Sneak attack (on MUD by city attorney)
 	 		
SFBG News | February 7, 2001 | Sneak attack             
 		 		 		 		
 As a key board vote nears, the city attorney tries to scuttle 
the MUD petition. 

By Rachel Brahinsky
 
Just days before a historic Feb. 12 San Francisco Board of 
Supervisors vote on public power, the City Attorney's Office has 
launched a backroom attack aimed at scuttling the grassroots 
petition to put a municipal utility district on the ballot. 

The Board of Supervisors' Rules Committee voted unanimously Feb. 
1 to let the full board decide whether to put the MUD petition 
before the voters. But several supervisors and their aides have 
told us that representatives from the City Attorney's Office have 
been meeting with members of the board to recommend alternatives 
to the MUD proposal. The City Attorney's Office, they say, is 
trying to raise doubts about the viability of the MUD. 

And advocates of public power warn that City Attorney Louise 
Renne's office has long made clear its opposition to public 
power. 

"Renne has been fighting public power for years," said Angela 
Alioto, attorney for the Coalition for Lower Utility Bills 
(CLUB). "She did everything that she could from the inception of 
the public power committee, when I was on the Board of 
Supervisors, to make sure that public power could not happen." 

When questioned at the Rules Committee hearing, deputy city 
attorney Buck Delventhal explained the argument: because the 
county's Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO, the agency 
formed last fall specifically to review the MUD petition) didn't 
conduct studies required by state law, including an environmental 
impact report, the MUD petition would be vulnerable to a legal 
challenge. 

But San Francisco LAFCO chair Neil Eisenberg said the agency 
plans to study the issue in the coming months. He added that the 
group set up guidelines last fall that allow the petition to go 
directly to the voters before such studies are completed. 

Delventhal, however, maintained that LAFCO's moves were illegal 
and insisted that the petition could end up in court. 

In the wake of the city attorney's lobbying efforts, a few board 
members who have been strong MUD supporters now say they have new 
questions about the proposed measure. Among their concerns is the 
map that defines the MUD ward boundaries. 

The map divides the city into five sections, approximately along 
the lines of the existing supervisorial districts, except for 
District 11, which is parceled out more than the rest. 

"I know that it doesn't matter in some way because of the way the 
vote has been set up, [but] there's concern out there about the 
way District 11 has been split," Sup. Gerardo Sandoval told us. 
Sandoval was also concerned that the map had not been subject to 
enough public hearings. 

A similar concern was raised at the Rules Committee hearing by 
attorney Douglas Chan, who said he represented the Chinese 
American Voters Education Committee. Chan, who is also the 
managing partner of Chan, Doi, Marshall, and Leal LLP, a small 
downtown law firm that contracts with Pacific Gas and Electric 
Company, said that the ward map splits Chinese American voters 
into too many separate districts and therefore neutralizes 
Chinese American voting power. 

But, as Sup. Matt Gonzalez and deputy city attorney Delventhal 
both explained at the Rules Committee hearing, MUD ward directors 
are chosen via an at-large vote, and voters can elect up to five 
directors, as long as those directors reside in different wards. 
So the racial and ethnic composition of the districts is not 
relevant. 

Which side are they on?
 
We called all of the board members to see where they stand on the 
MUD ballot proposal – and the measure appears to be passing, with 
the necessary six votes. Sups. Gonzalez, Tom Ammiano, Jake 
McGoldrick, Mark Leno, Sophie Maxwell, and Aaron Peskin all told 
us they plan to vote to put the measure before the voters, though 
Peskin is researching other options. "While I continue to support 
MUD and intend to vote for the resolution, I am interested in 
solutions that are more immediate as well," Peskin said. 

Sup. Chris Daly said that he is likely to vote for the measure, 
but he would not commit to it. "My intentions before today were 
to vote for it," he said. "Today Supervisor Sandoval raised 
questions about the lines. And I want to give him a listen. I 
support the MUD, and I'm going to move it forward." Sandoval and 
Sup. Tony Hall told us they support the MUD idea but want to 
resolve their questions about the ward lines before staking out a 
final position. 

Sup. Gavin Newsom and Sup. Leland Yee did not return our calls. 

Nearly every supervisor – except for Yee and Newsom –pledged in 
writing to the Bay Guardian before they were elected that they 
would support the MUD. 

Local MUD efforts were buoyed somewhat by state legislation 
introduced Jan. 30 by state senator Nell Soto (D-Ontario) that 
would make a MUD formation easier by letting communities form 
such districts without LAFCO approval. The MUD campaign could 
avoid legal challenges if Soto's bill passes. 

Paul Van Dyke, legislative director for Soto, said his office had 
received complaints that the LAFCO review process often provides 
a forum for the private utility lobby to kill citizen-backed 
initiatives. "The utilities manipulate the process, and citizens 
don't really have fair access," Van Dyke told us. "The issue is, 
let the people vote on it." 

E-mail Rachel Brahinsky at rachel@sfbg.com [rachel@sfbg.com] . 

[http://www.sfbg.com/searchit.html]