members:

On December 21,2017, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ("SFPUC") submitted its response to the above-entitled complaint. That initial response is attached for your reference. On February 6, 2018, SFPUC received Mr: Busse's letter .to the Task Force dated January 31, 2018, which he called (and we refer to as) an "Answer" to SFPUC's response. This letter responds to the new arguments set forth in Mr. Busse's Answer.

Mr. Busse's complaint pertains to SFPUC's.decision to withhold from disclosure emergency action plans based on an express exemption in the California Emergency Services Act, Section 8589.5(e) of the Government Code ("Section 8589 .5( e)").

As noted in our initial response to the complaint, Section 67 .27(a) of the SW1shine Ordinance ("Section 67.27(a)") authorizes withholding records "under Mark Farrell Mayor· a specific permissive exemption in the California Public Records Act, or Ike Kwon elsewhere, .... " That should be the beginning and end of the Task Force's President inquiry, because, in accordance with Section 67.27(a), SFPUC relied on both Vince Courtney the exemption in Section 8589.5(e) and the exemption in Section 6254(k) Vice President ("Section 6254(k)") of the California Public Records Act ("CPRA"), which Ann. Moller Gaen exempts from disclosure "[r]ecords·, the disclosure of which is exempted or Commissioner prohibited pursuant to ... state la\Y" in withholding the emergency action plans. France sea Vietor Commissioner Nevertheless, in his Answer, Mr. Busse makes several new arguments, Anson Moran Commissioner each of which is lacking in merit. Harlan L. Kelly, Jr. General Manager

OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high·quaJity, 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. P575 First, Mr. Busse argues that SFPUC violated Section 67.24(g) 1 of the Sunshine Ordinance, which prohibits withholding records based on "California Public Records Act SeQtion 6255 o1· any simi(ar pro-vision." (Emphasis added.) Section 6255 of CPRA ("Section 6255'') is commonly referred to as the "catch all balancing test" because it is a wide-open balancing test that, without qualification or limitation of any smt, allows an agency to withhold a record if "on the facts of the particular case the public interest served by not disclosing the:record clearly ou~weighs the public interest served by disclosing the record." Section 8589.5(e), by contrast, is the antithesis of Section·6255: it is tlie exact opposite - a specific, categorical exemption. It bears not even a remote resemblance to Section 6255.

Mr. Busse's main point appears to be that Section 8589.5(e) is like

Section 6255 because the Legislature "balanced. interests" in deciding to create. the exemption. Specifically, he ·argues that the legisl.ative findings in Senate Bill92 enacting Section 8589.5(e) "are the balancing test exemption similar to CPRA section 6255." This argument mistakenly conflates the legislative process for creating an exemption with the terms .of the exemption being . created. Whenever the Legislature enacts an exemption, it engages in a ·policy judgment in which all interests, both favoring and disfavoring the exemption, are considered. That is what legislative judgments are; they inherently are "balancing" judgments.

As Mr. Busse points out, Section 3(b) of Article I of the California Constitution requires that when the Legislature adopts a statute limiting public access to records, it must adopt "findings demonstrating the b:iterest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest." Cal. Const. Arf. I, Sec. 3(b )(2) .. That is what happened here. When the Legislature adopted Section 8589.5(e), it found that "[i}n order to protect public safety, it is necessary to protect an emergency action plan submitted pursuant to this act as confidential." (2017 Cal. Legis. S.erv. Ch. 26 (S.B. 92, Sec. 102).) As we have explained, the adoption of legislative findings in support of an exemption does ilot transform the exemption itself into a "balancing test," much less one similar to Section 6255. There is a stark difference between legislative findings, which explain the Legislature's rationale for the exemption, and the exemption itself.

Mr. Busse also appears to believe the use of the word "confidential" in the fmdings in support of Section 8589.5(e) "refers to privilege, which is a balancing test." There is no support in the law-'or elsewhere -- for this interpretation of the word "confidential." "Confidential" simply means not to . be disclosed to the public. Nor is there any basis for claiming that "privilege" amounts to a balancing test. Many privileges are absolute, like the attorney client privilege; other privileges are qualified. But in any event, as discussed earlier, what is said in the findings .does not change the n~ture of Section 8589.5(e), which, by its tern:is, is a categorical exemption, 180 degrees different from Section 6255. ·

1 Mr. Busse's letter repeatedly references Section 67.24(h), but he quotes the language from subsection (g) of that Section. We presume his intent is to reference subsection (g).

P576 Mr. Busse also appears to argue that Section 6254(k) is itself "a 'balancing test" because it refers to "records relating to privilege," and in Mr. Busse's view, "[p]rivilege is itself a balancing test." Again, this argument makes no sense. Section 6254(k) exempts from disclosure "[r]ecords, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including,· but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege." (Emphasis added). As noted earlier, it is incorrect to say that privilege necessarily is a b~lancing inquiry. But the point is irrelevant, because here, SFPUC did not rely on any privilege in the Evidence Code; rather, it relied on a "state law," namely the exemption in Section 8589.5(e).

And Mr. Busse's claim that Section 8589.5(e) is not an "express" exemption is similarly puzzling. Section 8589.5(e) clearly states "[n]othing in [the CPRA] shall be construed to require disclosure of an emergency action plan." We do not know how Section 8589.5(e) could be any more "express" in stating that emergency action plans are not required to be disclosed under CPRA.

Finally, Mr. Busse argues that Section 8589.5(e) is invalid under Article 1, Section 3 of the California Constitution. Article 1, Section 3 preserves the right of the Legislature to enact exemptions like Section 8589.5(e) as long as it makes legislative findings demonstrating what interest is protected in doing so: "A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. (Cal. Canst. Art. 1, § 3(b)(2).) As discussed above, the Legisr'ature made the required findings in enacting Section 8595.5(e), as follows:

In order to protect public safety, it is necessary to protect an emergency action plan submitted pursuant. to this act as confidential. An emergency action plan contains a blueprint for emergency response following an incident involving a dam and details various failure scenarios of a dam and its related critical infrastructure. An emergency action plan also includes specific notification procedures and information about local emergency management officials, such as their personal identifying information. In order to keep this information from individuals with improper motivations who could us~ the information maliciously to expose a dam's vulnerabilities and to disrupt a critical emergency response, it is in the state's interest to limit public access to this information.

(2017 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 26 (S.B. 92, Sec. 102).) Notwithstanding these detailed findings, Mr. Busse asserts they are inadequate. While Mr. Busse is entitled to his opinion, the question of the Legislature's compliance with the Constitution in enacting exemptions, including Section 8589.5(e), is not for the Task Force to decide. In any event, the Legislature obviously followed the constitutional requirement of making findings in support of Section 8589.5(e).

P577 As both our initial response to the complaint and this response to Mr. Busse's Answer make clear, the SFPUC properly relied on an express exemption to withhold the emergency action plans in accordance with Section 67 .27(a) of the Sunshine Ordinance. The SFPUC did not rely on a balancing · test similar to the one found in. Section 6255 of the CPRA. Further, the California Constitution recognizes the validity of express exemptions like Section 8589.5(e) of the Government Code, and the Legislature followed the requirements of the Constitution when it enacted Section 8589.5(e). Because there has been no violation of the Sunshine Ordinance, the Task Force should dismiss the complaint.

If you have any questions about this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or [email protected]. Thank you for your consideratio-:::!:n!.!-. ___

arby ommu ations Manager San cisco Public Utilities CommissioiJ. 525 Golden Gate Aye. 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94103 Public Records Main Line: 415-934-5753 Public Records Fax: 415-554-3282

P578 Commwnicatior)s San Francisco 525 Golderi Gate Avenue, 12th Floor San FranCisco, CA 94102 Water ~!· ~5E~~,~~l~~~t{·' r 415.554-3289 ()perator ofcthe Hetch Hetcl:ly Regional Water System F 415.554.3282, TTY 4 i 5.554.3488

December 21, 2017

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force c/o: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Attn: Victor Yowng, Administrator 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place; Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102 victor, young @sfgov.org

Re: Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint No. i 7134 (Thomas Busse v. Public Utilities Commission and the Office of the City· Attorney)

Dear Honorable Task Force Members:

This letter rE)sponds on behalf of the San Francisco Public Utilifif3s Commission (SFPUC) to Complaint No. i 7134, filed with the Task Force by Thomas Busse on December i3, 2017, and emailed to the SFPUC on December i 4. The Complaint C~:!leges th.atthe SFPUC violated the Sunshine Ordinance by withholding from disclosure "emergency action plans," which are exempt from disClosure under the California EmergGncy Services Act. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the SFPUC Violated these provisions of the Sunshine Ordinance: (1) Section 67.27(a), by relying on an exemption specific::ally.codified In th~ California Emergency Services Act rather than in the London Breed Public Records Act; (2fSections 67.24(g) and (i), which prohibit City agencies . p;e~ide~i of from relying on the general "balancing test" in Section 6255 of the Public the Board of Supervi~ors and Records Act to withhold records; and (3) Section 67.24(d), which requires Acting ,\1ayor disclosure of certain "law enforcemenf' records. Ike Kwon President Vince Courtney We.respectfwlly request that the Task ForcE? dismiss the Complaint. Vice President Ann Moiler Caeo Summary Cpmrnissioner francesca Vietor Commissioner As explained below, Mr. Busse's complaint is bp.sed on a fundp.mental Ansari Moran misunderstanding of exernptions under the Public Records Act and the Commissioner Sunshine Ordinance. Section 6254(~) of the Public Records Act exempts from Harlart.L. Kl)lly,Jr. Geneml Manager

Servlces of the San Francisco Pubiio-Utilities Commission

OUR IIJHSS!ON: To provide our customers vvith high-qUality, efficient and reliable water, power. and sewer services in a manner tha,t values environment?.! and con>mun(ty ii-r!erests .and sustains the resources enlrusted · to our care. P579 disclosure recorqs !'the disclosure·of which is exempted or prohibited pursuq,nt to federal or state law:" The Sunshine Ordinance does not invalidate or restrict the application of Section 6254(k). And state laW- namely, the CaJifornia E;mergency Services Act'- expressly E?xernpts "emergency action plans" from drsclosure under the PUblic Records Act. (See Cal. Govt. Code§ 85B9.5(e).) It was therefore prope:r for the SFPUC to rely on this provision to withhold .Its en1ergency aCtion plans tram Mr~ Busse.

Further, contrary to Mr. Bwsse's asserti-ons, the SFP,UC:did not rely on the Public Records Act's general balancing test as a basis to-withhold the emergency action plans. Nor do the emergency a.ction plans constitute "law entorcen19r1f' reqords that are the subjeot of Seotl<;m 67.24(d) of the. Sunshine OrdinS,nce.

Factual Background

The Complaint pertains to an October 6, 20i 7 public records request that Mr. Busse submitted to the SfPUC that asked for six c;a:tegorles of records, inCluding:

All documents iri the possession of the SFPUC m_atching the description of an "Emergency Action Plan" described in Section 8589.5 ofthe Government Co.de (added by SB 92). MY request includes.Emergency Action Plans ofSF'PUG faCilities as well as other California facilities that the SFPUC riiay have on file for reference, consultation, etc. including in E?-mail attachments, etc., but are not aduaHy ernergency action plans created by the SFPUC, (3specia,lly plans of the SWP and Dept. of Water Resources.

Earlier this year; the Legislature amended the California Emergency services Act (Cal. Govt Gode § 8550 etseq.) by enacting SeQtion 8589.5 of the California Government Code (also referred to oy Mr. Busse as "SB 92"). The new law.recjuires the owner of a dam to develop and submit to the California . Department of Water Resou.rces and the Office of Emergency Serviclps an ''emerg~ncy action plan;' based upon an inundation map orrnaps. Among other things, the iaw states that .nothing in the california Public Records Act "shall be construed to require disclosure of an emergency action plan," CaL . . Govt Code§ 85895(e),.

In its response to Mr. Busse's request, the SFPUC stated that it Was dec:lining to disclose emergency action plans based on the exemption in Section s'5s9.'5(e) of the Government Code. In its re$ponse, the SFPUC a,lsq

P580 cited a fede.tal case, Living Rivers, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 272 F.Supp.2d. i3i3 (2003), to help explain the policy rationale. underlying the exemption in Section 8589.5(e) ofthe Government Code, namely that disclosing a dam's vulnerabilities and planned critical emergency responses poses a security risk.

Analysis

I. There HasBeenNo Violation of Section 67ZT(a) of fhe Sunshine Ordinance.

The Complaint alleges that Section 8589.5(e) of.the California Government Code is not !'a permissive exemption" upon_ which. the chy may rely to withhold recQrds under Section· 67.27(a) ofthe Sunshine Ordinance because .it is not specifically codified in the Public Records Act~ but instead resides in a different part ot the Government Code, the California Emergency Services Act. According to Mr. Busse, Section 67.27(8.) allows the City to withhold records only based on an exemption that is specifically codified in the PubliC Records Act and not elsewhere in State law; He further claims that the exemption in Section 8589~5(e) applies only to the State's Office of Emergency Services and cannot be invoked by a.ny local agencies under the Public Records Act.

Mr. Busse's claim is based on a fundamental mlsun<;lerstandlng of exemptions under the Public Records Act and the Sunshine Ordinance. Section 6254(k) of the Public Records Act states that the Act does not require the disclosure of "[r]ecords, the qisclosure of \o/hich is exernpte<;l OJ prohibited pursuant to fecjenil or state law, including, .but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating to privilege." (Cal. Govt Code§ 6254(k) (emphasis added).) As the text of Section 6254(k) makes clear, if a state law-'-. any state law- exempts disclosure'.of a record, the Public Records Act does not require discloswre of that record. Indeed, Section 6254(k) -which is itself an enumerated exemption in the Act- cross-references in the Actall exemptions a:lid prohibitions in state and federal law, rather than listing in the Act the hundr!=Jds (perhaps thousands) of state and federaJ laws that exempt records from disclosure requirements or prohibit disclosure altogether. The point of Section 6254(k) is to treat the state and federal laWs as if they were specifically named in the Act as~exemptions.

But, while itis proper, and we think correct, to consider the exemption. for emergency action plans in Section 8589.5(e) to be incorporated in the Public Records Act throt]gh Sedion 6254(k), o.ne needn.ot r1,3achthat

P581 conclusion to recognize that the Sunshine Ordinance does not prohibit the · SFPUC from relying pn that exemption; Sec.tion 6727(a) ofthe S.unshine · Ordinanc.e recognizes that to be viable an exemption need not be speCifically codified in the Public Records Act; it states that the City may withhold records b\3-secj upon "a specific: permissive ~x:empti_qn in the Qa:lifornia Public Rec:.ords Act, or elsewhere .. .'' .(emphasjs added). So, even ifone does not concede that the exemption for emergency action plans is incorporated into the Public

Records Act, itstifl would reside. "elsewhere;'' that. is, in Section 8589.5(e) of the Government Code, Hence the SFPUC may rely upon it.

Finally, nothing in SeCtion 8589.5 suggests, as Mr. Busse claitiis 1 that the exemption may be as.serted only by state agencies, and not local agencies, To the. contrary, the Legislative Counsel'$ Di!::Jest for SB 92, the bili enacting Section 8589.5, states,. without qualificaticih, that "the bfll would exempt an . emergency action plan from disclosure under the California Public Records Act" (2017Cai.Legis. Serv .. Ch. 26 (S.B. 92).) And, given the security concerns prompting the exemption, which are discussed more fully below, it would haw been nonsensical for the Legislature to exempt such plans·when in the possession of a state agency but not when in the possess(on of a local agency.

In suni, the SFPUC properly invoked the exemption in the California Emergency Services Act in accordance with bothSection 6254(k) of the Public Aec.ords.Act and Section 67.27(a) o{the Sunshine Ordinance;

II. There Has Been No Violation of Sections 67.24(g) or (f) of the Sunshine Ordinance.

Mr. Busse also all~ges.·that the SFPUC Violated Sections 67.24(g) and (i) of the Sunshine Ordinance on the theory tha,t the agency relied upon the general "palancing tesf' in Section 6255 of the Pub, lie RE?cords Act, which allows an agency to Withhold a record where there is no specific exemption if, on balance, "the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly , -outweighs the public interest.served py disClosing the record." Se8tion 67.24(gj of the Sunshine Ordinance prohibits th.e City from a,sserting the Section 6255 balance as a basis for withholding records, and Section 67.24(i) similarly prohibits the City from withholding records "based on a finding or showjng that the ·public interest in· Withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disdosure.i;

But, as stated above, the SFPUG withheld the records not ba.sed on any b.alanqing test but based on the exemption proVIded under Government

P582 Code Section 8589.t;i(e) in the California Emergency Services Act. In its response to Mr. Busse, the SFPUC inclUded a reference to "security risks" posed by revealing emergency action plans and cited a federal court cc;lse, Living Rivers, Inc. v. United .States Bureau oi Reclamation, 272 F.Supp.2d. 1313 (2003), which discusses that terrorists coUld use an inundation map to estimate the damage· caused oy attacking a particular dam. Perhaps this reference fed Mr. Busse to the mistaken conclusion that the SFPUC was · invoking the balancing test. That was not the case. The SFPUC provided the citation to Living Rivers merely to help explain to a member of the public the policy rationale underlying Sectipn 8589.5(e)'s exernption for emergency action plans -the same ratibha.!e articulated by the Legislature iri enacting Section 8589.5:

In order to protect public safety, it is necessary to protect an. emergency action plan submitted pursuant to this act as confidential. An emergency action plan contains a blueprint for emergency response following an incident involving a dam and details various failurescenarios of a dam and its related. critical infrastructure. An emergency action plan al:so includes specific notiflcCJ.tion procedures and information about local emergency management officials, such as their personal identifying information. In order to keep this information from individuals with improper motivations who could u~e the information maliciously to expose a dam's vulnerq.bilities and to disrupt a critical emerg·ency response, It is in the state's interest to limit public access to this information.

(201 7 Cal. Legis. Serv; Ch, 2B. (S.B. 92, Sec. i 02).) The Legislature enacted the specific exemption in Section 8589.5(e) to address the security concerns · ( posed _by disclosure of emergenqy action plans. It would have made no sense for the SFPUC to rely on general bq.lancing to deny Mr. Susse;s request, sincE) the exemption obviates any need for the SFPUC to rely on general balancing to withhold emergency action plans.

Ill, There Has Been No Violation of Section 67;24(d) of the Sunshine Ordinance .. Finally, Mr; Busse claims that Section 67.24(d) of the Ordinance, "Law Enforcement Information," prohlbits·SFPUC tram wlthhoiding emergency action pians. SE)ction 67.24(d) imposes a limitation on Section 6254(f) of the Public Records Act, which exempts from disClosure

[r]ecords of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General f;lnd the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security file.$ compiled

P583 by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or- sec;urity files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctionai, law enforcement, or licensing purpo'ses.

(Gal. Govt. Code§ 6254(t}.) Secrtion 6724(d) limits Section 6254(f) by requiring disclo$ure of "[r]ecord$ pertaining tq any investigation, arrest, or other law enforcement activity ... once the District Attorney or court determines that a prosecution will not be sought against the subject involved, or once the statute of lirnitatiqns for filing charges has expired, whichever occurs first." We cannot see hoW Section 67.24(d) applies here. Emergenc~t action plaris are riot records pertaining to an '~investigation; arrest or other law enforcement activity'~ that r.nay re.sult in \>rim[naf prosecution. Tbe California Emergency Service.s Act defines an "emergency action pla,njj a,s "a written document that outlines actions to be undertaken during an emergency in order to minimize or elitT)inate the potential loss of life and property damage.;' (Cal. Govt. Code.§ 8589.5(8.).) As Mr. Busse points out, the Emergency Services Act includes a provision staling that "[l]ocal public safety agencies may adopt emergency procedures that incorporate the information contained in an emerge hey adioh plant (Govt Code§ B589.5(d)(2)), but this reference to a "public safety agency" does not sQmehow render Section (37.24(d) ~?:pplicable here.

