OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Correspondence Log
April 20, 2022 through April 29, 2022
Date Received From Subject
April 20, 2022 Theresa Lorejo-
Simsiman
HHWP and Wild & Scenic Tuolumne
River Recreation
April 22, 2022 Brian Browne My last Westside Observer Article John Holtzclaw San Francisco can avoid a water crisis.
Why isn’t SFPUC on board?
April 25, 2022 Dave Warner Drought Planning Sequence Letter Peter Drekmeier Department of Finance and Plan Bay
Area Projections
April 26, 2022 Nicole Sandkulla April 26, 2022 Commission Meeting Statement
April 28, 2022 Martin Gothberg Water Management and Public Deception
April 29, 2022 Dick Allen Lake Merced EIR
Dick Allen KATE POOLE Senior Director, Water
Division, Nature Program. April 28,2022
Tom Turkington Modifications to Submittal Document
and Award of PRO 0232, New CDD
campus at 2000 Marin Design Services
Weekly Media Clips
• April 14, 2022 – April 24, 2022
From: Theresa L. Lorejo-Simsiman
To: Herrera, Dennis J; Commission; Carlin, Michael (PUC); Hannaford, Margaret A; Graham, Chris; Mazurkiewicz, Adam; Walters, Reggie D; Forrester, Harrison; Ritchie, Steve; Board of Supervisors, (BOS) Cc: Dave Steindorf; Peter Drekmeier; Marty McDonnell; Scott Armstrong; Gerald Meral; Nathan Rangel Subject: HHWP and Wild & Scenic Tuolumne River Recreation Date: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:02:00 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Commissioners of the SFPUC, HHWP, Water Managers, and SF Supervisors, We are reaching out to thank you for the opportunity to participate in the annual spring 2022 HHWP and Tuolumne River Recreation Coordination Meeting, April 21, to discuss the interface between HHWP operations and recreation on the Tuolumne River. For decades, flows on the Wild & Scenic Tuolumne River have supported a substantial amount of sustainable recreation, including whitewater paddling, angling, camping, and hiking.
Tuolumne River recreation is a key contributor to local Tuolumne County economies and the people and businesses that reside in the region. We appreciate that
HHWP and the City of San
Francisco have shown a firm commitment to stewardship of the natural resources of the Tuolumne; protecting, advocating for, and investing in them.
Climate change and power market shifts threaten to negatively impact recreation by changing the instream flow historically provided by HHWP, potentially derailing this great history of cooperation and stewardship. We are well aware that an increasing supply of wind and solar power have brought about marked increases in volatility of power demands and pricing in recent years. Simultaneously, precipitation and snowpack have become increasingly variable.
We recognize this makes it more challenging to meet energy needs and also provide the recreational flows we have enjoyed in the past.
We view this Thursday’s meeting as a great
place to begin a conversation in search of collaborative solutions which support both Tuolumne River recreation and HHWP’s core commitment to providing water and power benefits to the City of San Francisco and its utility users.
In this email we outline some of the questions that we plan to raise at the meeting.
We hope to
have an opportunity to discuss them with HHWP staff, operators, and others in search of solutions that meet the needs of all parties invested in the Tuolumne River watershed. We recognize that we may not be able to cover each topic in its entirety, or subject matter experts may not be present, but hope to continue solutions-oriented discussion in the immediate future.
HHWP Questions:
What are the specific drivers and constraints which affect operator decisions on generation and its timing?
How are these constraints weighted? How might they be managed and balanced in the future, particularly if power demand continues to be variable?
What are the specific capacities of each of the HHWP water conveyance systems in terms of water release throughout various times of the year? Do these release capacities change when systems are bypassing their respective powerplant?
What sorts of flow schedules can be agreed upon in order to give whitewater outfitters and paddlers a means to reliably schedule visits to the region and river? Specifically, in the short- term, can April/May recreational flows be achieved in a reliable way? This might be as simple as extending morning generation at Holm or Kirkwood Power Houses for a few hours in order to hold the level at Meral’s Pool at boatable through the morning. In the longer term, how can power price impacts be mitigated in order to protect recreational flows? We look forward to our discussion on Thursday morning to answer some of these questions, and we appreciate HHWP’s continued commitment to transparency and collaboration on operations and issues which affect Tuolumne river recreation. We would also like to request an in-depth technical meeting to explore these issues further. Please advise on how we can coordinate that technical meeting and with whom. We anticipate that further discussion with operators, decisionmakers, outfitters, and stakeholders will be key to ensuring a continued legacy of stewardship on the Wild and Scenic Tuolumne River.
