Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters urge review of AWOS water plan and quick solar permit turnarounds
Summary
Two public commenters asked the Fire Commission to review the PUC—s AWOS water plans and to restore previously faster SFFD plan‑review times for solar and energy‑storage permits.
Two members of the public used the Fire Commission—s public‑comment period on March 12 to raise concerns about water supply plans for an Automated Water Supply (AWOS) system and delays in the fire department—s plan review for solar and energy‑storage installations.
Eileen Bokin, identifying herself as a member of the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods speaking on her own behalf, urged the commission to review the project files and flagged what she described as long delays, cost overruns and technical problems she attributed to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission—s handling of AWOS pump station work dating back to 2010. Bokin said PUC proposals to extend AWOS service to the city—s West Side would use potable water pipes and, in some proposals, source water from Lake Merced.
“If non drinking water is introduced into drinking water pipes, the Department of Health would need to issue a boil water alert,” Bokin said, warning that flushing potable pipes after firefighting could take “1.5 to 2 days.” She urged the Fire Commission to review the AWOS contract and project despite its completion and said she disagreed with PUC conclusions that dedicated AWOS to the West Side is infeasible.
Bokin also referenced state bodies she said could approve coastal or water permits more quickly than the PUC estimated, and she told the commission that the PUC—s timeline estimates of 10 to 20 years for required permits were “beyond questionable.”
Separately, Eric Schoonmert, director of engineering for Luminalt, a San Francisco photovoltaic and energy‑storage contractor, said that SFFD had previously prioritized solar and battery permit plan reviews with 24–48 hour turnaround times but that his company is now “experiencing significant delays with wait times of up to 4 weeks before plan reviews even begin.” He said the delays contradict San Francisco—s own priority permitting for solar and energy storage and that the slowness increases costs and delays installation for residents.
Schoonmert asked the department to return to the earlier 24–48 hour review standard for solar and energy‑storage plans.
Ending: The commission did not take immediate action during the meeting on either public comment item. Commission leadership and the department logged the comments into the record for follow‑up; no formal referral or review timeline was announced during the meeting.