Conclusion

In accordance with Seption 6254(k) of the Publlc Records Act and Section 67,27(a) of the Sunshine Ordinance, SFPUC properly relied upon an express exemption in.state law, Section 8589.5(e) of the California Govern.ment Code; to withhold the emergency 9ction plans. This determination was not ba~ed on the Public Records Act;s general :balancing test. Further, enierg.ericy action pians are notcririliriallaw enforcement records subject to ·disClosure under the Sunshine Ordinance.

If you have any questions about this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or [email protected]. Thank you for your time and con$ideration.

Sincerely,

Communications. . . . Manager .

P584 Thomas J. Busse 548 Castro Street #388 San Francisco, CA 94114 415-244-5072

February 9, 2018

Sunshine Ordinance Task Force City Hall, Room 244 San Francisco, CA 94103

Re: File 17134 Supplementary Evidence for Hearing Consideration February 27, 2018

Dear Sir or Madam:

Attached is the official Emergency Action Plan template developed by the Governor's Office of Emergency Services. The top-secret completed templates would be the information the SFPUC has unilaterally decided is not in the public interest to disclose.

1.':"' ~;:J r~ ...... , () ' c.:-:7') l t.::·z;:, (Ji~~: i -,l ' p-, ~~: ~ :·~:) \:l:J -;-,~ j-:-1 ·n <.) ~- r"-.1 ;~~: ~~ ~~~ ~=- ...... -~ v ~'1- ... ·~. ..c- ~;~~~c~} ' - C)t.~ ..c- () CJ1 ;::.) 1~ (.f)

P585 ~mergency Action Plan (EAP) for () , California

With assistance from: · Department of Water Resources Governor's Office of Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) Emergency Services

CalOES·

Dam Owner:

DSOD Region · DSOD Dam No. National Inventory of Dams (NID)-No. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) No.

Copy_ of

Date Prepared: Dl'!te Revised: -

P586 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution

pverviewj ______------______:. ______-----~------~---·: Commented [DSODl]: SAMPLE EAP GUIDANCE •Text highlighted In yellow (eg. Text)needs to be dealt with. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has stated that When done remove the highlighting. increasing the number of Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) for dams is a top •Text highlighted in yellow and surrounded by<> (e.g. ) needs to be replaced with information specific for the dam. When priority of the National Dam Safety Program. Completing an EAP is generally done remove the highlighting. the responsibility of dam owners/operators and emergency managers. INSTRUCfiONS 1.0verview Page: Read and understand. Make sure to remove the The purpose of this sample EAP is to assist dam owners/operators and page from the final EAP. 2.Cover Page: The yellow heighted text Is embedded irl form emergency managers throughout California in completing their EAPs. This fields. After updating all of the information on this page, either document was developed by the Department of Water Resources, Division of Print or Print Preview will update references throughout the remainder of the document to display the information entered on Safety of Dams (DSOD) with funding provided by FEMA. It is modeled after the cover page. · i.Address all of the yellow highlighted text. the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) sample EAP for 4.UPdate Exhibits 3a, 3b, and 3c with the appropriate contact earthen high hazard .dams .. In the development of this EAP, the NRCS sample names and .information. S.Read the entire EAP and understand what it is saying. Update .document was modified to include information specific to California. text, figures, and tables to address the needs and unique circumstances of the dam. 6.Set up a meeting with the local emergency responders, any This document only serves as a sample, providing information and formatting affected downstream jurisdiction's emergency responders, consistent with State of California procedures. It is not intended to meet every California Office of Emergency Services, and regional National Weather Service hydrologist to review the EAP including the ·need, and it is understood that each dam, agency, and dam owner/operator inundation maps. may have unique needs to be addressed in the EAP, so changes are expected to make it a useful document. This electronic document may· be edited as necessary to adapt the format and content to meet local requirements and site-specific situations. ·Highlighted items and blank tables throughout the documen-t should be filled in with information specific to the dam.

After becomiRg familiar with the sample EAP and completing the inc;luded information sheets with site-specific information, consider inserting tabbed and labeled dividers between sections to make for fast and easy access during an emergency.

DSOD can assist dam owners/operators and emergency managers by providing certain information to complete your EAP. DSOD may be contacted at:

Street Address: Mailing Address: .2200 X Street, Suite 200 PO Box 942836 Sacramento, CA 95818 Sacramento, CA 94236-000.1 Phone No: (916) 227-9800 E-Mail (General Information): [email protected]

Sample Last Updated: July31, 2015

P587 For Official Use Only- Not for DistJibutlon Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

Emergency Response Packet

Exhibit 1 - Fact Sheet Exhibit 2 - Example Situations and Emergency Levels . :'· .. - ~ . Exhibit 3a- Emergency Level 1 Notification Flowchart Exhibit 3b - Emergency Level 2 Notification Flowchart Exhibit 3c- Emergency Level 3 Notification Flowchart Exhibit 4- Cal OES Warning Center Reporting Form Exhibit 5 - Contact Log .... ;··.. _ .. : Exhibit 6 -Action and Event Progression Log ··.·.: .. · . .·· Exhibit 7- Possible Remediation Actions .··, .- .. :·.·. Exhibit 8- Locally Available Resources ·.. ··:' Exhibit 9- Inundation Map Exhibit 10 - Schematic of Dam arid Appurtenant Structures ·. ·: Exhibit 11 -Spillway Rating Curve and Storage Capacity Curve . \ :.

-· ... .·:···.· >: : .

.-:·.

: . . . . ~ '

. -.

, DSOD No. , Califomia Page I I

P588 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised·

Exhibit 1 -Fact Sheet CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION- DESTROY BEFORE DISCARDING

1 May be the same as Spillway Elev. (ft). z May be the same as Storage Capacity at Spillway Elev. (ac-ft)

, DSOD No. , California

P589 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

Exhibit 2 - Example Situations and Emergency Levels

This table provides example situations for different events and the emergency levels for -r__ . those situations. Each dam and situation is unique, so good judgment is needed when ~--·· making decisions based on the situation. For definitions of the emergency levels referenced here, see Section II (Step 2). :- -·: . . ·. •'. ·. .·.·.

. ·. ' . :~. :

3 . : .. ~ (Go to Exhibit 3c)

New cracks in embankment greater than 1/4 inch wide without

Cracks in the embankment with seepage

'·::·· •'

Visual deep seated movement/slippage of embankment ~-- ·.: ::· .. ::-. ..· Sudden or rapidly proceeding slides of .. embankment slo . -·: ··.- .. ·. -r .. Spillway flowing with active erosion gullies ··-.-··. ,. . ~ .. ·. : . . ·.... Spillway flowing with significant erosion and 3 .. · head cutting advancing rapidly toward -:_~ . ·.... (Go to Exhibit 3c) reservoir .. Significant fire in the area that affects .. _·.. · access to the dam

'j• . ·-: Instrumentation rE)adings beyond ..... :: .--·- predetermined values , ... ·· ... .. '·: ._ ... Releases causing erosion around outlet --- ·-:···..--.. :' works

(Go to Exhibit 3b) Uncontrolled releases through the outlet with 3 dam failure imminent

, DSOD No. , California

P590 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

Exhibit 2- Example Situations and Emergency Levels (Cont.)

Sudden and rapid increases in flow through boil · Unauthorized personnel seen or reported to be at dam Verified bomb threat that could result in 2 damage to dam Detonated bomb resulting in damage to dam 3 or appurtenances

flow and cloudy rate developing seepage .

r!i~nk•or~.~ Observation of new sinkhole in reservoir area or on embankment

::-.· Spillway is overcome and flow is over an earth embankment

, DSOD No. , California

P591 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

Exhibit 3a- Emergency Level1 Notification Flowchart

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION- DESTROY BEFORE DISCARDING

I ;;:' if d~termined -o CJ'1 LCOP'"" c.o N

Note Call the County Sheriff to inform them of the situation. Make it clear that the dam is currently safe.

;DSOD No. , California For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

Exhibit 3b - Emergency Level 2 Notification Flowchart

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION -DESTROY BEFORE DISCARDING

..., \.'~· .. :

-c ()"I c.o 00

.... ,., '-,:1

, DSOD No. , California For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution· Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

Exhibit 3c- Emergency Level 3 Notification Flowchart

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION- DESTROY BEFORE DISCARDING

"itit2 · · ·w 'r r" · !!\~ :J~t~~ -ri'i•h; .~rr;·rJ•j ..':.W

""'C U'l co i 1 I I. ..j:::o - ::~w~~~d~~~;:[~t~~$~ n": f '.~if 1 1 1 +·~ o "'~ h f ,'1 t '' /Grr/'&va+~ '">'lf}1alitt

, DSOD No. , California For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised~

EXhibit 4- Cal DES Warning Center Reporting Form Complete this form for Emergency Level 2 or 3, then call the Cal OES Warning Center at (916) 845-8911. · · ·

Emergency Event Type: Embankement Embankment Erosion of Earthquake Crack or D D D Movement D Spillway Settlement Abnormal Outlet System Sabotage/ Instrumentation Sand Boils D D Failure D Vandalism D Reading Seepage, Security Threats Sinkholes· Storm Event D D Springs, Piping D D

Additional Details:

, DSOD No. , Ca\ifomia

P595 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

Exhibit 5- Contact Log Dam Name: Date: ------NID #: DSOD Dam #: ~<-"'D-=S'-:::0-=D....:N-:-o'->--= FERC #: DSOD Region County: After determining the emergency level, immediately contact the following agencies/entities. The person making the contact should initial and record the time of the call and who was contacted at each agency/entity.

, DSOD No. , California

P596 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

Exhibit 6- Action and Event Progression Log Complete this log during the emergency. See Exhibit 7 for possible remediation aCtions and, if needed, Exhibit 8 for locally available resources for rock, pumps, etc.

~r-~· ICI !~ IF.l~-

.Report prepared by:

, DSOD No. , California

P597 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

Exhibit 7 - Possible Remediation Actions This table provides examples of possible remediation actions. ~: ·. . -; ... ·..

Inspect dam and evaluate the damage sustained and the potential • • !'• ~ danger of failure. Check for seepage, cracks, displacements, and -:· .. _ settlement. Inspect outlet works and spillways. Evaluate instrumentation. :·,_... ~ .· . Lower the water level· releasing it through outlet or by pumping or siphoning. If necessary, -restore freeboard. Lower water level in reservoir to a safe level; continue operating at a reduced level until · .. -.: can be . :.

'· ·. ..,..

.Provide temporary protection at the point of erosion by placing . ·.·.·· .... ~ '· .. -· .. · sandbags, riprap materials, or plastic sheets weighted with sandbags. Consider pumps and siphons to help reduce the water .level in the reservoir. When inflow subsides, lower the water level :- .._:._:,.· ·- '· in the reservoir to safe level; continue operating at a lower water a .. ;· level to minimize -flow. ·.·-·

. inspections the dam. Check and elevation, rate at which reservoir is rising, weather conditions (past, current, forecasted), discharge conditions of creeks/rivers downstream, and new or changed conditions associated with this . ·... ·· .. ··-·. ·'-:' event. Evaluate of instrumentation. · Implement temporary measures to protect the damaged structure, ,. such as closing the inlet. Lower the water level in the reservoir to ::· a safe elevation, possibly by using pumps or siphons. Consider ·: .. ·. the severity of flow through outlet and increased flows in determ1 leveL _,._ :.. ··

·. ; --~

'• -· -.. :-- :' .-...... · ·. ·.:_ ... , .. . .· ~- -: . .. · ...

, DSOD No. , California ; ·.·

P598 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency' Action Plan Revised-

Exhibit 7- Possible Remediation Actions (Cont.)

Determine location and size of affected area. Estimate discharge rate and nature of discharge (cloudy or clear seepage). Provide temporary protection at point of erosion by placing sandbags around boil area to confine flow. If necessary, lower water level in reservoir to a safe level until ent made.

originates within reservoir or the upstream embankment, plug the flow with available material such as hay bales, bentonite, or plastic sheeting. Lower water level in the reservoir until flow decreases to a non-erosive velocity or until it stops. Place an inverted filter (a protective sand and gravel filter) over the exit area to hold materials in place. Continue lowering the water level until a safe elevation is reached; continue operating at' a reduced IElVel until repairs are made. Stabilize damaged areas on the downstream slope by weighting the toe area below the slide with additional soil Conduct an· immediate engineering exploration to determine cause of sinkhole, and to evaluate damage sustained and potential for failure. Determine exitpoint of flowing water. Implement temporary measures to protect damaged structure, such as closing inlet and lowering water level in reservoir to a safe level until permanent can be made. Conduct daily inspections of dam. Check and record the reservoir elevation, rate at which reservoir is rising, weather conditions (past, current, forecasted), discharge conditions of creeks/rivers downstream, and new or changed conditions associated with this event. If heavy spillway flows are expected to cause downstream damage even though the dam is not in danger, take appropriate · action for nnwn,<:trA<>m

, DSOD No. , . California

P599 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

Exhibit 8 - Locally Available Resources CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION -DESTROY BEFORE DISCARDING

, DSOD No. , .California

P600 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

Exhibit 9 -Inundation Map

, DSOD No. , California

P601 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared

Emergency Action Plan Revised- .~·

Exhibit 10- Schematic of Dam and Appurtenant Structures

, DSOD No. , Cafifomia .. ,;

P602 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

Exhibit 11 -Spillway Rating Curve and Storage Capacity Curve

, DSOD No. , California

P603 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

Table of Contents

Emergency Response Packet ...... i Table of Contents ...... 1 I. Background ...... :...... , ...... 3 a. Purpose ...... : ...... 3 b. NIMS, SEMS, and ICS ...... 3 i. National Incident Management System (NIMS) ...... : ...... '. 3 · · · ii. Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) ...... 3 iii. Incident Command System (ICS) ...... 4 II. Five-Step EAP Process ...... , ...... 5 a. STEP 1 - DETECTION ..... :...... ·...... ' ...... 5 b. STEP 2 -·DETERMINING EMERGENCY LEVEL...... 5 i. Emergency Level1- Unusual,"slowly developing event...... 5 ii. Emergency Level 2 - Potential dam failure, rapidly developing ...... 5 iii. Emergency Level 3- Dam failure appears imminent or is in progress ...... 5 c. STEP 3- NOT(FICATION FLOWCHARTS ...... 5 d. STEP 4- REMEDIATION ACTIONS ...... 6 i. Emergency Level1 ...... : .... 6 ii. Emergency Level 2 ...... :...... · ...... 6 iii. Emergency Level 3 ...... : ...... 6 e. STEP 5- TERMINATION & FOLLOW-UP ...... , ...... 6 Ill. Roles and Responsibilities ...... 8 a. Dam Owner's/Operator's Representative ...... : ...... 8 b. Incident Commander ...... : ...... a· c. California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and Cal OES Warning Center ...... , ...... :...... 8 d. California Department of Water Resources (DWR) ·-: Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) ...... :...... : .....,...... :. 9 IV. Evacuation Responsibilities ...... 10 V. EAP Maintenance ...... : ...... 11 a. Training ...... : ..... : ...... 11

, DSOD No. , California Page 11

P604 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

b. Annual Review and Exercises ...... 11 c. Revisions ...... 11 d. Distribution ...... :." ...... :...... :...... 11 VI. ·Appendices ...... 12

, DSOD No. , California Page \2

P605 For ·official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

I. Background a. Purpose The purpose of this EAP is to reduce the risk of loss of human life or injury, and to minimize property damage in the event of an potential or actual emergency situation associated with . These situations include, but are· not limited to dam instability, sizable earthquakes, extreme storm events, major spillway releases, overtopping of the dam, outlet system failure, abnormal instrument readings, vandalism or sabotage, spillway gate failures,-and failure of the dam. The Fact Sheet (Exhibit 1) includes a description and statistics for the dam. The other information sheets included in this EAP are discussed in Section II, "Five-Step EAP Process." b. NIMS, SEMS, and ICS This EAP leverages the National Incident Management System (NIMS), Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS), and the Incident Command System (ICS) when responding to emergencies. The basic organizational structure of all three systems is shown below:

Command

I l I Planning I Finance I Operations Logistics Intelligence Administration

i. National Incident Management System (NIMS) NIMS provides a systematic, proactive approach to guide departments and agencies at all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work seamlessly to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity, in order to reduce the loss of life and property and harm to the environment. For more Information, visit the NIMS website at http://www.fema.gov/emerqency/nims/.

ii. Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) SEMS is an organizational tool used to mobilize resources throughout the state during emergency events. SEMS also helps different levels of government work with one another during emergencies as well as during day-to-day operations. SEMS was

, DSOD No. , California Page 13

P606 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised- developed using models from ICS, Multi/Inter-Agency Coordination (MAC), Mutual Aid System, and an Operational Area Concept. The organizational levels of SEMS include Field Response (e.g., incident command), Local Government (e.g., city, county or special district), Operational Area (e.g., county area), Region (e.g., mutual aid regions), and State (e.g., Cal OES Region and State Operations Centers). SEMS can be scaled to match the magnitude of the event. For more information, visit the SEMS website at http://Www.calema.'ca.gov/planningandpreparedness/pages/standardized-emergency inanaqement-system.aspx.

iii. Incident Command System (ICS) ICS is a standardized, on-scene, all-hazard incident management concept. It allows personnel from various agencies to meld into an integrated organizational structure to match the complexities and demands of single or multiple incidents without being hindered by jurisdictional boundaries. ICS promotes the safety of responders and others, the achievement of tactical objectives, and the efficient use of resources.

, DSOD No. , California Page 14

P607 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

II. Five-Step EAP Process ._:;·

..~...:. •.. ~ . a. STEP 1 - DETECTION Step 1 involves emergency detection, evaluation, and incident classification. Regular surveillance at the site is the normal method of detecting potential emergency situations. For conditions beyond the normal range of operations, contact the Division· of Safety of Dams (DSOD) for assistance with evaluation. .·;". b. STEP 2- DETERMINING EMERGENCY LEVEL Step 2 involves determining the appropriate emergency level for a given event.. Use the .. table in Example Situations and EmergencyLevels (Exhibit 2) for guidance in · determining· the emergency level for a varietx of eveflts that couid develop at a dam.