Sincerely,
Theresa Lorejo-Simsiman, California Stewardship Director, American Whitewater Dave Steindorf, Hydropower Specialist, American Whitewater
Peter Drekmeier, Policy Director, Tuolumne River Trust
Marty McDonnell, Owner, Sierra Mac River Trips
Scott Armstrong, Owner, All Outdoors
Nathan Rangel, President, California Outdoors
Jerry Meral, Director of California Water Program, Natural Heritage Institute From: [email protected] on behalf of John via San Francisco Baykeeper To: Commission
Subject: San Francisco can avoid a water crisis. Why isn’t SFPUC on board? Date: Friday, April 22, 2022 2:56:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Breed,
I urge you to withdraw the City’s litigation against the State Water Resources Control Board and direct SFPUC to start investing aggressively in water recycling today.
I am writing to you in the early days of yet another punishing drought. While San Franciscans are doing their part to save water at the household level, SFPUC is mismanaging San Francisco’s main water source, the Tuolumne River, and it isn’t doing nearly enough to prepare for drought this year—or in the decades to come.
Other cities have learned the lessons of California’s unpredictable climate and are quickly adopting water recycling to reduce their burden on rivers, while increasing the reliability of their supply. Orange County gets more than 75 percent of its water through its water reuse program. Las Vegas recycles nearly all of its water used indoors. And Los Angeles is on the path to reusing 100 percent of its wastewater by 2035.
But, as SFPUC’s draft Urban Water Management Plan recently revealed, San Francisco currently has no plans to make recycled water widely available in the next 25 years. Instead, the city is pursuing multiple expensive and misguided lawsuits so that it can continue to rely, almost exclusively, on the Tuolumne River—one of the state’s most overtapped rivers—for the next several decades. San Francisco and large agribusiness water districts divert four out of every five gallons of water that flow in the Tuolumne River during a typical year.
This overuse has caused the river’s once mighty Chinook Salmon populations to crash. Meanwhile, low river flows from the Tuolumne contribute to deteriorating water quality—including toxic algae blooms— downstream, in the Delta and San Francisco Bay.
It’s unacceptable for the city with the nation’s greenest reputation to shirk its responsibilities to preserve California’s precious and unpredictable water supply. We support increasing river flows to uphold San Francisco Bay’s fisheries, water quality, and recreation. San Franciscans want the city to do its part to protect the Bay and its rivers—water recycling is a common-sense way to limit the city’s water use, increase the reliability of its supply, and protect the Bay from harmful wastewater treatment plant effluent.
Thank you,
John
Holtzclaw
San Francisco, CA
April 25, 2022
President Anson Moran, Commissioners and General Manager Dennis Herrera San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102
Via email
Re: Modifying the Design Drought During a Drought
Dear President Anson Moran, Commissioners and General Manager Dennis Herrera,
Thank you for your planning to have a discussion to revisit our drought planning sequence, also referred to as the design drought. While some might consider it odd to reduce the design drought during a drought, there are good reasons to do so now. Circumstances are significantly different today than they were at the time of the 1987-1992 drought, including much lower demand, a much higher cost of water, and a better understanding of drought probabilities. Today we are also facing decisions regarding alternative water supplies which impacts cost. Making decisions regarding the design drought will improve clarity of decision making and improve our ability to manage water rates.
Demand today is far below the 293 mgd demand going into the 1987-92 drought 2020 demand was 198 mgd, almost a third less than demand prior to the 1987-92 drought.
The SFPUC’s water rates may be the highest in the state and are increasing The chart below was produced in 2018 by the San Juan Water District. And the SFPUC is projecting substantial continued increases – without accounting for significant alternative supplies. Note that the SFPUC’s column is the farthest to the right.
San Francisco retail rates for the lowest tier in 20071 were $2.08/ccf. In 2021 are $9.60, without the c
urrent drought surcharge, a 360% increase. For comparison, inflation during this time was 31%.
Water rates could go to $35/ccf or higher
The chart below is taken from figure 5-84 from the SFPUC’s Long Term Vulnerability Assessment (LTVA).
When presenting this chart to SFPUC commissions, Dr. Casey Brown pointed out that water rates could go as high as $35/ccf. This can be seen in the lower right-hand corner of the chart, color coded red, where the vertical axis shows demand at 227 mgd and the horizontal axis shows capital investment at $1.575 billion. The vertical axis does not go as low as today’s demand, meaning that if today’s demand were on the chart, comparable water rates would be above $35/ccf. The implication is that investment in alternative water supplies could substantially raise water rates if demand doesn’t also increase, or worse yet for rates, demand decreases.
Shortening the design drought mitigates the need for alternative supplies, holding down costs Reducing the duration of the design drought has the same effect to supply availability as adding alternative water supplies. But reducing the duration of the design drought does not require capital investment and hence does not have the potential to adversely impact water rates.