Each event or situation is classified as one of the following:

i. Emergency Level1 -Unusual, slowly developing event This classification indicates a situation is developing; however, the dam·is not in danger of failing. In many cases, these unusual events are remedied with no further action required. In some cases, flow over spillways could cause unexpected flooding downstream, but the dam is not. endangered. In cases of spillway releases, downstream residents may need to be notified if flooding threatens life or property, but it . should be made clear the dam is safe.

ii. Em.ergency Level 2- Potential dam failure, rapidly developing This classification indicates that a situation is rapidly developing that could cause the dam to fail. A reasonable amount of time is available for analysis before deciding whether to evacuate residents. Emergency responders in affected areas will be alerted .'·. that an unsafe situation is developing.

iii. ·Emergency Level 3- Dam failure appears immine11t or is in progress ·... ·. This classification indicates ·dam failure is imminent or in progress and could threaten life and property. When it is determined that there is no longer time available to implement corrective measures to prevent dam failure, an order for evacuation of residents in potential inundation areas will be issued by the incident commander or emergency responder.

c. STEP 3- NOTIFICATION FLOWCHARTS The three Emergency Notification Flowchqrts (Exhibits 3a, 3b, and 3c) were prepared to . \ ...

assist EAP personn'el during an emergency. Each chart identifies who is responsible for . ·.. ~ notifying representatives and/or emergency management officials; the prioritized order in which individuals are to be notified; and who is to be notified. Use the Contact Log

, DSOD No. , California PagelS

P608 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

(Exhibit 5) to track required notifications that are attempted or made. The. contact ·i. information on each notification flowcharts must be updated annually by the dam owner's/operator's representative. d. STEP 4- REMEDIATION ACTIONS Possible Remediation Actions (Exhibit 7) provides the dam owner's! operator's representative with a set of actions to take for different events. The actions listed are not all inclusive of those that may need to be taken during an emergency. Use the Actions and Event Progression Log (Exhibit 6) to document the .emergency event.

i. Emergency l,.eve11 For an unusual, slowly developing event, use the Emergency Leve/1 Notification Flowchart (Exhibit 3a) to make the necessary notifications. Provide the information from the completed i=act Sheet (Exhibit 1). Follow the actions outlined in Possible Remediation Actions (Exhibit 7).

ii. Emergency Level 2 For a potentia! dam failure that is rapidly developing, use the Emergency Level 2 Notification Flowchart (Exhibit 3b) to make the necessary notifications. Provide the information from the completed Fact Sheet (Exhibit 1) and Ca/ OES Warning Center Reporting Form (Exhibit 4). Follow the guidelines in Possible Remediation Actions (Exhibit 7).

iii. Einergency'Level 3. If dam failure appears imminent or is in wogress, nothing further can be done to save the dam. Personal safety and preservation of life must take priority. Use the Emergency Level 3 Notification F!owr;;hart (Exhibit 3c) to make the necessary notifications. Provide the information from the completed Fact Sheet (Exhibit 1) and Cal OES Warning Center Reporting Form (Exhibit 4).

e. STEP 5- TERMINATION & FOLLOW-UP Step 5 involves event termination and follow-up activities. Once conditions indicate that there is no longer an emergency at the dam site, EAP operations are terminated and follow-up procedures then needs to be completed. ·

The incident commander is responsible for terminating the emergency event and relaying this decision to appropriate individuals and agencies.

Prior to the termination of an Emergency Level 3 event that has not caused actual dam · failure, DSOD will inspect the dam to determine whether- any damage has occurred that could potentially result in loss of life, injury, or property damage. If it is determined that

. , DSOD No. , California Page 16

P609 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared .<. Emergency Action Plan · Revised· conditions do not pose a threat to people or property, then the incident commander will terminate EAP operations as described previously in this section.

The dam owner's/operator's representative will make sure that the Emergency Situation Report (Appendix A) is completed to document th.e emergency event and all actions taken. The dam owner's/operator's representative 'will distribute a copy of the completed report to DSOD. If the event escalates to an Emergency Level 2 or greater, the dam owner's/operator's representative should also qe involved with preparing an After Action Report (not included in this sample EAP), which analyzes what happened, why it happened, and how it can be prevented in the future.

··.·.

. . . ·~ . .· ..

.~: ; ..

:·t; . ·... ·~.

< .· ·.·

, DSOD No. , California Page\7

P610 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised~

Ill. Roles and Responsibilities a. Dam Owner's!Operator's Representative The dam owner's/operator'$ representative includes maintenance personnel, safety personnel, ·and executives, if ap·pucable. Duties include the following:·

• As soon as an emergency event is observed or reported, immediately determine the emergency level as detailed in Section II, "5-Step EAP Process" (Step 2). • Immediately notify personnel in the priority order shown on the Emergency Notification Flowchart for the appropriate level (Exhibits 3a, 3b, or 3c). • Provide updates of the situation to the police/sheriff disp?tcher to assist them in making timely and accurate decisions regarding warnings and evacuations. • Provide leadership to ensure the EAP is reviewed and updated annually and copies of the revised EAP are distributed to all who received copies of the original EAP, and any other agency/department in need of the document. See Section V, "EAP Maintenance" for more information. · b. Incident Commander The incident commander function provides for unified command between applicable agencies and consists of establishing the incident command post, protecting life and property, controlling personnel and equipment resources, maintaining accountability for responder and p·ublic safety, and establishing and maintaining an effective liaison with outside agencies and organizations. Duties may include the following:

• Establishing command • Ensuring responder safety • Assessing incident priorities • Determining operational objectives

Q Developing an appropriate organizational structure • Maintaining a manageable span of control • Coordinating overall emergency activities • Coordinating the activities of outside agencies • Authorizing the release of information to the media • Terminating the emergency • Participating in an annual review and update of the EAP

c. California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and Cal OES Warning Center Cal OES plays dual.roles in managing 1m emergency; one at the regional level and the other at the state level. The regions include ln)and Region, Coastal Region, and

, DSOD No. , Califomia Page 18

P611 . For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

·. :·. Southern Region, while the state level constitutes the executives aod brokers resources ' . ~ ... ._.:v.:-.- between the regions. The state level also interfaces with the National Response : ... ~- ·- .,.: : '. .. Framework, and informs the governor, legislature, and state emergency management .. ,· stakeholders. Cal OES also implements state-level media policy and provides the . \: primary coordination with SEMS and NIMS at the federal level. Cal OES regions will participate in the annual review and update of the EAP.

The Cal OES Warning Center is the link for notifications between state and federal .. ·,. agencies for this EAP. At the request of the operational area manager or a state . .. :'. agency, the Warning Center can obtain rapid responses from the personnel who coordinate resources for emergency response.

The Warning Center is operated 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and, in. extreme conditions, a dam owner's/operator's representative may request that the Warning Center notify the local sheriff's office on their behalf as a backup notification plan. The .:. , · · county sheriff is the first agency notified if this assistance is requested.

Immediate notiflcations would be·provided to:

• DWR- Division of Safety of Dams • National Weather Service • Cal OES Duty Officers • Flood Operations Center • State Parks and Recreation and/or • Other agencies/departments as dictated by the event or required by law

d. California Department of Water Resources {DWR)- Division of Safety of 'Dams {DSOD) The mission of DSOD is to protect people against the loss of life and property due to dam failure. The California Water Code entrusts this regulatory power to the Department of Water Resources, which delegates the responsibility to DSOD. In the event of an emergency at the dam, DSOD actions could include, but are not limited to:

• Advising the dam owner's/operator's representative of the emergency level determination · Advising the dam owner's/operator's representative of remedial actions to take • Inspecting the dam during and/or after the emergency

, DSOD No. , California Page 19

P612 .For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

IV. Evacuation Responsibilities The dam owner/operator is responsible for notifying the appropriate emergency management authority when an incident is antiCipated, is imminent, or has occurred. Warning and evacuation planning and implementation are the responsibilities of local emergency management authorities with the legal authority to perform these actions ..

The dam owner/operator should not assume or usurp the responsibility of government · entities for the evacuation of peop.le during an incident. However, there. may be situations in which routine notification and evacuation will not be sufficient, as in the case of a residence located immediately downstream of a dam or a campground that would be inundated within minutes of a dam failure. In some cases, the dam owner/operator can arrange to notify the residence or campground directly. Such instances should be outlined within the dam's EAP by including those specific notifications on the appropriate Emergency·Notification Flowchart (Exhibits 3a, 3b, ·and 3c).

; DSOD No. , California Page 110

P613 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared .··, Emergency Action Plan Revised-

V. E;AP Maintenance . .-: . ...

. ·;:. a. Training All personnel involved in the EAP should be familiar with the elements of the plan, their responsibilities and duties outlined in the plan and, if applicable, the types and availability of equipment during an emergency. Personnel should be familiar with problem detection arid evaluation, and appropriate remediation actions, as detailed in the Emergency Response Packet·included in this EAP. b. Annual Review and Exercises The dam owner's/operator's representative will review and, if needed, update the EAP at least once annually. This review includes calling all contact information listed ·on the Emergency Response Packet to verify that contact names,. phone numbers, addresses and other information is current. One of the most important among these being the contacts listed in the Emergency Notification Flowcharts (Exhibits 3a, 3b, and 3c). Making updates to Locally Available Resources (Exhibit 8) along with the other exhibits is also important so that accurate information is readily available during an emergency.

The dam owner's/operator's representativewill facilitate a periodic test, either tabletop or f~ll functional exercise, of the EAP. The frequency of testing, based on the hazard potential of the dam, may be determined by the dam owner's/operator's representative and local responders (e. g., the county sheriff). c. Revisions The dam :owner's/operator's representative is responsible for updating the EAP document. The EAP document held by the dam owner's/operator's representative is the master document. When revisions are made, the dam owner's/operator's representative will update the Record of EAP Revisions (Appendix B), and will distribute the revised version to all EAP document holders. The document holders are responsible for replacing their outdated copy of the EAP when revisions are received. Outdated EAPs must be· immediately discarded to avoid any confusion with the revisions .. The EAP should identify which pages contain confidential information to ensure proper disposal of outdated pages (such as by shredding) upon receipt of updates. The dam owner's/operator's representative should consider numbering the EAP documents as "Copy_ of_" prior to initial distribution .

.d. Distribution Copies of this EAP will be provided to all individuals or groups who are involved in the notification procedures for this dam. Use the Record of EAP Distribution (Appendix C) . to record who has received a copy of the EAP. The form includes a column for noting the number of capies distributed and to whom each numbered copy was distributed.

, DSOD No. , California Page 111

P614 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

VI. Appendices Appendix A -Emergency Situation Report Appendix B - EAP Revisions Appendix C - Record of EAP Distribution

, DSOD No. , California Page 112

P615 For Official Use Only- Not for Disbibutlon Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

Appendix A. -Emergency Situation Report Complete this form after the emergency is terminated. Date: Time: ------Dam Name: DSOD Dam No: Dam Location: -C~i~------~C~o-u-n~~~------~S~~-e-am~~R~i~ve-r~--

Weather Conditions:

General description of emergency situation;

Areas of dam affected:

Extent of damage to dam:

Possible ~auses of damage:

Effect on dam operation:

Initial reservoir elevation: Time: Maximum reservoir elevation: ------Time: Final reservoir elevation: Time: ------'---

Description of area flooded downstream/damages/injuries :

Other data and comments:

Observer's name and phone number : Report prepared by: ------Date:

, DSOD No. , California Appendix A Page II

P616 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

Appendix B- EAP Revisions

-10 ,.<. ;.: ....

, DSOD No. , California Appendix B Page \I

P617 For Official Use Only- Not for Distribution Prepared Emergency Action Plan Revised-

Appendix C- Record of EAP Distribution Dam Name: DSOD Dam No:

\'orgahiZaHorl''''' ,,: ·· · ·Person Receivin!:fCopy ;:~~~y· Position .. ·· Name· ·.1' Dam Headquarters <2 Local Emergency Management Agency _·;3. Local Fire and Rescue .4 County Sheriff's Department 5 City Police Department 6 Cal OES 7 DSOD 8 National Weather Service g. 10 (And all other agencies and/or personnel listed in EAP Notification Flowcharts)

, DSOD No. , California Appendix C Page II

P618 Comml)nicafions San Francisco 5:?.5) Golden Gate Avenu!'; 12fh Floor · San Franc\scb, Of\ 941 ..02 T 415.554·3289 F 415.554.32~2, TTY 415.554:3488

SENT VIA ELEGTRONlC MAIL

Honorab.le, Members. of the Stmshthe Ordtharioe Task Force c/o: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors ·Attn:VictoxYow.ng;. A9m.in'islm.tor 1 br, Carlton B. Goodlett Place; Room 244 San FranGis¢o QA 941 02 vict,o r ,young@ sf.gov.org

Re: SutiShi:ne 0-tdihat.tc.e Task Fo.rce ,Cohtplaint No. 1713'4 (Thomas BLiss.e v. Public Utilities Commission arid:'the Office of the City· Attemey)

Dear Honorable Task Force Members~

This }!;Jtter resp_onds on \Jehi'iif of the $an t=ranoisco PL!blio UtHiti(3s . . . ~ ' Commission ·tSFPUC) to ComplaXnt No, 17i34, filed with the Task Foroe by Thomas Busse on December 13, ·2017, and emailed to ther SFPUO on December ·1 4. The Complaint alleg·es thatthe SFPUC violateq the Sum;;.hine Ortiina,m;e bywltbholding·frorn dis:t;::)osure "emer.9ency at:tion plp:ns," which C).i'e .~x~mpt from dis.G'Io$ur$ und0r the .California Emerg~ncy Ser\!tceq.Act. Spedff:cally, tlie Gcimplaih'talleges that the ·SFPUC violated th:ese: proVisions of the Sunshine Ordinance:. (i) $e.otiot'l 6:7;27(a), by relying on an exemption $PE3Pific;aily oo.dlfieo In to~ G<:Hifqrnia JErnerganoy $:Srvice:s. Act rather than in the Lcnrlo.n Bre~~ Public R~cbtds A6t; (2) si::ctlons 67 .24{g) and (i).; which prohibit .Cit;/a,g'ehcies . Presi.dent of from relying cin the general !'balancing test" in Section 6255 of the Public the Board .of Supervisors and Re8ords Act to withhold reeords; ancl (3).SeqtiQn ()7.24(d), whjqh requir?s Acting Mayor di$olosure .af certain (•law enforcement records, lkeKw.orr Presii:!~ht Vince Courtney We respectfylly reqwesf that the Task Foret? dis.mi;:;sthe Gorrrpl<;lint. Vice President .Ann Mctiler ria en Summary G.o.inmi~sionsr fr

S~rVi"'es of th~ S~n Frap~isoo Pubiic Litil(ti!ls 'GornniissiDJJ

OURIV11SS.!ON: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer s..E?tVices in a mai1ner that values environmental and con1rnunity injerests and sustains the resources entrusted · to OI.Jr.ca.re.. P619 · disclosure records "the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuq.nt to federal or state law." The Sunshine Ordinance does not invalidate or restrict the application of Section 6254(k). And state law- nameHy, the California . Emergency Services Act- expressly exempts "emergency action plans" from disclosure under the Public Records Act. (See Cal. Govt Code§ 8589.5(e).) It was therefore proper for the SFPUC to rely on this provision to withhold its . emergency action plans from Mr. Busse.

Further, contrary to Mr. Busse's assertions, the SFPUC did not rely on the Public Records Act's general balancing test as a basis to withhold the emergency action plans. Nor do the emergency action plans constitute "law enforcemenf' records that are the subject of Section 67.24(d) of the Sunshine Ordinance.

Factual Background

The Complaint pertains to an October 6, 20i7 public records request that Mr. Busse submitted to the SFPUC that asked for six categories of records, including:

All documents in the possession ofthe SFPUC matching the description of an "Emergency Action Plan" described in Section 8589.5 of the Government Code (added by SB 92). My request includes Emergency AQtion Plans of SFPUG . facilities as well as other California facilities that the SFPUC may have on file for reference, consultation, etc. including in e-mail attachments, etc., but are not actualli emergency action plans created by the SFPUC, E;)specially plans of the SWP and Dept. of Water Resource.s.

Earlier this year, the Legislature amended th~ California Emergency · Services Act (Cal. Govt Code § 8550 et seq.) by enacting Section 8589.5 of the California Government Code (also referred to by Mr. Busse as "SB 92"). The new law. requires the owner of a dam to develop and submit to the Califon1ia Department of Water Re.sources and the Office of Emergency Services an "emergency action plad' based upon an inundation map or map.s. Among other things, the law states that nothing in the California Public Records Act "shall be construed to require disclosure of an emergency action plan," Cal. G.ovt Code § 8589.5(e).

In its response to Mr. Busse's request, the SFPUC stated that it Was d(3clining to disclose emergency q.ction plans based on .the exemption in Section 8589.5(e) of the Government Code. In its response, the SFPUG also

P620 cited a federal case, Living Rivers, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 272 F.Supp.2d. 1313 (2003), to help explain the policy rationale. underlying the exemption in Section 8589.5(e) ofthe Government Code, namely that disclosing a dam's vulnerabilities and planned critical emergency responses poses a security risk.

Analysis

L There Has Been No Violation of Section 67.27(a) of the Sunshine Ordinance.

The Complaint alleges that Section 8589.5(e) of the California Government Code is not ''a permissive exemption" upon which the City may rely to withhold records under Section 67.27(a) of the Sunshine Ordinance because it is not specifically codified in the Public Records Act, but instead .resides in a different part of the Government Code, the California Emergency Services Act. According to Mr. Busse, Section 67.27(a) allows the City to withhold records only based on an exemption that is specifically codified in the Public Records Act and not elsewhere in State law. He further claims that the exemption in Section 8589.5(e)·applies only to the State's Office of Emergency Servi.ces and cannot be invoked by any local agencies under the Public Records Act.

Mr. Busse's claim is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of exemptions under the Public Records Act and the Sunshine Ordinance. Section E)254(k) of the Public Records Act states that the Act does not require the disclosure of "[r]ecords, the disclosure of which is exempted o.r prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of th.e Evidence Code relating to privilege." (Cal. Govt Code§ 6254(k) (emphasis added).) As the text of Section 6254(k) makes Clear, if a state law-'- any state law- exempts disclosure· of a record, the Public Records Act does not require discloswre of that record. Indeed, Section 6254(k)- which is itself an enumerated exemption in the Act- cross-references in the Act all exemptions and prohibitions in state and federal law, rather than listitlg in the Act the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of state and fec:leral laws that exempt records from disclosure requirements or prohibit disclosure altogether. The point of Section 6254(k) is to treat the state and federal laws as if they were specifically named in the Act as"exemptions.

But, while it is proper, and we thJnk correct, to consider the exemption for emergency action plans in Section 8589.5(e) to be incorporated in the Public Records Act through Section 6254(k), one need not reach that

P621 conclusion to recognize that the Sunshine Ordinance does not prohibit the SFPUC from relying on that exemption. Section 67.27(a) of the Sunshine Ordinance recognizes that to be viable an exemption need not be specifically codified in the Public Records Act; it states that the City may withhold records based upon "a specific permissive e:x:~mption in the C~l1fornia Public Records Act, or elsewhere .. .'' (emphasis added). So, even if one does not concede that the exemption for emergency action plans is incorporated into the Public Records Act, ft still would reside "elsewhere," that is, in Section 8589.5(e) of the Government Code. Hence the SFPUC may rely upon it.

Finally; nothing in Section 8589.5 suggests, as Mr. Busse claims, that the exemption may be asserted only by state agencies, and not local agencies.· To the contrary, the Legislative Counsel's Digest for SB 92, the bill enacting Section 8589.5, states, without qualification, that "the bill would exempt an emergency action plan from disclosure under the California Public Records Act" (2017 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 26 (S.B. 92).) And, glven the security concerns prompting the exemption, which are discussed more fully below, it would have been nonsensical for the Legislature to exempt such plans when in the possession of a state agency but not when in the possession of a local agency.

In sum, the SFPUC properly invoked the exemption in the California Emergency Services Act in accordance with both Section 6254(k) of the Public Records Act and Section 67.27(a) of the Sunshine Ordinance.

II. There Has Been No Violation of Sections 67.24(g) or (i) of the Sunshine Ordinance.

Mr. Busse also alleges that the SFPUC violated Sections 67:24(g) and (i) of the Sunshine Ordinance on the theory that the agency relied upon the general "balancing tesf' in Section 6255 of the Public Repords Act, which allows an agency to withhold a record where there is no specific exemption if, on balance, "the public interest served by not disclosing the record clearly . .outweighs the public interest served by disclosing the record.'' Section 67.24(g) of the Sunshine Ordinance prohibits the City from asserting the Section 6255 balance as a basis for withholding records, and .Section 67.24(i) similarly prohibits the City from withholding records "based on a finding or showing that the ·public interest in· withholding the information outweighs the public interest in disclosure.;'

But, as stated above, the SFPUC withheld the recorq]s not based on any balanCing test but based on the exemption provided unde.r Government

P622 Co.de Section 8589.5(e) in the California Emergency Services Act. In its response to Mr. Busse, the SFPUC included a reference to "security risks" posed by revealing emergen9y action plans and cited a federal court cc;~se, Living Rivers, Inc. v. United States Bureau of Reclamation, 272 F.Supp.2d. 1313 (2003), which discusses that terrorists could USE? an inundation map to estimate the damage caused by attacking a particular dam. Perhaps this reference led Mr. Busse to the mistaken conclusion that the SFPUC was · invoking the balancing test. That was not the case. The SFPUC proVided the citation to Living Rivers merely to help explain to a member of the public the policy rationale underlying Section 8589.5(e)'s exemption for emergency action plans -the same rationale articulated by the Legislature iri enacting Section 8589.5:

In order to protect public safety, it is necessary to protect an· emergency action plan submitted pursuant to this act as confidential. An emergency action plan contains a blueprint for emergency response following an incident involving a dam and details various failure scenarios of a dam and its related critical infrastructure. An emergency action plan also includes specific notification procedures and information about local emergency management officials, such as their personal identifying information. In order to keep this information from individuals with improper motivations who could use the information maliciously to expose a dam's vulnerabilities and to disrupt a critical emergency response, it is in the state's inter(3st to limit public access to this information.

(2017 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 26 (S.B. 92, Sec. 102).) The Legislature enacted the specific exemption in Section 8589.5(e) to address the security concerns posed by disclosure of emergency action plans. It would have made no sense for the SFPUC to rely on general balancing to deny Mr. Busse's request, since the exemption obviates any need for the SFPUC to rely on general balancing to withhold emergency action plans.

Ill. · There Has Been No Violation of Section 67.24(d) of the Sunshine Ordinance. Finally, Mr. Busse clatm.s that Section 67.24(d) of the Ordinance, "Law · Enforcement Information," prohibits SFPUC from withholding emergency a9tion plans. Section 67.24(d) imposes a limitation on Section G254(f) of the Public Records .Act, which exempts from disclosure

[r]ecords of complaints to, or investigations conducted by, or records of intelligence information or security procedures of, the office of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, the Office of Emergency Services and any state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled

P623 by any other state or local police agency, or any investigatory or security files compiled by any other state or local agency for correctionaJ, law enforcement, or licensing purposes.

(Cal. Govt. Code§ 6254(f).) Section 67.24(d) limits Section 6254(f) by requiring disclosure of "[r]ecords pertaining to any invest!gation, arrest, or other law enforcement activity ... once the District Attorney or c::ourt determines that a prosecution will not be sought against the subj~ct involved, or once the statute of limitations for filing charges has expired, whichever occurs first." We cannot see how Section 67.24(d) applies here. Emergency action plans are not records pertaining to ali "investigation, arrest or other law enforcement activity" that may result in <;:riminal prosecution. The California Emergency Services Act defines an "emergency action plan" as "a written document that outlines actions to be undertaken during an ·emergency in order to minimize or elim,inate the potential loss of life and property damage." (Cal. Govt Code§ 8589.5(a).) As · Mr. Busse points out, the Emergency Services Act includes a provision stating that "[l]ocal public safety agencies may adopt emergency procedures that incorporate the information contained in an emergency action plan," (Govt Code§ 8589.5(d)(2)), but this reference to a ·~public safety agency" does not somehow render Section 67.24(d) applicable here.

Conclusion

In accordance with Section 6254(k) of the Publfc Records Act and Section 67.27(a) of the Sunshine Ordinance, SFPUC properly relied upon an express exemption in state law, Section 8589.5(e) of the California Government Code, to withhold the emergency action plans. This determination was not based on the Public Records Act's general balancing test. Further, emergency action plans are not criminal law enforcement records subject to ·disclosure underthe Sunshine Ordinance.

If you have any questions about this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or [email protected]. Thank you for your time and Gonsideration.

Sincerely,

Communications Manager

P624 Leger, Cheryl (BOS)

From: SOTF, (BOS) Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2018 1:50 PM To: 'Public Records'; GUZMAN, ANDREA (CAT); Cityattorney, (CAT); Gard, Susan (HRD); PublicRecords, DHR (HRD); Buckley, Theresa (TTX); Patterson, Kate (ART); DeCaigny, Tom (ART); Trickey, Anne (ART) Cc: Calvillo, Angela (BOS) Subject: SOTF - Notice of Hearing to Determine Jurisdiction - Complaint Committee: January 23, 2018, 5:30 p.m.

Good Afternoon:

Notice is hereby given that the Complaint Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (SOTF) shall hold hearings on complaints listed below to determine if the SOTF has jurisdiction pursuant to Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21(e). A hearing to review the merits of the complaint will be scheduled on a future date.

The Complainant and Respondent are not required to attend the January 23, 2018, Complaint Committee meeting but may attend to provide testimony related to the determination of jurisdiction.

Date: January 23, 2018

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 5:30p.m.

Complaints:

File No. 17134: Complaint filed by Thomas Busse against the San Francisco Public Utilities for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, 67.24(g)(i), 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner and against the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21 (i), for acting as legal counsel for denying access to a public record.

File No 17136: Complaint filed by Patrick Monette-Shaw against the Department of Human Resources for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.25 and 67.34, by willfully failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 18001: Complaint filed by Julian Sarkar against Jose Cisneros and the Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance, Section 67.21, by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 18002: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against Tom DeCaigny and Ann Trickey, Arts Commission, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21 and 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.

P6.25 File No. 18003: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against Arts Commission, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.7, 67.20, 67.25 and 67.27, by failing to make supporting documents available, failing to response to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a complete manner and failing to provide justification for withholding records ..

Victor Young Assistant Clerk Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall., Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102 phone 415-554-7724 fax 415-554-5163 victor.young@sfgov.~rg I www.sfbos.org

({Q• Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: 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 provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be mode available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

P626 Young, Victor

From: SOTF, (BOS) Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2018 10:04 AM To: 'atreboux1 [email protected]'; Patterson, Kate (ART); Trickey, Anne (ART); 'Magick Altman'; Kilshaw, Rachael (POL); Rodriguez, Angela (POL); 'Public Records'; GUZMAN, ANDREA (CAT); Cityattorney, (CAT) Cc: Calvillo, Angela (BOS) Subject: SOTF- Notice of Hearing- Complaint Committee: February 27, 2018, 5:30p.m.

Good Morning:

Notice is hereby given that the Complaint Committee ofthe Sunshine Ordinance Task Force shall hold hearings on complaints listed below to: 1) determine if the Task Force has jurisdiction; 2) review the merits of the complaints; and/or 3) issue a report and/or recommendation to the Task Force.

Date: February 27,2018

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 5:30p.m~

Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing.

Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of reco~ds or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter? is required at the meeting/hearing.

Complaints: .

File No. 17120: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against Anne Trickey, Arts Commission, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.13 and 67 .15(b )(c)( d), by failing to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address a policy body without abridging or prohibiting public criticism of the policy, procedures, programs or services of the City.

File No. 17134: Complaint filed by Thomas Busse against the San Francisco Public Utilities for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, 67.24(g)(i), 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely andJor complete manner and against the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21(i), for acting as legal counsel for denying access to a public record.

P627 Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

·Victor Young Assistant Clerk Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall., Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102 phone 415-554-7724 fax 415-554-5163 [email protected] I www.sfbos.org

lEO• Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: 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 provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oro/ communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may· appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

p 6?.28 ::£ oung, Victor

From: SOTF, (BOS) Sent: Monday, March 12,201811:58 AM To: 'Thomas Busse'; 'Public Records'; COTE, JOHN (CAT); 'Guzman, Andrea (CAT)'; Peters, Michelle (PUC); 'Ann'; MOORE, DWIGHT (CAT); 'Denta Tadesse' Cc: Calvillo, Angela (BOS) Subject: SOTF- Notice of Hearing- Complaint Committee: March 27, 2018, 5:30p.m.

Good Morning:

Notice is hereby given that the Complaint Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (Task Force) shall hold hearings on complaints listed below to: 1) determine if the Task Force has jurisdiction; 2) review the merits of the complaints; and/or 3) issue a report and/or recommendation to the Task Force.

Date: March 27,2018

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 5:30p.m.

Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing.

Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.

Complaints:

File No. 17134: Complaint filed by Thomas Busse against the San Francisco Public Utilities CoJ1l111ission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, 67.24(g)(i), 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 18013: Complaint filed by Thomas Busse against the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21(i), for acting as legal counsel to denying access to a public record. (Divided from File No. 17134)

File No. 18009: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against Dwight Moore and the Office of the City Attorney, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(a)(d)(e), 67.26, 67.29.5 and 67.34 4, 67.25, 67.26 and 67.27, by willfully failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request.

File No. 18010: Complaint filed by Denta Tadesse against the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Chapter 67, regarding violation of the rights to pnvacy.

Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

P6.29 Victor Young Assistant Clerk Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall., Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102 phone 415-554-7724 fax 415-554-5163 [email protected] I www.sfbos.org

• •'it) Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: 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 provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are nat required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy. ·

Pli30 Young, Victor

From: SOTF, (BOS) Sent: Wednesday, April11, 2018 8:57AM. To: 'Thomas Busse'; 'Public Records'; Peters, Michelle (PUC); 'Randy sinki'; 'atreboux1 0 @aol.com'; Patterson, Kate (ART); Page_Ritchie, Sharon (ART); Trickey, Anne (ART) Cc: Calvillo, Angela (BOS) Subject: SOTF- Notice of Hearing- Complaint Committee: Apri124, 2018, 5:30p.m.

Good Morning:

Notice is hereby given that the Complaint Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force shall hold hearings on complaints listed below to: 1) determine if the Task Force has jurisdiction; 2) review the merits of the complaints; and/or 3) issue a report and/or recommendation to the Task Force.

Date: April24, 2018

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: . 5:30p.m. to 7:30p.m.

Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing.

Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.

Complaints:

File No. 17134: Complaint filed by Thomas Busse against the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67.24(g)(i), 67.27,by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 17101: Complaint filed by Randy Sinki against the Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.25, by failing to respond to an Immediate Disclosure Request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 18018: Complaint filed by Randi Sinki against the Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code, Sections 67.14, by failing to make audio recording available ()nline within 72 hours.

FileNo. 17061: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against the Arts Commission, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67 .16, by failing to comply with the Sunshine Ordinance requirements regarding submitted publiC comment summaries.

File No. 17126: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against Sharon Page-Ritchie and the Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.16, by failing to make minutes available no later than ten working days after the meeting (Arts Commission November 6, 2017, meeting).

P~31 File No. 17127: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against Anne Trickey and the Alis Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.9, by failing to make agendas of meetings and any other documents on file available to the public, when intended for distribution to all, or a majority of all, of members of a policy body in connections with a matter anticipated for discussion or consideration at a public meeting.

Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing. For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/suppoliing documents must be received by 5:00pm, April17, 2018.

Victor Young Administrator, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall., Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102 phone 415-554-7724 I fax 415-554-5163 [email protected] I www.sfbos.org

I) df:D Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: 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 provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

Pri32 Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint Summary

File No. 17134

Thomas Busse V Public Utilities Commission and the Office of the City Attorney

Date filed with SOTF: 12/13/17

Contacts information (Complainant information listed first): [email protected] (Complainant) pub licrecords@sfwater. org; andrea. guzman@sfgov. org; cityattorney@sfcityatty. org (Respondent)

File No. 17134: Complaint filed by Thomas Busse against the San Francisco Public Utilities for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance}, Section 67.21, 67.24(g)(i), 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner and against the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21 (i), for acting as legal counsel for denying access to a public record.

Administrative Summary if applicable:

Complaint Attached.

P633 young, Victor

From: Darby, Deilia J Sent: Tuesday, April17, 2018 5:10PM To: '[email protected]' Cc: Public Records; Young, Victor; SOTF, (BOS) Subject: SENT: Documentation (SOTF - Notice of Hearing - Complaint Committee: April 24, 2018, 5:30 p.m.) Attachments: Busse Letter 4.17.18 CAO.PDF; CL To Complaint Committee 4.17.18.pdf

Dear Mr .. Busse:

Thank you for your request for public information. Please find attached and below the responsive documents to your request.

All redacted EAPs can be found at the following link: https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-s3c5444e2ac548d5a

Please know that we take our obligations under the Sunshine Ordinance very seriously, and SFPUC staff members make every effort to honor all requests within what is allowable by law and what is necessary to protect the public health and safety.

Sincerely,

Public Records Coordinator

Public Records San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 525 Golden Gate Ave. 12th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94103

Public Records Main Line: 415-934-5753 Public Records Fax: 415-554-3282

[email protected]

From: SOTF, {BOS) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April11, 2018 8:57AM To: Thomas Busse ; Public Records ; Peters, Michelle D ; Randy sinki ; [email protected]; Patterson, Kate (ART) ; Page_Ritchie, Sharon (ART) ; Trickey, Anne {ART) Cc: Calvillo, Angela (BOS) Subject: SOTF- Notice of Hearing- Complaint Committee: April 24, 2018, 5:30p.m.

Good Morning:

Pt>34 Notice is hereby given that the Complaint Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force shall hold hearings on complaints listed below to: 1) determine ifthe Task Force has jurisdiction; 2) review the merits of the complaints; and/or 3) issue a report and/or recommendation to the Task Force.

Date: April24, 2018

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 5:30 P:m. to 7:30p.m,

Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing.

Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.

Complaints:

File No. 17061: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against the Arts Commission, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.16, by failing to comply with the Sunshine Ordinance requirements regarding submitted public comment summaries.

File No. 17126: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against Sharon Page-Ritchie and the Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67 .16, by failing to make minutes available no later than ten working days after the meeting (Arts Commission November 6, 2017, meeting).

File No. 17127: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against Anne Trickey and the Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.9, by failing to make agendas of meetings and any other documents on file available to the public, when intended for distribution to all, or a majority of all, of members of a policy body in connections with a matter anticipated for discussion or consideration at a public meeting.

Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

P~35 Victor Young Administrator, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall., Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102 phone 415-554-7724 fax 415-554-5163 . [email protected] www.sfbos.org

fit"tJ• Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: 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 provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit i:o the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from thes~; submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, ·addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

P636 · 525 Golden Gate Avenue, I bth Floor San Francisco San Francisco, CA 94102 Water T 415.554.2408 Operator of the He.tch Hetchy Regional Water System

Aprll i 7, 20i 8

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Dear Mr. Busse,

We write to follow up on our March 29, 2018 letter regarding your public records request for Emergency Action Pla.ns (EAPs) within the possession of the .SFPUC. In OLir M?rch 29 letter, we provided you with a.redacted version of the EAP for Moccasin Dam and stated that we were undertaking a review of all EAPs to determine whether it would be possible to release redacted versions. We have now completed that review process and a,re attaching redacted versions of all of the remaining EAPs in our possession.

As we have explained previously, Section 8589.5(e) of the California Government Code exempts EAPs from disclosure under the California Public Records Act(CPRA). Section 6254(k) of the CPRA and Section 67.27(a) of the Sunshine Ordinance make clear that the SFPUC may rely on the exemption in Section 8589.5(e) to withhold EAPs in their entirety. No specific factua,l justification is required for withholding any or all parts of an EAP. Nevertheless, we have decided to exercise our discretion to voluntarily produce the attached redacted EAPs. Redactions and any withhbldiiigs are based on the authorities listed above, as well as on Sectio11 6254(f) of the . CPRA, which exempts from disclosure ''security files compiled by any .... local agency for ... law enforcement purposes." Further, these redactions are consistent with San Francisco Charter Sec. 88. i 20, which states: "The voters of the City and County of San Francisco are committed to preserving and protecting the system as well as safegu?rdlng the extraordinary quaiity of the Mark Farrell water-from Yosemite and local watersheds; The voters find thatthe iv1ayor protection; maintenance and repair of the system are. among their highest lk&Kwon priorities:" (Emphasis adqed), President

Vin~e Courtney Vice President Additionally, we have redacted from the attached records personal or home Ann Moller Gaen phone numbers based on California Constitution, Article I, section 1, and Commissioner California Government Code Section 62S4(k); and California Government Fral\cesca Vietor Code Section 6254(c). These provisions guard againstdisclbslire of C6n1niissiorier information that would invade personal privacy. Anson Moran: Commissioner Harlan L. Ke-lly, Jr. General Manager

Services of the Sari FranCisco Public Utilities Commission

OUR MISSlON:. To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services !n a manner that values environmental and comrnUiiityinierests and sustains the resources ani rusted to our care. P637 We hope that this satisfies your request and that you will promptly withdraw Complaint No. 17134 currently pending before the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint Committee.

Sincerely,

Mary Ellen Carroll Emergency Planning and Security Director San FranCisco Public Utilities Commission . 52.5 Golc!en Gate Avenue, i oth Floor San Francisco, CA ·941 02 Public Records Mairi Line: 415-934:-5753 Public Records Fax: 4 i 5-554-3282

Cc: Victor Young, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force

P638 52Ei Golden Gate Avenue, 1Oth Floor San Francisco San Franc;isco, CA 94102 -water w~ !5E~,J~tt(~~p t 415.554.2408 Operator of the Hetch Hetchy Regjonal Water System·

April '17,2018

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Honorable Members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force c!o: Clerk of the Board of Supervi~ors Attn: Victor Young, Administrator 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 244

San. Francisco. CA 941 02 victor.young @sfgov.org

Re: Follow-Up Response to Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Complaint Np. "17134 (Thomas Busse v. Public Utilities Commission)

Dear Hono'rabie Task Force Members:

We write to provide the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force with an update regarding the above titled Complaint. Mr. Busse's complaint pertains to SFPUC's deCision to withhold from disclosure emergency action plans (EAPs) based on an express exemption in the California Emergency Services Act; Section 8589.S(e) of the Government Code ("Section 8589.5(e)"). In the wakeofthe recent incident at Moccasin Dam, at the March 27, 2018 meeting of Complaints Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force We asked. for and were granted a continuance, to review our EAPs to determine whether to release redacted copies to the public. On Marqh 29, 20'18, we provided Mr. Busse and the Sunshine Task Force a redacted version of the EAP for Moccasin Dam. We have now completed our review of the remaining EAPs in our possession and are prod\lcing redacted versions to MarkFarreH both Mr. Busse and to the Sunshine Task Force to be included in the record. Mayor Please see our attached letter to Mr. Busse With the legal citations for the Ike Kwon redactions. Now that the SFPUC nas provided Mr: Busse with redacted President versions of the records he requested, we hope we have satisfied his reqljest Vince Courtney Vice President and he will either withdraw his cornplpJnt, or th.e Sunshine Task Force will Ann Moller Caetf dismiss it. Coh1missio'ner Francesca Vietor Commissioner Arlson.Moran Commissioner Harlan L Kelly, Jr. Genera I Manager

Se!Vices of the :San Francisco PublicUtilities·Commission

OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quai!ty, effieieilt and reliable water, power and sevJer services in a tiianner that values environmental and commuiJ.Ity.interesis and susiains th.e resources entrusted to our cme. P639 If you have any questions aboutthis rna.ttE:r, please do not hesitate t() contact · me at publicrecords@ sfwater.org. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Mary Ellen Carroll Emergency Planning and Security Pin~ctor San Francisco Publlc Utilities Commission 526 Golden Gate Avenue, I oth Floor San Francisco, CA 941 02 Public Records Maih Line: 415,.934.,5753 Public Re.cords Fax: 415-554-3282

P640 ~Young, Victor

From: Peters, Michelle D on behalf of Public Records Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2018 4:20 PM To: '[email protected]' Cc: Young, Victor; SOTF, (BOS) Subject: Additional Information (SOTF- Notice of Hearing- Complaint Committee: April24, 2018, 5:30 p.m.)