Alternative water supplies improve drought resilience. Hence it is worth developing alternative water supplies that don’t impact water rates. An example would be state or federal grants, perhaps as part of a Bay Delta Plan compromise, as has been proposed with other rivers.
1 This is the oldest data I was able to find for SFPUC retail water rates.
The latest research shows the design drought would be extremely rare It can be inferred from the LTVA that the design drought has a probability in the range of once in 30,000 years including taking into account LTVA climate change conclusions. However the LTVA researchers should complete the precise probability calculations using their stochastic models.
It is in water users’ best interests to revisit the design drought now Despite the current drought, water users will benefit from the SFPUC re-evaluating the design drought planning model now. Demand is much lower than at the start of the 1987-92 drought. Water rates are vastly higher with the potential to jump even more. Alternative water supplies are under consideration.
The latest research from the LTVA shows that the design drought has an exceptionally low probability of occurring and a shortened drought planning model would still have very low risk.
In other words, there’s a good case to be made to re-evaluate the design drought now, independent of our being in a drought today.
Kind regards,
Dave Warner
cc: Steve Ritchie
OFFICES
San Francisco
Modesto
Sonora
Mailing Address
P.O. Box 3727
Sonora, CA 95370
Phone
(415) 882-7252
Website
www.tuolumne.org
BOARD MEMBERS
John Kreiter, Chair
Harrison “Hap” Dunning,
Vice Chair
Cindy Charles, Treasurer
Kerstyn Crumb, Secretary
Eric Heitz,
Chair Emeritus
Jose Borroel
Eddie Corwin
Bob Hackamack
Camille King
Marty McDonnell
Homero Mejia
John Nimmons
Eric Riemer
Marek Robinson
Bart Westcott
April 25, 2022
President Anson Moran and Commissioners
SFPUC
525 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102
Via Email
Re: Item 6c: Correspondence Log: Department of Finance and Plan Bay Area Projections.
Dear President Moran and Commissioners:
The fourth document in your correspondence log is an email from Steve Ritchie to President Moran responding to his directive from the July 16, 2021 workshop on water demand projections and demand management. President Moran’s directive was:
“…we be given information about the differences between Department of Finance and the PBA and what those differences really are, and within that, what portion of that reflects legal mandates such as affordable housing targets and what is more aspirational.”
After a ninth month delay, Mr. Ritchie responded with two paragraphs and two attached documents. He failed to respond to President Moran’s directive.
Please ask yourself this. If you were at a cocktail party and a friend asked, “what are the differences between Department of Finance and Plan Bay Area population growth projections, and which portions reflect legal mandates?,” how would you respond based on the information provided?
I will remind you that the Plan Bay Area population projections for San Francisco are four times greater than those produced by the Department of Finance. How could the population projections cited in the SFPUC 2020 Urban Water Management Plan be 400% greater than those provided by the State? Mr. Ritchie himself answered this question at the July 16 workshop, stating:
I want to make sure it’s clear that the Urban Water Management Plan is not intended to be an actual projection of demands, because plan developments may or may not occur or may be delayed for a variety of reasons…and the projections presented in the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan are closer to an outside envelope of what the demands may be in 2045 rather than actual demands.
SFPUC Resolution 21-0170, approved by the Commission on November 9, 2021, included the following directive as a top priority for the Commission, SFPUC departments and the new General Manager:
Environmental Leadership: Improve relationships with Non-Governmental Organizations.
Staff has failed to do this. In fact, our relationship has only gotten worse.
The NGOs invested a lot of time and energy in the six SFPUC workshops, and we now ask ourselves “why?” Excellent information and ideas were shared, yet little has changed. Even simple information requests go unanswered for months, only to finally be answered with vague explanations.
It’s not sufficient for staff to simply respond to a request. Responses must clearly answer the questions raised in order for you to make informed decisions.
President Moran, please send your request back to staff for an adequate response.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
155 Bovet Road, Suite 650, San Mateo, CA 94402 ph 650 349 3000 fx 650 349 8395 www.bawsca.org
Statement by Nicole Sandkulla, BAWSCA Chief Executive Officer, Before the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) About Its Responsibility to Secure a Satisfactory Resolution to Part of the Bay Delta Plan and its Impacts on the BAWSCA Agencies and Their Customers.
April 26, 2022
Good afternoon, President Moran and Members of the Commission:
I am pleased to speak with you once more about your responsibility as leaders of the SFPUC, to continue to provide the reliable water supply needed by your twenty-six wholesale customers and the 1.8 million residents, over 40,000 businesses, and hundreds of communities in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties they serve and whose water interests are protected by BAWSCA under California law (AB 2058). These water users rely on your San Francisco Regional (Hetch Hetchy) Water System, which gets 85% of its supply from the Tuolumne River.