Importance: High

Dear Mr. Busse,

I write to follow up on the April17, 2018 letter the SFPUC sent you disclosing redacted versions of all Emergency Action Plans (EAPs) in its possession. I wanted to clarify that while the SFPUC exercised its discretion to provide the records you requested, we consider them to still be in draft form. Pursuant to Section 6161 of the Water Code we have submitted our inundation maps and EAPs to the Department of Water Resources, Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) for review and approval.

To date, only the inundation map for O'Shaughnessy Dam has been approved. The rest are still under review and there is the possibility that the maps and EAPs may change depending on review and input from the state. As a result, the final versions may have some differences to the ones you received.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or need further assistance.

Sincerely,

Michelle Peters Public Records Coordinator . (415) 934-3983 [email protected]

From: Darby, Deilia J Sent: Tuesday, April17, 2018 5:10PM To: '[email protected]' Cc: Public Records ; Young, Victor (BOS) ; SOTF, (BOS) Subject: SENT: Documentation (SOTF- Notice of Hearing- Complaint Committee: April 24, 2018, 5:30p.m.)

Dear Mr. Busse:

Thank you for your request for public information. Please find attached and below the responsive documents to your request.

All redacted EAPs can be found at the following link: https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/d-s3c5444e2ac548d5a

Pij41 Please know that we take our obligations under the Sunshine Ordinance very seriously, and SFPUC staff members make every effort to honor all requests within what is allowable by law and what is necessary to protect the public health and safety.

Sincerely,

Public Records Coordinator

Public Records San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 525 Golden Gate Ave. 12th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94103

Public Records Main Line: 415-934-5753 Public Records Fax: 415-554-3282 [email protected]

From: SOTF, (BOS) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April11; 2018 8:57AM To: Thomas Busse ; Public Records ; Peters, Michelle D ; Randy sinki ; [email protected]; Patterson, Kate (ART) ; Page_Ritchie, Sharon (ART) ; Trickey, Anne (ART) Cc: Calvillo, Angela (BOS) Subject: SOTF- Notice of He(1ring- Complaint Committee: April 24, 2018, 5:30p.m.

Good Morning:

Notice is hereby given that the Complaint Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force shall hold hearings on complaints listed below to: 1) determine if the Task Force has jurisdiction; 2) review the merits of the complaints; and/or 3) issue a report and/or recommendation to the Task Force. ·

Date: April24, 2018

Location:·. CitiHall, Room 408

Trine:·· 5:30 p:m; to 7:30p.m.

Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing.

Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing ..

Complaints:

P642 File No. 17134: Complaint filed by Thomas Busse against the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21, 67 .24(g)(i), 67.27,by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

File No. 17061: Complaint filed by Ann Treboux against the Arts Commission, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.16, by failing to comply with the Sunshine Ordinance requirements regarding submitted public comment summaries.

Doc.'umentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

Victor Young Administrator, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall.i Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102 phone 415-554-7724 I fax 415-554-5163 [email protected] I www.sfbos.org

II (i(;t; Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

The Legislative Research Cente( provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: 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 provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be mode available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the pu.b/ic elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy. Pfl43 :f oung, Victor

From: Guzman, Andrea (CAT) Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 3:03PM To: SOTF, (BOS) Subject: RE: SOTF- Notice of Hearing- Complaint Committee: March 27, 2018, 5:30p.m. Attachments: St Croix v Superior Court. pdf

Mr. Victor Young,

We would appreciate it if you could include the attached document to serve as a reference to the Task Force in regards to File No. 18013. Thank you.

Best,

Andrea Guzman Deputy Press Secretary

OFFICE OF CITY ATIORNEY DENNIS HERRERA San Francisco City Hall, Room 234 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, California 94102-4682 [email protected] {415) 554-4653 Direct {415) 554-4700 Reception · {415) 554-6770 TIY

Subscribe to news and updates from the S.F. City Attorney's Office at http://www.sfcityattorney.org

From: SOTF, (BOS) Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 11:58 AM To: Thomas Busse ; Public Records ; Cote, John (CAT) ; Guzman, Andrea (CAT) ; Peters, Michelle (PUC) ; Ann ; Moore, Dwight (CAT) ; Denta Tadesse Cc: Calvillo, Angela' (BOS) Subject: SOTF- Notice of Hearing- Complaint Committee: March 27, 2018,· 5:30p.m.

Good Morning:

Notice is hereby given that the Complaint Committee of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (Task Force) shall hold hearings on complaints listed below to: 1) determine if the Task Force has jurisdiction; 2) review the merits ofthe complaints; and/or 3) issue a report and/or recommendation to the Task Force.

Date: March 27, 2018

Location: City Hall, Room 408 P&44 Time: 5:30p.m.

Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing.

Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.

Complaints:

File No. 17134: Complaint filed by Thomas Busse against the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, 67.24(g)(i), 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

Victor Young Assistant Clerk Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall., Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102 phone 415-554-7724 I fax 415-554-5163 [email protected] I www.sfbos.org

® df!tl Click here to complete a Board of Supervisors Customer Service Satisfaction form.

The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: 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 provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

P&45 St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4th 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9903

228 Cal.App-4th 434 West Headnotes (17) Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California. [1] Constitutional Law John ST. CROIX, as Executive rl.\= Privileges Director, etc., et al., Petitioners, Courts may not add to the statutory privileges v. except as required by state or federal The SUPERIOR COURT of the City and . constitutional law, nor may courts imply County of San Francisco, Respondent; unwritten exceptions to existing statutory Allen Grossman, Real Party in Interest. privileges. Cal. Evid. Code§§ 911, 950 et seq.

Al40308 Cases that cite this headnote I Filed July 28, 2014 [2] Records I C= Internal memoranda or letters; executive Review Deriied November 12, 2014 ·privilege

Synopsis By its reference to the privileges contained in Background: City resident brought mandamus q.ction the Evidence Code, the Public Records Act against city ethics cmmnission and its executive director (PRA) has made the attorney-client privilege challenging director's refusal to disclose requested applicable to public records. Cal. Gov't Code documents pertaining to the development of certain § 6254(k). city ethics commission regulations under city sunshine Cases that cite this headnote ordinance and Public Records Act (PRA). The Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco, No. CPF-13-513221, Ernest H. Goldsmith, J., granted [3] Municipal Corporations resident's ·petition. Commission· and director petitioned i'= Construction of charters and statutory for writ of mandate. provisions Municipal Corporations €-? Conflict with charter or act of incorpol'ation Holdings: The Court of Appeal, Becton, J., held that: The city charter represents the supreme [1] city charter provisions designating city attorney as law of the city, subject only to conflicting legal advisor to city's officers and agencies incorporate the provisions in the United States and California statutory attorney-client privilege; Constitutions or to preemptive state law, and the provisions of the city charter supersede [2] sunshine· ordinance was inconsistent with attorney all municipal laws, ordinances, rules or client privilege and thus was invalid to extent that it regulations inconsistent therewith. required disclosure of attorney-client communications Cases that cite this headnote between city attorney and ethics commission; and .

[3] attorney-client privilege as to mat~rials generated in [4] Municipal Corporations attorney-client relationship created by city charter may ~ Construction of charters and statutory not be waived by ordinance. provisions Generally, the same principles of construction applicable to statutes apply to the Petition granted. interpretation of municipal charters.

W~S'fl,~\",' © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to cf.j4:6U.S. Government Works. St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4th 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9903

notwithstanding the constitutional provision Cases that cite this headnote stating that legal authority "shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of [5) Evidence access, and narrowly construed if it limits ~ Cities, towns, villages, and school the right of access" and the statute providing districts that a state or local agency may adopt requirements for greater access to records Court of Appeal would take judicial notice than required by the Public Records Act of city charter provisions designating the (PRA), where the city charter designated the city attorney as an elected officer of city city attorney as the legar advisor to the city's and specifying that the city attorney is the officers and agencies. Cal. Canst. art. 1, § 3(b) legal advisor to the ethics commission, in (2); Cal. Evid. Code§ 950; Cal. Gov't Code§ determining whether the provision superseded 6253(e). the provision of the city sunshine ordinance requiring disclosure of advice on city's Cases that cite this headnote compliance with public records laws.

Cases that cite this headnote [8) Statutes '~Conflict

[6) Privileged Communications and In the context of two statutory provisions Confidentiality appearing in different codes, a court should €~ Government and government employees adopt, if possible, a construction which avoids and officers apparent conflicts between different statutory provisions. Under state law establishing that the attorney-client privilege's protection of the Cases that cite this headnote confidentiality of written attorney-client communications is fundamental to the attorney-client relationship, City charter [9) Constitutional Law provisions designating the city attorney as %= Ordinances an elected officer of city and specifying that When a city enacts an ordinance or takes other the city attorney is the legal advisor to the action, it cannot contravene its charter. city's officers and agencies incorporate the state law attorney-client privilege for written Cases that cite this headnote communications between the city attorney· and his or h-er clients. Cal. Evid. Code§ 950. [10] Privileged Communications and Confidentiality Cases that cite this headnote ~ Government and government employees and officers [7) Records The Ralph M. Brown Act does not ~ Internal memoranda or letters; executive limit the attorney-client privilege as to p1ivilege written communications between public Provision of city's sunshine ordinance sector attorneys and their clients. Cal. Gov't requiring disclosure of advice on city's Code§ 54956.9. compliance with public records laws was inconsistent with the attorney-client privilege Cases that cite this headnote and thus was invalid to the extent that it required disclosure of attorney [11) Records client communications between the city

Wtf:c;£-Tl.,A,'-A' ©. 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to Cfi!BlZf!VU.S. Government Works. 2 St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4th 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9903

Written attorney-client communications are P. Rules of procedure and conduct of privileged and exempt from disclosure business pursuant to the Public Records Act (PRA). Petition for writ of mandate filed by city Cal. Evid. Code § 954; Cal. Gov't Code § ethics commission and its executive director to 6254(k). challenge trial court's order to disclose their commullications with city attorney under Cases that cite this headnote city sunshine ordinance was not rendered . void under the Ralph M. Brown Act by [12] Constitutional Law the commission's failure to meet publicly to >$P Ordinances authorize the filing of the petition. Cal. Gov't An ordinance must conform to, be Code§§ 54952.6, 54954.2(a), 54956.9. subordinate to, not conflict with, and not Cases that cite this headnote exceed the city's charter, and can no more change or limit the effect of the charter than a legislative act can modify or supersede a [16] Records provision of the constitution of the state. i= Judicial enforcement in general The general provisions of the Ralph M. Cases that cite this headnote Bi·own Act do not establish a meeting by the members of an affected local commission or [13] Privileged Communications and other body is a prerequisite to the exercise Confidentiality of the Public Records Act (PRA) appellate -<&= Waiver of ptivilege remedy for a trial court's order to disclose Because a city charter designating the records. Cal. Gov't Code §§ 6259, 54952.6, city attorney as the legal advisor to the_ 54954.2(a), 54956.9. city's officers and agencies incorporates the Cases that cite this headnote statutory attorney-client privilege, a city ordinance cannot eliminate the privilege either by designating as not confidential a class of [17] Evidence materials that otherwise would be protected <\l= Nature and scope in generaJ by the privilege, or by waiving the privilege as Court of Appeal would not take judicial notice to that category of documents; only a charter of city charter provisions, ordinances,· and amendment can achieve that result. Cal. Evid. other matters which were not relevant to the Code§ 950. Court of Appeal's disposition of the matter, in determining whether charter provisions Cases that cite this headnote designating the city attorney as an elected officer of city and specifying that the city [14] Privileged Communications and attorney was the legal advisor to the ethics Confidentiality commission superseded the provision of the <@=- Absolute or qualified privilege city sunshine ordinance requiring disclosure When the attorney-client privilege applies, it of advice on city's compliance with public is absolute and disclosure may :b.ot be ordered, records laws. without regard to relevance, necessity or any See 2 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (5th ed. 2012) · particular eircumstances peculiar to the case. Witnesses, § 111. Cal. Evid. Code§ 950. Cases that cite this headnote Cases that cite this headnote

[15] Municipal Corporations

V1JESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to opif3111?8U .S. Government Works. 3 St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4th 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539, 2014 Daily Journal DAR. 9903

6250 et seq.) 2 and the Sunshine Ordinance for documents **204 San Francisco County Superior Court, Ron. relating to the 'commission's regulations governing Ernest H. Goldsmith (San Francisco. City & County complaints alleging violations. of the ordinance. As part Super. Ct. No. CPF-13-513221) of this request, Grossman expressly sought production of Attorneys and Law Firms written communications between the Ethics Commission and the city attorney's office. Grossman requested drafts City and County of San Francisco Office of the City of the commission's Sunshine Ordinance regulations, a Attorney, Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney, Therese M. September 14, 2012 staff report about the regulations, Stewart, Chief Deputy City Attorney, Vince Chhal:Jria, and all documents relating to "[t]he preparation, revie'Y, Chief of Appellate Litigation, Andrew N. Shen and revision and distribution of all prior drafts and final Joshua S. White, Deputy City Attorneys for Petitioners. versions of the Draft Amendments and Staff Report, including, without limitation,. emails, memoranda, notes, No appearance for Respondent. letters or othet correspondence or communications to or from the San Francisco City Attorney, any Deputy City Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Michael Kai Ng and Jasmine K. Attorney or any other person in the Office of the San Singh, San Francisco, for Real Party in Interest. Francisco City Attorney." (Italics added.) Opinion *440 St. Croix and his staff produced more than 120 Becton, J. * documents, six of which were partially redacted. St. · Croix withheld other documents in their entirety on *439 San Francisco resident Allen Grossman, relying the grounds they were protected by the attorney-client on state and local public records laws, sought to obtain privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. The 24 from John St. Croix, Executive Director of the San withheld documents include (1) 15 written requests from Francisco Ethics Commission (Ethics Commission or the commission's staffto the city attorney's office for legal commission), documents pertaining to the development advice about the commission's proposed regulations, and of certain conunission regulations. St. Croix provided (2) nine written responses by the city attorney's office more than 120 documents, but, citing the attorney-client to the commission's staff, providing advice about the privilege (see Evid. Code,§§ 952, 954), withheld 24 written proposed regulations. communications between the commission and the San Francisco City Attorney's Office. Grossman petitioned for a writ of mandate in the trial court, arguing a provision of the Sunshine Grossman argued, and the trial court held, that a Ordinance (S.F.Admin.Code, § 67.24, subd. (b)(l)(iii)) provision of the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance compels disclosure of the documents at issue, even if (Sunshine Ordinance or ordinance) (S.F.Admin.Code, they would otherwise be protected by privilege. That ch. 67) required disclosure of the documents, even if provision of the ordinance states that, "[n]otwithstanding they otherwise would be protected by the privilege. St. any exemptions otherwise provided by law," the Croix and the commission (to whom we sometimes refer following documents are subject to disclosure under the collectively as City) petition for a writ of mandate, ordinance: "(iii) Advice on compliance with, analysis contending City's charter incorporates the attorney of, an opinion concerning liability under, or any client privilege and supersedes any contrary ordinance communication otherwise concerning the California provision. We agree, and we hold the trial court erred Public Records Act, the Ralph M. Brown Act, the in **205 ordering disclosure of the documents. We Political Reform Act, any San Francisco Governmental therefore grant City's writ petition. 1 Ethics Code, or this Ordinance [ (i.e., the Sunshine Ordinance)]." (S.F.Admin.Code, § 67.24, subd. (b)(l).) 3

I. BACKGROUND City opposed disclosure, contending the San Francisco City Charter (charter), which creates the office of the city In October 2012, Grossman submitted a request under attorney and specifies his or her duties, incorporates the the California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Gov. Code,§ attorney-client privilege, and the ordinance cannot validly

W~$ll,}i.V'e1 © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No ciairn to o~f}fgU.S. Government 'Norks. 4 St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4th 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9903 modify the charter by barring City from asserting the et seq.) "Courts may not add to the statutory privileges privilege. except as required by state or federal constitutional law [citations], nor may courts imply unwritten exceptions to The trial court granted Grossman's petition, holding San existing statutory privileges." (Roberts v. City of Palmdale Francisco Administrative Code section 67 .24, subdivision (1993) 5 Cal.4th 363, 373 [20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d (b)(l)(iii) required production of the 24 attorney- **206 496] (Roberts); see Evid.Code, § 911.) client communications withheld by St. C~oix. The court stated City's argument that the charter superseded the [2] In the context of public records requests, the ordinance provision, an issue that both parties had briefed CPRA expressly exempts from disclosure documents and argued, was "not properly before" the court. that fall within the statutory attorney-client privilege. The CPRA defines "public record" as a "writing St. Croix and the commission petitioned this court for a containing information relating to the conduct of the writ of mandate (see§ 6259, subd. (c)) and moved for a people's business prepared, owned, used, or retained stay of the trial court's order. We stayed the court's order by any state or local agency regardless of physical pending resolution of this writ proceeding, and later issued form or characteristics.'' (§ 6252, subd. (e).) The CPRA an order to show cause. exempts certain public records from disclosure, including "[r]ecords, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating *441 II. DISCUSSION to privilege." (§ 6254, subd. (k).) "By its reference to the A. The Attorney-client Privilege and Public Records Laws privileges contained in the Evidence Code, ... the [CPRA] Our Supreme Court has stated: "The attorney-client has made the attorney-client privilege applicable to public privilege, set forth at Evidence Code section 954, confers a records." ( **207 Roberts, supra, 5 Ca1.4th at p. 370, 20 privilege on the client 'to refuse to disclose, and to pr·event Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d 496.) another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer .... ' The privilege 'has been a *442 In Roberts, the Supreme Court emphasized the hallmark of Anglo-American jurisprudence for almost importance of the attorney-client privilege in protecting 400 years.' [Citation.] Its fundamental purpose 'is to the confidentiality of written communications. between a safeguard the confidential relationship between clients public agency and its counsel. (Roberts, supra, 5 Cal.4th and their attorneys so as to promote full and operi at pp. 380-381, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d 496.) discussion of the facts and tactics surrounding individual The Roberts court held .that, although the Ralph M. legal matters. [Citation.] ... [~ Although exercise of Brown Act (Brown Act;§ 54950 et seq.) establishes open the privilege may occasionally result in the suppression meeting requirements applicable to local governing bodies of relevant evidence, the Legislature of this state has (see §§ 54950, 54953) and abrogates the attorney-client determined that these concerns are outweighed by the privilege (with certain exceptions) for tl:ie purposes of importance of preserving confidentiality in the attorney those open meeting requirements (see § 54956.9),, the client relationship. As this court has stated: "The privilege Brown Act does not abrogate the privilege applicable is given on grounds of public policy in the belief that to written communications under the CPRA. (Roberts, the benefits derived therefrom justify the risk that unjust at pp. 373-374, 377, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d 496.) decisions may sometimes result from the suppression The Roberts court rejected the argument that, in the of relevant evidence." [Citations.]' [Citation.] '[T]he public agency context, the attorney-client privilege should privilege is absolute and disclosure may not be ordered, not apply or should be limited to situations involving without regard to relevance, necessity or any particular pending litigation: (Id. at pp. 379-380, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, circumstances peculiar to the case.' " (Cost co Wholesale 853 P.2d 496.) Such arguments were "inconsistent with C01p. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 732 [101 the decision of the Legislature in enacting the [CPRA] Cal.Rptr.3d 758, 219 P.3d 736].) to afford public entities the attorney-client privilege as to writings to the extent authorized by the Evidence [1] The scope and availability of the attorney-client Code.'' (Id. at p. 380, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d 496.) privilege are governed by statute. (See Evid. Code,§ 950

W'E/6H.t-N'/ © 2018 1 hornson Reuters. No claim to o~Q-J·S. Government Works. 5 St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4tf! 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9903

form "all surety bonds, contracts and, prior to enactment, B. The Charter Incorporates the State Law Attorney all ordinances." (S.F. Charter, § 6.102(6).) The charter client Privilege and Supersedes the Contrary Ordinance requires the city attorney to establish a claims bureau Provision "to investigate, evaluate and settle for the several boards, City argues provisions of its charter establishing the commissions and departments all claims for money or office and duties of the city attorney (1) incorporate the damages." (S.F. Charter,§ 6.102(9).) protections of the state law attorney-client privilege for written communications between the city attorney and his [6] The above charter provisions, by establishing the or her clients, and therefore (2) supersede the provision of office and responsibilities of the city attorney, establish the Sunshine Ordinance purporting to compel disclosure an attorney-client relationship between the city attorney of documents falling within the scope of the privilege. We on the one hand, and City and its officers and agencies agree. (including the Ethics Commission) on the other. As noted above, state law establishes that the privilege~s protection of the ~onfidentiality of written attorney-client 1. The Charter Incorporates the Privilege communications is fundamental to the attorney-client [3] [4] "The City Charter represents the supreme law relationship, in the public sector as well as in the private of the City and County of San Francisco, subject sector, and is vital to the effective administration of only to conflicting provisions in the United States and justice. (See Evid. Code, § 950 et seq.; Roberts, supra, 5 California Constitutions or to preemptive state law. Cal. 4th at pp. 380-381, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P .2d 496.) [Citation.] The provisions of the City Charter supersede We therefore conclude the charter incorporates the state all municipal laws, ordinances, rules or regulations law attorney-client privilege for written communications inconsistent therewith." (Stuart v. Civil Service Com. between the city attorney and his or her clients. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 201, 206 [219 Cal.Rptr. 770].) "Generally, the same principles of con~truction applicable In reaching this conclusion, we are guided by Welfare to statutes apply to the interpretation of municipal Rights Organization v. Crisan (1983) 33 Cal.3d 766 [190 charters. [Citations.] The courts must always look first Cal.Rptr. 919, 661 P.2d 1073] (Welfare Rights ), in to the express language of the statute to ascertain its which our Supreme Court emphasized the importance meaning." (United Assn. ofJourneymen v. City and County of confidential communications to a relationship similar of San Francisco (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 751, 760 [38 to that between -~ttorney and client. The Welfare Rights Cal.Rptr.2d 280].) court concluded a statute (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 10950) authorizing recipients of public benefits to be represented [5] *443 City's charter designates the city attorney by laypersons in administrative proceedings necessarily as an elected officer of City_ and specifies the duties implied the existence of *444 a privilege protecting 4 of the office. (S.F. Charter, §§ 6.100, · 6.102.) The communications between the lay representative and the charter states the city attorney must "[r]epresent the client. (Welfare Rights, atpp. 770-771, 190 Cal.Rptr. 919, City and County in legal proceedings with respect to 661 P.2d 1073.) The statute specified a benefits applicant which it has an interest." (S.F. Charter, § 6.102(1).) or recipient could appear " 'in person or through an Under certain circumstances, the city attorney also must authorized representative.' " (Jd. at p. 770, 190 Cal.Rptr. represent individual City officers and officials in litigation. 919, 661 P.2d 1073, italics added by Welfare Rights.) (S.F. Charter, § 6.102(2).) The city attorney shall initiate The Supreme Court held that "the considerations which litigation when "a cause of action exists in favor of' City. support the privilege are so generally accepted that the (S.F. Charter, § 6.102(3).) Significantly for the present Legislature must have implied its existence as an integral case, the city attorney must, "[u]pon request, provide part of the right to representation by lay persons." (Id. at advice or written opinion to any officer, department head p. 771, 190 Cal.Rptr. 919, 661 P.2d 1073.) Similarly, here, or board, commission or other unit of government **208 we conclude the state statutory privilege's protection of of' City. 5 (S.F. Charter, § 6.102(4).) The city attorney attorney-client communications is an integral part of the also must "[m]ake recommendations for or against attorney-client relationship created by the charter. 6 the settlement or dismissal of legal proceedings" (S.F. Charter, § 6.102(5)) and must review and approve as to

~t·.fESTL/\W © 20i8 Thomson Reuters. No claim to c8~15E1 U.S. Government Works. 6 St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4th 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. S-erv-e.8""5""3""9-, 2:::-:0"""1:-:4-..,D"'"a"ilc-y-,J-ou--r-n-,ai"D"'". 7A""'.R""".""'gc;:;g~o3;:------~----·

[7] **209 Grossman argues we should construe the 1058-1060 [63 Cal.Rptr.2d 213] [application of provision charter narrowly to avoid any limitation on the public's of Sunshine Ordinance contravened state statute].) In any right of access. He cites article I, section 3, subdivision event, as noted above, construing the charter's provisions (b)(2) of the California Constitution, which states: "A more narrowly would not change our analysis. The charter statute, court rule, or other authority ... shall be broadly unambiguously creates an attorney-client relationship construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and between the city attorney and the commission, and the narrowly construed if it limits the right of access .... " (See state law attorney-client privilege is a fundamental aspect Sander v. State Bar of California (2013) 58 Cal.4th 300, of that relationship. 312-313 [165 Cal.Rptr.3d 250, 314 P.3d 488].) That provision does not assist Grossman. We have concluded [10] [11] **210 Grossman next claims there is above that the charter establishes an attorney-client no conflict between the charter's establishment of relationship between the city attorney and City agencies. an attorney-client relationship and the ordinance's Grossman does not dispute that conclusion and does purported elimination of the privilege for certain not claim that a narrower construction of the charter attorney-client communications, because "attorney would produce a different result. Under state law, the client communications are not necessarily confidential," attorney-client privilege is a "generally accepted" and ·especially for public sector attorneys. Grossman notes that "integral" part of the attorney-client relationship. (See (as we have discussed above) the Brown Act requires that Welfare Rights, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 771, 190 Cal.Rptr. most meetings of local governing bodies be public and 919, 661 P.2d 1073.) Accordingly, we have further limits the attorney-client privilege in that context (see § concluded above that the charter necessarily incorporates 54956.9). But, as we have also explained above (and as the state law attorney-client privilege as a part of the Grossman does not appear to dispute), the Brown Act attorney-client relationship it creates. That conclusion does not limit the privilege as to written communications does not result from a broad construction of the charter's between public sector attorneys and their clients, such provisions (which unambiguously create an attorney as the materials at issue here. Written attorney-client client relationship) and would not be altered by adopting communications remain privileged and exempt from a narrower construction of those provisions; instead, our disclosure pursuant to the CPRA. (Evid. Code, § 954; holding just reflects the well-established centrality of the Gov. Code§ 6254, subd. (k); Roberts, supra, 5 Cal.4th at privilege to the attorney-client relationship. 7 pp. 377, 381, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d 496.)

WE~.?TLAVi/ © 20'18 Thomson Reuters. No claim to of?£f)ij0J.S. Government Works. 7 St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cal.App.4th 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9903

a class of communications between the city attorney and amendment is necessary. (See City and County of San his or her clients. " '[A]n ordinance must conform to, Francisco v. Patterson, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at pp. 102, be subordinate to, not conflict with, and not exceed the 104-105, 248 Cal.Rptr. 290.) [city's] charter, and can no more change or limit the effect of the charter than a legislative act can modify [14] Finally, Grossman appears to suggest the privilege or supersede a provision of the constitution of the should protect the disputed materials from disclosure state.' " (Currieri v. Roseville (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 997, only if the commission demonstrates disclosure of those 1001 [84 Cal.Rptr. 615].) To the extent San Francisco particular documents would impede the city attorney's Administrative Code section 67.24, subdivision (b)(l)(iii) representation of the commission. We disagree. As noted, purports to compel disclosure of materials that fall within when the privilege applies, as it does here under the the scope of the· attorney-client privilege, such as the charter, it" 'is absolute and disclosure may not be ordered, written communications between the Ethics Commission without regard to relevance, necessity or any particular .and the city attorney at issue here, it conflicts with the circumstances peculiar to the case.' " (Cost co Wholesale charter's protection of such materials. The trial court Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 47 Cal.4th at p. 732, 101 therefore erred in ordering disclosure of the documents Cal.Rptr.3d 758, 219 P.3d 736.) pursuant to the ordinance. 8

C. The Alleged Procedural Impropriety of the Petition [13] Seeking to avoid this result, Grossman argues that, [15] [16] The CPRA provides that, if a trial court orders because San Francisco Administrative Code section 67 .24, a "public official" to disclose records, a "party" to the subdivision (b)( 1)(iii) purports to require disclosure of the trial court proceeding may seek appellate review by filing materials at issue, they were "never confidential in the first a writ petition.(§ 6259, subds. (a)-(c).) Grossman directed · place, and no privilege ever attached." He alternatively his underlying records request solely to St. Croix, but contends that, if the privilege did apply, the voters could then named both St. Croix and the Ethics Commission as "waive" it by enacting the ordinance. We reject both parties in his petition for a writ of mandate in the trial arguments. Because the charter incorporates the privilege, court. As a result, both St. Croix and the commission are an ordinance (whether enacted **211 by City's board of. parties to the petition in this court. Grossman now argues supervisors or by the voters) cannoteliminate it, either the instant petition is "void," because the commission did by designating as not confidential a class of materials not meet publicly to authorize its filing. We disagree. The that otherwise would be protected by the privilege, or by general provisions of the Brown Act cited by Grossman waiving the privilege as to that category of documents; (§§ 54952.6, 54954.2, subd. (a), 54956.9) do not establish a only a charter amendment can achieve that result. (See meeting by the members of an affected local commission City and County of San Francisco v. Patterson (1988) 202 or other body that is a prerequisite to the exercise of the Cal.App.3d 95, 102, 104-105 [248 Cal.Rptr. 290] [initiative appellate remedy expressly specified in the CPRA. ordinance cannot limit effect of charter; electorate has no greater power to legislate by ordinance than City's board of supervisors possesses].) D. The Parties' Requests for Judicial Notice [17] As noted, the trial court took judicial notice of . Grossman also cites a provision of the CPRA, section section 67.24 of the San Francisco Administrative Code 6253, subdivision (e), that permits localities to provide and section 6.102 of the San Francisco Charter; we greater access to records *447 than the CPRA itself have taken judicial notice of sections 6.100 and 15.100 requires. Section 6253, subdivision (e) states: "Except through 15.102 of the San Francisco Charter. We deny as otherwise prohibited by law, a state or local agency the parties' requests for judicial notice of other ordinance may adopt requirements for itself that allow for faster, provisions, other charter provisions, and other items, more efficient, or greater access to records than prescribed because those materials are not relevant to our disposition by the minimum standards set forth in [the CPRA]." ofthis matter. Accordingly, (1) City's November 22, 2013 But section 6253, subdivision (e) does not purport to request for judicial notice *448 is granted as to exhibit authorize a locality to enact an ordinance about records B (S.F. Charter,§ 6.100) and exhibit F (S.F. Charter,§§ access that conflicts with the locality's governing city 15.100-15.102) and is otherwise denied; (2) Grossman's charter. To change local law inthis circumstance, a charter December 23, 2013 request **212 for judicial notice is

WESTLJ'\V~' © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to cfl@~u.s. Government Works. 8 St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4th 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R: 9903

The petition for a writ of mandate is granted. Let a granted as to (a) the portion of exhibit 1 that includes peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent section 67.24 of the San Francisco Administrative Code court to vacate the order granting Grossman's petition and (b) the portion of exhibit 2 that includes sections 6.100, 6.102, and 15.100 through 15.102 of the San for a writ of mandate, and to enter a new order denying Grossman's petition. Upon finality of this decision, the Francisco Charter, and is otherwise denied; (3) City's temporary stay order is vacated. Costs in this original January 14, 2014 request for judicial notice is denied; (4) proceeding are awarded to St. Croix and the Ethics Grossman's March 7, 2014 request for judicial notice is granted as to (a) the portion of exhibit 1 that includes Commission. section 67.24 of the San Francisco Administrative Code and (b) the portion of exhibit 2 that includes sections 6.100, 6.102, and 15.100 through 15.102 of the San Dondero, Acting P.J., and Banke, J._, concurred. Francisco Charter, and is otherwise denied; and (5) City's April1, 2014 request for judicial notice is denied. All Citations

228 Cal.App.4th 434, 175 Cal.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539,2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9903 III. DISPOSITION

Footnotes * Judge of the Contra Costa County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 1 Because we conclude the documents are. protected by the attorney-client privilege, we need not address City's argument that some of the documents are also protected by the attorney work product doctrine. 2 All statutory references are to the Government Code unless othef1!Vise stated. 3 The trial court took judicial notice of San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.24. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (b); Madain v. City of Stanton (201 0) 185 Cai.App.4th 1277, 1280, fn. 1 [111 Cai.Rptr.3d 447] [taking judicial notice of relevant portions of municipal code].) 4 The trial court took judicial notice of section 6.102 of the San Francisco Charter. We grant the parties' request that we take judicial notice of section 6.100 of the San Francisco Charter. (See Evid. Code, §§ 451, subd. (a) [judicial notice of city charter provisions], 459, subd. (a).) 5 . In addition to this provision requiring the city attorney to provide advice to all boards and commissions, section 15.102 of the San Francisco Charter specifies the city attorney is the legal advisor to the Ethics Commission. We grant the parties' request that we take judicial notice of sections 15.100 through 15.102 of the San Francisco Charter. 6 In addition to specifying the above duties of the city attorney, the charter states that, "[s]ubject to the powers and duties set forth in" the charter, the city attorney and other specified elective officers "shall have such additional powers and duties prescribed by state law for their respective office." (S.F. Charter, § 6.1 00.) City argues this provision require:? the city attorney to comply with state laws requiring attorneys to protect their clients' confidences. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subd. (e)(1 ); Evid. Code,§ 955; see also State Bar Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3-1 OO(A).) Because we conclude the charter's specification of the city attorney's duties creates an attorney-client relationship between the city attorney and City agencies, and incorporates the attorney-client privilege as an integral part. of that relationship, we do not address whether section 6.100 of the San Francisco Charter provides an independent basis for granting City's petition. 7 We also note article I, section 3, subdivision (b), which was added to the California Constitution by Proposition 59, a 2004 ballot measure (see Alvarez v. Superior Court (2007) 154 Cai.App.4th 642, 656 [64 Cai.Rptr.3d 854]), specifies it "does not repeal or nullify, expressly or by implication, any constitutional or statutory exception to the right of access to public records ... that is in effect on the effective date of this subdivision .... " (CaL Canst., art. I, § 3, subd. (b)(5)), such as the preexisting statutory exemption for privileged materials (see Evid. Code, § 954; Gov.Code § 6254, subd. (k); Roberts, supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 370-371, 20 Cai.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d 496). 8 Because we conclude the charter supersedes the disputed ordinance provision, we do not address City's argument that the ordinance provision is "invalid for [the] independent reason" that it would "impermissibly interfere" with the city attorney's performance of his or her duties.

WESllAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to cftjSil-u.s. Government Works. 9 St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4th 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv."""'8-:::-53:::-:9o:-,""'2""0714-;--;=::D-a,.,..ily-J.,..o_u_rn_a7l =o.A.R. 9903

10 12/2/2017 Gmail- RESPONSE-October 6, 2017

Thomas Busse

RESPONSE-October 6, 2017 1 message

Public Records Man, Oct 30, 2017 at 2:34PM To: "[email protected]"

Dear Mr. Busse,

I write in response to your October 6, 2017 request for records. On October 13, 2017, The SFPUC invoked a 14 day extension under Government Code Section 6253{c) and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.25{b) because of the need for consultation with another agency. The SFPUC has completed that consultation and below please find responses for the categories of records you requested.

· 1. All documents in the possession of the SFPUC matching the description of an "Emergency Action Plan" described in Section 8589.5 of the Government Code (added by SB 92). My r·equest includes Emergency Action Plans of SFPUC facilities as well as other California facilities that the SFPUC may have on file for reference, consultation, etc. including in e-mail attachments, etc., but are not actually emergency action plans created by the SFPUC, especially plans of the SWP and Dept. of Water Resources.

The SFPUC declines to disclose any Emergency Action Plans pursuant to California Government Code Section 8589.5{e). Further, it would be a security risk to disclose these plans. (see Living Rivers, Inc. v. United State Bureau of Reclamation, 272 F. Supp.2d 1313). However, under SB 92, inundation maps will be made publicly available by the California State Department of Water Resources after they are approved by the Department. (see Cal Water Code §. 6161). The SFPUC is in the process of updating its inundation maps and plans to submit them to the Department for approval in 2018.

2. All contracts, declaration of policies, or similar agreements establishing the favorable rate of water/sewer/power service provided to the SF Community College District {SFCCD) -basically, the analogous documentation provided by the SF PUC in a prior records request I made regarding the SFUSD's favorable utility rate in an attempt to reconcile with the City Services Auditor's report.

The Community College District {CCD) has been billed at the general fund rate power services since 1986. There are no signed agreements between SFPUC and ceo for terms of service. SFPUC Resolution 89-0355, which was adopted on November 14, 1989, established the basis for the rate charged to General Fund departments and the rates to enterprise departments and other enumerated departments to be based on the comparable PG&E rates. This resolution is attached. City College pays the same water and wastewater rates as all other San Francisco retail customers in the same customer class. There is no special discount or rate for them. The current year rates can be found in our rates book; the applicable schedules are W3-A (for water, p. 4 of rates book) and B (for wastewater, p. 13 of rates book)~see attachments

The rate for General Fund departments includes all operating and maintenance expenses, taxes, a reasonable allowance for depreciation of property, and a return on capital investment sufficient to meet basic annual cash requirements (for renewal, replacement, additions and any other unfunded cost). ·

Please review schedule M-2 of the General Fund {GUSE) rates- the CCD is billed at the GUSE rate- here: http://sfwater.org/modules/showdocument.aspx?docum.en~cg=~1f3

httn>:·//m"i I nnoniP..r.nmlmA illl J/1/?ui=2&ik=04b5b6c999&isver=oadh6Ba9AQ8.en .& view=pt&q=sotf&qs=true&search=q uery&th=15f6f3571 Oc8c576&sim... 1/3 12/2/2017 Gmail- RESPONSE-October 6, 2017

3. Any requests for public records regarding above stated agreements or correspondence concerning it from the current Vice Chancellor of Finance and Administration (David Martin) or his assistant (Toni Lee}, or anyone with the State's Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (fcmat.org) from 2010 to the present. By way of explanation: the favorable utility rates did not come up in the FCMAT report during City College's accreditation crisis, and I was wondering if FCMAT considered the favorable rate in its analysis of the college's operating overhead and if the college's rate shares the increase attributable to the SFPUC's revenue bonds. Similarly, I've been reconciling the utility consumption figures submitted to the Office of Public School Construction for state matching, because they've been reporting a retail rate- I'm concerned they might be skimming bond funds. Also, the Vice Chancellor assured me SFCCD received a favorable rate for electricity; however, SFCCD joined a State Community Colleges consortium to purchase electricity through Solnydra, according to the board minutes. There are also a few phantom professors on the payroll.

The SFPUC does not have any records that are responsive to this request.

4. Any correspondence between the SFPUC and the City Attorney's office or Controller's office concerning myself (Thomas Busse, Tom Busse, TJ Busse, Kelvin Busse (I have a problem with my g-mail from field- it's some bug in google+)) from April, 2017 to the present. I remind the SF PUC that the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force has found the City Attorney's advice/communications/counsel in matters that are not concerning litigation against the city (defined as something has been filed in a court) to be public advice because the public is the client. SOTF chair Bruce Wolfe has a strong institutional memory on this issue.

The SFPUC does not have any correspondence with the Controller's Office concerning anyone with the last name Busse. The only correspondence the SFPUC has with the City Attorney's Office is an email it forwarded that contains your October 6, 2017 public records request. This correspondence with the City Attorney's Office is considered attorney client privileged. The City Charter establishes the attorney client relationship between the City Attorney's and the City and its officers and agencies. (S.F. Charter§ 6.102}. This Charter-mandated attorney-client relationship incorporates the attorney-client privilege and the Sunshine Ordinance cannot eliminate that privilege. (St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cal. App.4th 434, 2014). As a result, the Sunshine Ordinance does not require disclosure of advice on the City's compliance with public records law (see St. Croix}. Therefore, the SFPUC declines to disclose the above subject communication with the City Attorney's Office.

5. Any service requests, backflow prevention reports/certifications, liens, requests to add/change service, complaints, or similar requests for alteration, etc (basically everything you have) from 2004 to the present for the parcel at 2076 16th ave. Note: this parcel has a private back alley, so it may also have a second building rear address or second building number/unit number associated with it as well as alias ADU addresses such as Suite A, which is used in some records. By way of explanation: this 'property was sold by the former SF Assessor to the Russian Drug Mafia [sic], and it has since been remodeled into a "compound" that has a full extra story than the planning records show and satellite images show multiple electric hookups. It's also the registration location of over 100 corporations listed. in the Panama Papers (offshoreleaks.org). I'm trying to figure out if there was any pay-to-play.

The SFPUC does not have any backflow prevention reports/certifications, liens, requests to add/change service, complaints, or similar requests for alterations from 2004 to the present for the address 2076 16th Ave.

Please know the SF PUC takes its obligations under the Sunshine Ordinance very seriously and not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or need further assistance.

Sincerely,

Michelle Peters

Public Records Coordinator

(415) 934-3983 P657

1 ~u ___ "--" ------~ 1 ~~;11, ,,; I?• ,;=?J1.a,.=flAht;hRrOOQ~k""'r=nl'lrlhRRnqAoR.Rn.&view=ot&a=sotf&as=true&search=auerv&th=15f6f3571 Oc8c576&sim. .. 2/3 12/2/2017 Gmail ~RESPONSE-October 6, 2017 [email protected]

3 attachments

~ RATES & FEES.pdf ld 2284K

~ Busse #2.pdf IC:l 325K

~ Reso.89-0355.pdf b:::] 802K

P658 St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4th 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539,2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9903

228 Cal.App-4th 434 West Headnotes (17) Court of Appeal, First District, Division 1, California. [1] Constitutional Law John ST. CROIX, as Executive ~ Privileges Director, etc., et al., Petitioners, Courts may not add to the statutory privileges v. except as required by state or federal The SUPERIOR COURT ofthe City and constitutional law, nor may courts imply County of San Francisco, Respondent; unwritten exceptions to existing statutory Allen Grossman, Real Party in Interest. privileges. Cal. Evid. Code§§ 911, 950 et seq.

A140308 Cases that cite this headnote I Filed July 28, 2014 [2] Records I <&=- Internal memoranda or letters;executive· Review Denied November 12, 2014 privilege

Synopsis By its reference to the privileges contained in Background: City resident brought mandamus action the Evidence Code, the Public Records Act against city ethics commission and its executive director (PRA) has made the attorney-client privilege challenging director's refusal to disclose requested applicable to public records. Cal. Gov't Code documents pertaining to the development of certain § 6254(k). city ethics commission regulations under city sunshine Cases that cite this headnote ordinance and Public Records Act (PRA). The Superior Court, City and County of San Francisco, No. CPF-13-513221, Ernest H. Goldsmith, J., granted [3] Municipal Corporations resident's petition. Commission and director petitioned <&=- Construction of charters and statutory for writ of mandate. provisions Municipal Corporations <&=- Conflict with charter or act of incorporation Holdings: The Court of Appeal, Becton, J., held that: The city charter represents the supreme [1] city charter provisions designating city attorney as law of the city, subject only to conflicting legal advisor to city's officers and agencies incorporate the provisions in the United States and California statutory attorney-client privilege; Constitutions or to preemptive state law, and the provisions of the city charter supersede [2] sunshine ordinance was inconsistent with attorney all municipal laws, ordinances, rules or client privilege and thus was invalid to extent that it regulations inconsistent therewith. required disclosure of attorney-client communications Cases that cite this headnote between city attorney and ethics commission; and

[3] attorney-client privilege as to materials generated in [4] Municipal Corporations attorney-client relationship created by city charter may 'IF> Construction of charters and statutory not be waived by ordinance. provisions Generally, the same principles of construction applicable to statutes apply to the Petition granted. interpretation of municipal charters.

P659 WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4th 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9903

notwithstanding the constitutional provision Cases that cite this headnote stating that legal authority "shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of [5] Evidence access, and narrowly construed if it limits <@=;> Cities, towns, villages, and school the right of access" and the statute providing districts that a state or local agency may adopt requirements for greater access to records Court of Appeal would take judicial notice than required by the Public Records Act of city charter provisions designating the (PRA), where the city charter designated the city attorney as an elected officer of city city attorney as the legal advisor to the city's and specifying that the city attorney is the officers and agencies. Cal. Const. art. 1, § 3(b) legal advisor to the ethics commission, in . (2); Cal. Evid. Code§ 950; Cal. Gov't Code§ determining whether the provision superseded 6253(e). the provision of the city sunshine ordinance requiring disclosure of advice on city's Cases that cite this headnote compliance with public records laws.

Cases that cite this headnote [8] Statutes <0=- Conflict [6] Privileged Communications and In the context of two statutory provisions Confidentiality appearing in different codes, a court should ~ Government and government employees adopt, if possible, a construction which avoids and officers apparent conflicts between different statutory provisions. Under state law establishing that the attorney-client privilege's protection of the Cases that cite this headnote confidentiality of written attorney-client communications is fundamental to the attorney-client relationship, city charter [9] Constitutional Law provisions designating the city attorney as <@=;> Ordinances an elected officer of city and specifying that When a city enacts an ordinance or takes other the city attorney is the legal advisor to the action, it cannot contravene its charter. city's officers and agencies incorporate the state law attorney-client privilege for written Cases that cite this headnote communications between the city attorney and his or her clients. Cal. Evid. Code§ 950. [10] Privileged Communications and Confidentiality Cases that cite this headnote ~ Government and government employees and officers [7] Records The Ralph M. Brown Act does not ~ Internal memoranda or letters; executive limit the attorney-client privilege as to privilege written communications between public Provision of city's sunshine ordinance sector attorneys and their clients. Cal. Gov't requmng disclosure of advice on city's Code§ 54956.9. compliance with public records laws was inconsistent with the attorney-client privilege Cases that cite this headnote and thus was invalid to the extent that it required disclosure of attorney [11] Records client communications between the city <0=- Internal memoranda or letters; executive attorney and the city ethics commission, privilege

WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2 St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4th 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. B-aily Op. Serv. 8539, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9903

Written attorney-client communications are .r.;= Rules of procedure and conduct of privileged and exempt from disclosure business pursuant to the Public Records Act (PRA). Petition for writ of mandate filed by city Cal. Evid. Code § 954; Cal. Gov't Code § ethics commission and its executive director to 6254(k). challenge trial court's order to disclose their communications with city attorney under Cases that cite this headnote city sunshine ordinance was not rendered void under the Ralph M. Brown Act by [12] Constitutional Law the commission's failure to meet publicly to ~ Ordinances authorize the filing of the petition. Cal. Gov't An ordinance must conform to, be Code§§ 54952.6, 54954.2(a), 54956.9. subordinate· to, not conflict with, and not Cases that cite this headnote exceed the city's charter, and can no more change or limit the effect of the charter than a legislative act can modify or supersede a [16] Records provision of the constitution of the state. ~ Judicial enforcement in general The general provisions of the Ralph M. Cases that cite this headnote Brown Act do not establish a meeting by the members of an affected local commission or [13] Privileged Communications and other body is a prerequisite to the exercise Confidentiality of the Public Records Act (PRA) appellate P Waiver of privilege remedy for a trial court's order to disclose Because a city charter designating the records. Cal. Gov't Code §§ 6259, 54952.6, city attorney as the legal advisor to the 54954.2(a), 54956.9. city's officers and agencies incorporates the Cases that cite this headnote statutory attorney-client privilege, a city ordinance cannot eliminate the privilege either by designating as not confidential a class of [17] Evidence materials that otherwise would be protected Absolute or qualified privilege city sunshine ordinance requiring disclosure When the attorney-client privilege applies, it of advice on city's compliance with public is absolute and disclosure may not be ordered, records laws. without regard to relevance, necessity or any See 2 Witkin, Cal. Evidence (5th ed. 2012) particular circumstances peculiar to the case. Witnesses, § 111. Cal. Evid. Code§ 950. Cases that cite this headnote Cases that cite this headnote

[15] Municipal Corporations

WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3 St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4th 434 (2014} 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9903

6250 et seq.) 2 and the Sunshine Ordinance for documents **204 San Francisco County Superior Court, Hon. relating to the commission's regulations governing Ernest H. . Goldsmith (San Francisco City & County complaints alleging violations of the ordinance. As part Super. Ct. No. CPF-13-513221) of this request, Grossman expressly sought production of Attorneys and Law Firms written communications between the Ethics Commission and the city attorney's office. Grossman requested drafts City and County of San Francisco Office of the City of the commission's Sunshine Ordinance regulations, a Attorney, Dennis J. Herrera, City Attorney, Therese M. September 14, 2012 staff report about the regulations, Stewart, Chief Deputy City Attorney, Vince Chhabria, and all documents relating to "[t]he preparation, review, Chief of Appellate Litigation, Andrew N. Shen and revision and distribution of all prior drafts and final Joshua S. White, Deputy City Attorneys for Petitioners. versions of the Draft Amendments and Staff Report, including, without limitation, emails, memoranda, notes, No appearance for Respondent. letters or other correspondence or communications to or from the San Francisco City Attorney, any Deputy City Kerr & W agstaffe LLP, Michael Kai N g and Jasmine K. Attorney or any other person in the Office of the San Singh, San Francisco, for Real Party in Interest. Francisco City Attorney." (Italics added.) Opinion *440 St. Croix and his staff produced more than 120 Becton, J. * documents, six of which were partially redacted. St. Croix withheld other documents in their entirety on *439 San Francisco resident Allen Grossman, relying the grounds they were protected by the attorney-client on state and local public records laws, sought to obtain privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. The 24 from John St. Croix, Executive Director of the San withheld documents include (1) 15 written requests from Francisco Ethics Commission (Ethics Commission or the commission's staff to the city attorney's office for legal commission), documents pertaining to the development advice about the commission's proposed regulations, and of certain commission regulations. St. Croix provided (2) nine written responses by the city attorney's office more than 120 documents, but, citing the attorney-client to the commission's staff, providing advice about the privilege (see Evid. Code,§§ 952, 954), withheld 24 written proposed regulations. communications between the commission and the San Francisco City Attorney's Office. Grossman petitioned for a writ of mandate in the trial court, arguing a provision of the Sunshine Grossman argued, and the trial court held, that a Ordinance (S.F.Admin.Code, § 67.24, subd. (b)(l)(iii)) provision of the San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance compels disclosure of the documents at issue, even if (Sunshine Ordinance or ordinance) (S.F.Admin.Code, they would otherwise be protected by privilege. That ch. 67) required disclosure of the documents, even if provision of the ordinance states that, "[n]otwithstanding they otherwise would be protected by the privilege. St. any exemptions otherwise provided by law," the Croix and the commission (to whom we sometimes refer following documents are subject to disclosure under the ~ollectively as City) petition for a writ of mandate, ordinance: "(iii) Advice on compliance with, analysis contending City's charter incorporates the attorney of, an opinion concerning liability under, or any client privilege and supersedes any contrary ordinance communication otherwise concerning the California provision. We agree, and we hold the trial court erred Public Records Act, the Ralph M. Brown Act, the in **205 ordering disclosure of the documents. We Political Reform Act, any San Francisco Governmental therefore grant City's writ petition. 1 Ethics Code, or this Ordinance [ (i.e., the Sunshine Ordinance)]." (S.F.Admin.Code, § 67.24, subd. (b)(1).) 3

I. BACKGROUND City opposed disclosure, contending the San Francisco City Charter (charter), which creates the office ofthecity In October 2012, Grossman submitted a request under attorney and specifies his or her duties, incorporates the the California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Gov. Code,§ attorney-client privilege, and the ordinance cannot validly

WE5TLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4 St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4th 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9903 modify the charter by barring City from asserting the et seq.) "Courts may not addto the statutory privileges privilege. except as required by state or federal constitutional law [citations], nor may courts imply unwritten exceptions to The trial court granted Grossman's petition, holding San existing statutory privileges." (Roberts v. City of Palmdale Francisco Administrative Code section 67.24, subdivision (1993) 5 Ca1.4th 363, 373 [20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d (b )(1 )(iii) required production of the 24 attorney- **206 496] (Roberts); see Evid.Code, § 911.) client communications withheld by St. Croix. The court stated City's argument that the charter superseded the [2] In the context of public records requests, the ordinance provision, an issue that both parties had briefed CPRA expressly exempts from disclosure documents and argued, was "not properly before" the court. that fall within the statutory attorney-client privilege. The CPRA defines "public record" as a "writing St. Croix and the commission petitioned this court for a containing information relating to the conduct of the writ of mandate (see § 6259, subd. (c)) and moved for a people's business prepared, owned, used, or retained stay of the trial court's order. We stayed the court's order by any state or local agency regardless of physical pending resolution ofthis writ proceeding, and later issued fonn or characteristics." (§ 6252, subd. (e).) The CPRA an order to show cause. exempts certain public records from disclosure, including "[r]ecords, the disclosure of which is exempted or prohibited pursuant to federal or state law, including, but not limited to, provisions of the Evidence Code relating *441 II. DISCUSSION to privilege." (§ 6254, subd. (k).) "By its reference to the A. The Attorney-client Privilege and Public Records Laws privileges contained in the Evidence Code, ... the [CPRA] Our Supreme Court has stated: "The attorney-client has made the attorney-client privilege applicable to public privilege, set forth at Evidence Code section 954, confers a records." ( **207 Roberts, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 370, 20 privilege on the client 'to refuse to disclose, and to prevent Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d 496.) another from disclosing, a confidential communication between client and lawyer.. ..' The privilege 'has been a *442 In Roberts, the Supreme Court emphasized the hallmark of Anglo-American jurisprudence for almost importance of the attorney-client privilege in protecting 400 years.' [Citation.] Its fundamental purpose 'is to the confidentiality of written communications between a safeguard the confidential relationship between clients public agency and its counsel. (Roberts, supra, 5 Cal.4th and their attorneys so as to promote full and open at pp. 380-381, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d 496.) discussion of the facts and tactics surrounding individual The Roberts court held that, although the Ralph M. legal matters. [Citation.] ... [~ Although exercise of Brown Act (Brown Act; § 54950 et seq.) establishes open the privilege may occasionally result in the suppression meeting requirements applicable to local governing bodies of relevant evidence, the Legislature of this state has (see §§ 54950, 54953) and abrogates the attorney-client determined that these concerns are outweighed by the privilege (with certain exceptions) for the purposes of importance of preserving confidentiality in the attorney those open meeting requirements (see § 54956.9), the client relationship. As this court has stated: "The privilege Brown Act does not abrogate the privilege applicable is given on grounds of public policy in the belief that to written communications under the CPRA. (Roberts, the benefits derived therefrom justify the risk that unjust at pp. 373-374, 377, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d 496.) decisions may sometimes result from the suppression The Roberts court rejected the argument that, in the of relevant evidence." [Citations.]' [Citation.] '[T]he public agency context, the attorney-clientprivilege should privilege is absolute and disclosure may not be ordered, not apply or should be limited to situations involving without regard to relevance, necessity or any particular pending litigation. (Id. at pp. 379-380, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, circumstances peculiar to the case.' " (Cost co Wholesale 853 P.2d 496.) Such arguments were "inconsistent with Corp. v. Superior Court (2009) 47 Cal.4th 725, 732 [101 the decision of the Legislature in enacting the [CPRA] Cal.Rptr.3d 758,219 P.3d 736].) to afford public entities the attorney-client privilege as to writings to the extent authorized by the Evidence [1] The scope and availability of the attorney-client Code." (Id. at p. 380, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d 496.) privilege are governed by statute. (See Evid. Code,§ 950

663 WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4th 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9903

form "all surety bonds, contracts and, prior to enactment, B. The Charter Incorporates the State Law Attorney all ordinances." (S.F. Charter, § 6.102(6).) The charter client Privilege and Supersedes the Contrary Ordinance requires the city attorney to establish a claims bureau Provision "to investigate, evaluate and settle for the several boards, City argues provisions of its charter establishing the commissions and departments all claims for money or office and duties of the city attorney (1) incorporate the damages." (S.F. Charter,§ 6.102(9).) protections of the state law attorney-client privilege for written communications between the city attorney and his (6] The above charter provisions, by establishing the or her clients, and therefore (2) supersede the provision of office and responsibilities of the city attorney, establish the Sunshine Ordinance purporting to compel disclosure an attorney-client relationship between the city attorney of documents falling within the scope of the privilege. We on the one hand, and City and its officers and agencies agree. (including the Ethics Commission) on the other. As noted above, state law establishes that the privilege's protection of the confidentiality of written attorney-client 1. The Charter Incorporates the Privilege communications is fundamental to the attorney-client (3] (4] "The City Charter represents the supreme law relationship, in the public sector as well as in the private of the City and County of San Francisco, subject sector and is vital to the effective administration of only to conflicting provisions in the United States and ' justice. (See Evid. Code, § 950 et seq.; Roberts, supra, 5 California Constitutions or to preemptive state law. Cal. 4th at pp. 380-381, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d 496.) [Citation.] The provisions of the City Charter supersede We therefore conclude the charter incorporates the state all municipal laws, ordinances, rules or regulations law attorney-client privilege for written communications inconsistent therewith." (Stuart v. Civil Service Com. between the city attorney and his or her clients. (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 201, 206 [219 Cal.Rptr. 770].) "Generally, the same principles of construction applicable In reaching this conclusion, we are guided by Welfare to statutes apply to the interpretation of municipal Rights Organization v. Crisan (1983) 33 Cal.3d 766 [190 charters. [Citations.] The courts must always look first Cal.Rptr. 919, 661 P.2d 1073] (Welfare Rights ), in to the express language of the statute to ascertain its which our Supreme Court emphasized the importance meaning." (United Assn. of Journeymen v. City and County of confidential communications to a relationship similar of San Francisco (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 751, 760 [38 to that between attorney and client. The Welfare Rights Cal.Rptr.2d 280].) court concluded a statute (Welf. & Inst.Code, § 10950) authorizing recipients of public benefits to be represented (5] *443 City's charter designates the city attorney by laypersons in administrative proceedings necessarily as an elected officer of City and specifies the duties implied the existence of *444 a privilege protecting 4 of the office. (S.F. Charter, §§ 6.100, 6.102.) The communications between the lay representative and the charter states the city attorney must "[r]epresent the client. (Welfare Rights, at pp. 770-771, 190 Cal.Rptr. 919, City and County in legal proceedings with respect to 661 P.2d 1073.) The statute specified a benefits applicant which it has an interest." (S.F. Charter, § 6.102(1).) or recipient could appear " 'in person or through an Under certain circumstances, the city attorney also must authorized representative.' " (Id. at p. 770, 190 Cal.Rptr. represent individual City officers and officials in litigation. 919, 661 P.2d 1073, italics added by Welfare Rights.) (S.F. Charter,§ 6.102(2).) The city attorney shall initiate The Supreme Court held that "the considerations which litigation when "a cause of action exists in favor of' City. support the privilege are so generally accepted that the (S.F. Charter, § 6.102(3).) Significantly for the present Legislature must have implied its existence as an integral case, the city attorney must, "[u]pon request, provide part of the right to representation by lay persons." (Id. at advice or written opinion to any officer, department head p. 771, 190 Cal.Rptr. 919,661 P.2d 1073.) Similarly, here, or board commission or other unit of government **208 ' we conclude the state statutory privilege's protection of of' City. 5 (S.F. Charter,§ 6.102(4).) The city attorney attorney-client communications is an integral part of the also must "[m]ake recommendations for or against attorney-client relationship created by the charter. 6 the settlement or dismissal of legal proceedings" (S.F. Charter, § 6.102(5)) and must review and approve as to

WESTLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4th 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539,. 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9903

[7] **209 Grossman argues we should construe the 1058-1060 [63 Cal.Rptr.2d 213] [application of provision charter narrowly to avoid any limitation on the public's of Sunshine Ordinance contravened state statute].) In any right of access. He cites article I, section 3, subdivision event, as noted above, construing the charter's provisions (b)(2) of the California Constitution, which states: "A more narrowly would not change our analysis. The charter statute, court rule, or other authority ... shall be broadly unambiguously creates an attorney-client relationship construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and between the city attorney and the commission, and the narrowly construed if it limits the right of access .... " (See state law attorney-client privilege is a fundamental aspect Sander v. State Bar of California (2013) 58 Cal.4th 300, of that relationship. 312-313 [165 Cal.Rptr.3d 250, 314 P.3d 488].) That provision does not assist Grossman. We have concluded [10] [11] **210 Grossman next claims there is above that the charter establishes an attorney-client no conflict between the charter's establishment of relationship between the city attorney and City agencies. an attorney-client relationship and the ordinance's Grossman does not dispute that conclusion and does purported elimination of the privilege for certain not claim that a narrower construction of the charter attorney-client communications, because "attorney would produce a different result. Under state law, the client communications are not necessarily confidential," attorney-client privilege is a "generally accepted" and especially for public sector attorneys. Grossman notes that "integral" part of the attorney-client relationship. (See (as we have discussed above) the Brown Act requires that Welfare Rights, supra, 33 Cal.3d at p. 771, 19Q Cal.Rptr. most meetings of local governing bodies be public and 919, · 661 P.2d 1073.) Accordingly, we have further limits the attorney-client privilege in that context (see § concluded above that the charter necessarily incorporates 54956.9). But, as we have also explained above (and as the state law attorney-client privilege as a part of the Grossman does not appear to dispute), the Brown Act attorney-client relationship it creates. That conclusion does not limit the privilege as to written communications does not result from a broad construction of the charter's between public sector attorneys and their clients, such provisions (which unambiguously create an attorney as the materials at issue here. Written attorney-client client relationship) and would not be altered by adopting communications remain privileged and exempt from a narrower construction of those provisions; instead, our disclosure pursuant to the CPRA. (Evid. Code, § 954; holding just reflects the well-established centrality of the Gov. Code§ 6254, subd. (k); Roberts, supra, 5 Ca1.4th at privilege to the attorney-client relationship. 7 pp. 377, 381, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d 496.)

[8] [9] *445 Grossman also contends we should Grossman argues the Brown Act's provisions nevertheless construe the charter narrowly to avoid a conflict with support a conclusion that, at least in the public sector, the ordinance. But the case he cites, People v. Kennedy confidentiality is not fundamental to the provision oflegal (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 288, 290, 297 [110 Cal.Rptr.2d advice. Not so. California law recognizes that "public 203], involved an alleged conflict between two statutory entities need confidential legal advice to the same extent provisions appearing in different codes, the Business as do private clients." (Roberts, supra, 5 Ca1.4th at p. 374, and Professions Code and the Health and Safety Code. 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d 496.) Our determination In that context, a court should "adopt, if possible, a that the *446 charter incorporates the state law attorney construction which avoids apparent conflicts between client privilege and its protection of written attorney different statutory provisions .... " (People v. Kennedy, at client communications is thus consistent with the "balance p. 297, 110 Cal.Rptr.2d 203.) That principle does not between the competing interests in open government establish a court must construe a city charter to conform and effective administration [that] has been struck for to a municipal ordinance. To the contrary, when a city local governing bodies in the [CPRA] and the Brown enacts an ordinance or takes other action, it cannot Act." (Roberts, at p. 381, 20 Cal.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d contravene its charter. (See Damar Electric, Inc. v. City 496.) of Los Angeles (1994) 9 Ca1.4th 161, 171 [36 Cal.Rptr.2d 521, 885 P.2d 934] [charter city may not act in conflict 2. The Charter Supersedes the Contrary Ordinance with its charter; "Any act that is violative of or not in Provision compliance with the charter is void."]; see also Rivero v. [12] Because the charter incorporates the attorney-client Superior Court (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1050-1051, privilege, an ordinance cannot eliminate the privilege for E665 WESTLAW © 2018 Thornsoh Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7 St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4th 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9903 a class of communications between the city attorney and amendment is necessary. (See City and County of San his or her clients. " '[A]n ordinance must conform to, Francisco v. Patterson, supra, 202 Cal.App.3d at pp. 102, be subordinate to, not conflict with, and not exceed the 104-105, 248 Cal.Rptr. 290.) [city's] charter, and can no more change or limit the effect of the charter than a legislative act can modify [14] Finally, Grossman appears to suggest the privilege or supersede a provision of the constitution of the should protect the disputed materials from disclosure state.' " (Currieri v. Roseville (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 997, only if the commission demonstrates disclosure of those 1001 [84 Cal.Rptr. 615].) To the extent San Francisco particular documents would impede the city attorney's Administrative Code section 67.24, subdivision (b)(1)(iii) representation of the commission. We disagree. As noted, purports to compel disclosure of materials that fall within when the privilege applies, as it does here under the the scope of the attorney-client privilege, such as the charter, it" 'is absolute and disclosure may not be ordered, written communications between the Ethics Commission without regard to relevance,, necessity or any particular and the city attorney at issue here, it conflicts with the circumstances peculiar to the case.' " (Cost co Wholesale charter's protection of such materials. The trial court Corp. v. Superior Court, supra, 47 Ca1.4th at p. 732, 101 therefore erred in ordering disclosure of the documents Cal.Rptr.3d 758, 219 P.3d 736.) pursuant to the ordinance. 8

C. The Alleged Procedural Impropriety of the Petition [13] Seeking to avoid this result, Grossman argues that, [15] [16] The CPRA provides that, if a trial court orders because San Francisco Administrative Code section 67 .24, a "public official" to disclose records, a "party" to the · subdivision (b )(1 )(iii) purports to require disclosure of the trial court proceeding may seek appellate review by filing materials at issue, they were "never confidential in the first a writ petition.(§ 6259, subds. (a)-(c).) Grossman directed place, and no privilege ever attached." He alternatively his underlying records request solely to St. Croix, but contends that, if the privilege did apply, the voters could then named both St. Croix and the Ethics Commission as "waive" it by enacting the ordinance. We reject both parties in his petition for a writ of mandate in the trial arguments. Because the charter incorporates the privilege, court. As a result, both St. Croix and the commission are an ordinance (whether enacted **211 by City's board of parties to the petition in this court. Grossman now argues supervisors or by the voters) cannot eliminate it, either the instant petition is "void," because the commission did by designating as not confidential a class of materials not meet publicly to authorize its filing. We disagree. The that otherwise would be protected by the privilege, or by general provisions of the Brown Act cited by Grossman waiving the privilege as to that category of documents; (§§ 54952.6, 54954.2, subd. (a), 54956.9) do not establish a only a charter amendment can achieve that result. (See meeting by the members of an affected local commission City and County of San Francisco v. Patterson (1988) 202 or other body that is a prerequisite to the exercise of the Cal.App.3d95, 102,104-105 [248 Cal.Rptr. 290] [initiative appellate remedy expressly specified in the CPRA. ordinance cannot limit effect of charter; electorate has no greater power to legislate by ordinance than City's board of supervisors possesses].) D. The Parties' Requests for Judicial Notice [17] As noted, the trial court took judicial notice of Grossman also cites a provision of the CPRA, section section 67.24 of the San Francisco Administrative Code 6253, subdivision (e), that permits localities to provide and section 6.102 of the San Francisco Charter; we greater access to records *447 than the CPRA itself have taken judicial notice of sections 6.100 and 15.100 requires. Section 6253, subdivision (e) states: "Except through 15.102 of the San Francisco Charter. We deny as otherwise prohibited by law, a state or local agency the parties' requests for judicial notice of other ordinance may adopt requirements for itself that allow for faster, provisions, other charter provisions, and other items, more efficient, or greater access to records than prescribed because those materials are not relevant to our disposition by the minimum standards set forth in [the CPRA]." of this matter. Accordingly, (1) City's November 22, 2013 But section 6253, subdivision (e) does not purport to request for judicial notice *448 is granted as to exhibit authorize a locality to enact an ordinance about records B (S.F. Charter,§ 6.100) and exhibit F (S.F. Charter,§§ access that conflicts with the locality's governing city 15.100-15.102) and is otherwise denied; (2) Grossman's charter. To change locallawin this circumstance, a charter December 23, 2013 request **212 for judicial notice is

WES"fLAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8 St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4th 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R.. 9903

The petition for a writ of mandate is granted. Let a granted as to (a) the portion of exhibit 1 that includes peremptory writ of mandate issue directing respondent section 67.24 of the San Francisco Administrative Code court to vacate the order granting Grossman's petition and (b) the portion of exhibit 2 that includes sections for a writ of mandate, and to enter a new order denying 6.100, 6.102, and 15.100 through 15.102 of the San Grossman's petition. Upon finality of this decision, the Francisco Charter, and is otherwise denied; (3) City's temporary stay order is vacated. Costs in this original January 14, 2014 request for judicial notice is denied; (4) proceeding are awarded to St. Croix and the Ethics Grossman's March 7, 2014 request for judicial notice is Commission. granted as to (a) the portion of exhibit 1 that includes section 67.24 of the San Francisco Administrative Code and (b) the portion of exhibit 2 that includes sections 6.100, 6.102, and 15.100 through 15.102 of the San Dondero, Acting P.J., and Banke, J., concurred. Francisco Charter, and is otherwise denied; and (5) City's Aprill, 2014 request for judicial notice is denied. All Citations

228 Cal.App.4th 434, 175 Cal.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9903 III. DISPOSITION

Footnotes * Judge of the Contra Costa County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 1 Because we conclude the documents are protected by the attorney-client privilege, we need not address City's argument that some of the documents are also protected by the attorney work product doctrine. 2 All statutory references are to the Government Code unless otherwise stated. 3 The trial court took judicial notice of San Francisco Administrative Code section 67.24. (See Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (b); Madain v. City of Stanton (201 0) 185 Cai.App.4th 1277, 1280, fn. 1 [111 Cai.Rptr.3d 447] [taking judicial notice of relevant portions of municipal code].) 4 The trial court took judicial notice of section 6.102 of the San Francisco Charter. We grant the parties' request that we take judicial notice of section 6.100 of the San Francisco Charter. (See Evid. Code, §§ 451, subd. (a) Oudicial notice of city charter provisions], 459, subd. (a).) 5 In addition to this provision requiring the city attorney to provide advice to all boards and commissions, section 15.102 of the San Francisco Charter specifies the city attorney is the legal advisor to the Ethics Commission. We grant the parties' request that we take judicial notice of sections 15.100 through 15.102 of the San Francisco Charter. 6 In addition to specifying the above duties of the city attorney, the cHarter states that, "[s]ubject to the powers and duties set forth in" the charter, the city attorney and other specified elective officers "shall have such additional powers and duties prescribed by state law for their respective office." (S.F. Charter, § 6.1 00.) City argues this provision requires the city attorney to comply with state laws requiring attorneys to protect their clients' confidences. (See Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6068, subd. (e)(1 ); Evid. Code,§ 955; see also State Bar Rules Prof. Conduct, rule 3-100(A).) Because we conclude the charter's specification of the city attorney's duties creates an attorney-client relationship between the city attorney and City agencies, and incorporates the attorney-client privilege as an integral part of that relationship, we do not address whether section 6.100 of the San Francisco Charter provides an independent basis for granting City's petition. 7 We also note article I, section 3, subdivision (b), which was added to the California Constitution by Proposition 59, a 2004 ballot measure (see Alvarez v. Superior Court (2007) 154 Cai.App.4th 642, 656 [64 Cai.Rptr.3d 854]), specifies it "does not repeal or nullify, expressly or by implication, any constitutional or statutory exception to the right of access to public records ... that is in effect on the effective date of this subdivision .... " (Cal. Con st., art. I, § 3, subd. (b )(5)), such as the preexisting statutory exemption for privileged materials (see Evid. Code, § 954; Gov.Code § 6254, subd. (k); Roberts, supra, 5 Cal.4th at pp. 370-371, 20 Cai.Rptr.2d 330, 853 P.2d 496). 8 Because we conclude the charter supersedes the disputed ordinance provision, we do not address City's argument that the ordinance provision is "invalid for [the] independent reason" that it would "impermissibly interfere" with the city attorney's performance of his or her duties.

P667 WE51LAW © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 St. Croix v. Superior Court, 228 Cai.App.4th 434 (2014) 175 Cai.Rptr.3d 202, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8539, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 9903

From: SOTFr (BOS)

Sent: Monday{ March 121 2018 11:58 AM To: 'Thomas Busse'; 'Public Records'; COTEr JOHN (CAT); 'Guzmanr Andrea (CAT)'; Peters{ Michelle (PUC); 'Ann'; MOOREr DWIGHT (CAT); 'Denta Tadesse' Cc: Calvillo{ Angela (BOS)

Subject: SOTF - Notice of Hearing - Complaint Committee: March 271 20181 5:30 p.m.

Good Morning:

Date: March 27, 2018

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 5:30p.m.

Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing.

Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.

Complaints:

File No. 17134: Complaint filed by Thomas Busse against the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21, 67.24(g)(i), 67.27 by failing to respond to a public records request in a timely and/or complete manner.

Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

PB69 For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing. For inclusion into the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00pm, March 20, 2018.

Victor Young Assistant Clerk Board of Supervisors 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, City Hall., Room 244 San Francisco CA 94102 phone 415-554-7724 I fax 415-554-5163 [email protected] I www.sfbos.org

lfl

The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: 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 provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

Pff70 Leger, Cheryl (BOS)

From: SOTF, (BOS) Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2018 11:01 AM To: GUZMAN, ANDREA (CAT); RUSSI, BRAD (CAT); FEITELBERG, BRITTANY (CAD; '[email protected]'; Cityattorney; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; Cityattorney; '[email protected]'; 'Boomer, Roberta'; Celaya, Caroline (MTA); '[email protected]'; Patterson, Kate (ART); '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Cc: Young, Victor Subject: SOTF- Notice of Hearing - Sunshine Ordinance Task Force: August 1, 2018 at 4:00 pm.

Good Afternoon:

Date: August 1, 2018

Location: City Hall, Room 408

Time: 4:00p.m.

Complainants: Your attendance is required for this meeting/hearing.

Respondents/Departments: Pursuant to Section 67.21 (e) of the Ordinance, the custodian of records or a representative of your department, who can speak to the matter, is required at the meeting/hearing.

The Complaints are listed below:

File No. 17086: Complaint filed by Ray Hartz against Dennis Herrera and Bradley Russi, Office ofthe City Attorney, for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Sections 67.21(i), by acting as legal counsel for city employees or any person having custody of public records for the purpose of denying access to the public.

File No. 18013: Complaint filed by Thomas Busse against the Office of the City Attorney for allegedly violating Administrative Code (Sunshine Ordinance), Section 67.21 (i), for acting as legal counsel to denying access to a public record.

File No. 18017: Complaint filed by Aaron Goodman against the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) for allegedly violating Administrative Code, Sections 67.7 and 67.7-1, by taking action on an item prior to posting an agenda.

File No. 18022: Complaint filed by Kevin Williams against the Bayview Opera House and the Arts Commission for allegedly violating Administrative Code, Section 12L.5 (Nonprofit Public Access Ordinance), by failing to respond to a request for public records in a timely and/or complete manner.

P6-71 Documentation (evidence supporting/disputing complaint)

For a document to be considered, it must be received at least five (5) working days before the hearing (see attached Public Complaint Procedure).

For inclusion in the agenda packet, supplemental/supporting documents must be received by 5:00pm, July 25, 2018.

Cheryl Leger Assistant Clerk, Board of Supervisors Tel: 415-554-7724

The Legislative Research Center provides 24-hour access to Board of Supervisors legislation, and archived matters since August 1998.

Disclosures: 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 provided will not be redacted. Members of the public are not required to provide personal identifying information when they communicate with the Board of Supervisors and its committees. All written or oral communications that members of the public submit to the Clerk's Office regarding pending legislation or hearings will be made available to all members of the public for inspection and copying. The Clerk's Office does not redact any information from these submissions. This means that personal information-including names, phone numbers, addresses and similar information that a member of the public elects to submit to the Board and its committees-may appear on the Board of Supervisors website or in other public documents that members of the public may inspect or copy.

P&72