You also have the responsibility to help protect fish with appropriate water flows and necessary habitat. I know that you take this responsibility seriously, and so does BAWSCA.
I also spoke about these responsibilities last week with General Manager Dennis Herrera, including the need for an alternative to one part of the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board)'s Bay Delta Plan (Plan). Implementation of the adopted Plan could result in the loss of ninety million gallons of water a day and create the need for rationing up to 50 percent by BAWSCA's constituents during multi-year droughts. That could be a health, safety, and economic disaster and obviously is completely unacceptable.
These impacts are well documented in State-ordered Urban Water Management Plans that have been developed by San Francisco and BAWSCA’s member agencies. So, BAWSCA wants to be directly involved in negotiations about these and other water-supply issues to protect its constituents.
From BAWSCA's perspective, a fresh Commission strategy is long overdue to provide productive discussions and beneficial results. BAWSCA urges you to use your skills and experience to get the results BAWSCA needs to protect the water-supply interests of 1.8 million residents, over 40,000 businesses, including most of Silicon Valley, and hundreds of communities. BAWSCA will maintain close consultation with General Manager Herrera to reach its goal.
Our twenty-six member agencies collectively are, by far, your largest water customer, and they expect you to deliver a reliable supply of high-quality water at a fair price. As the largest part of your revenue structure, including money to pay for a $5 billion construction program to rebuild your delivery system, BAWSCA requires a major role in the strategic decisions that impact the water customers that BAWSCA represents.
Governor Newsom supports voluntary agreements, your Commission supports voluntary agreements, and the State Water Board invites voluntary agreements. We need a new and improved voluntary agreement for the Tuolumne River for BAWSCA's three counties. Residents, business, labor, Mayors and California legislators also support one.
So, failure is not an option, and now is the time for action. The price for water users will be high, but the cost of failure is even higher. Let's get this job done. Don't miss this opportunity. #####
From: Martin Gothberg
To: Board of Supervisors, (BOS)
Cc: Commission; Hood, Donna; Water Conservation; bawscaboardofdirectors Subject: Water Management and Public Deception
Date: Thursday, April 28, 2022 1:44:31 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
https://48hills.org/2022/04/does-sf-have-enough-water-to-give-some-back-to-the-salmon-and-the- ecosystem/
Dear SFPUC Supervisors,
The abovelink reads like a battle between Tuolumne River Trust use of real data vs. SFPUC (staff) modeling and Monte Carlo simulation. The risk of 'running out' will always be too high with secret model inputs and simulations. Staff will always be able to move the goalposts and data-based logic will never win. From the article:
"The SFPUC is basing the city’s water needs on holding enough water for a “designed drought” scenario of an eight-year megadrought, coupled with a forecast of a high-end daily water use in the Hetch Hetchy service area of 265 million gallons per day. Currently, demand is under 200 million gallons of water per day, and has actually decreased over the past three decades."
Regarding conservation, perhaps SFPUC staff imagines they can fool the populace into thinking low-flow toilets and drought tolerant landscaping will benefit the salmon-based ecosystem in the Sierra. The reality is that the SFPUC approach is clearly designed to hoard water behind dams and to use their system for growth planning
. It is obvious given the figures in the article.
Please tell me again why I should conserve. Is it so that we can grow throughout the SFPUC service area and reach that 265 mgpd figure?
Regards,
Martin Gothberg
Santa Clara, CA
From: Richard B. Allen
To: Suen, Jackie (REC)
Cc: Commission; Morten; Peder Jones; Frank Noto; MelgarStaff (BOS); Coach Mr. Samuel Nelsen; Subject: Re: Lake Merced EIR
Date: Friday, April 29, 2022 6:35:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi Jackie,
When will the Lake Merced EIR language be available for public review? Are you using the SFPUC's Lake Merced Watershed Report as a source document? Thanks,
Dick Allen
District 7
On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 10:27 AM Suen, Jackie (REC) <[email protected] > wrote:
Hi Dick,
I received your email. Thank you.
Best regards,
Jackie
Jackie Suen (she/her)
Property Manager
San Francisco Recreation and Park Department
501 Stanyan Street
San Francisco, CA 94117
(415) 831-6821
[email protected]
This message is from outside the City email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
From: Richard B. Allen
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2022 9:51 AM
To: Suen, Jackie (REC) <[email protected]>
Cc: Peder Jones
Subject: Lake Merced EIR
Hi Jackie,
I'm just checking in with you to learn if you received my email about the Lake Merced EIR draft language.
Best,
Dick
From: Richard B. Allen
To: Morten; Peder Jones; Frank Noto; MelgarStaff (BOS); [email protected]; Commission Cc: Richard B. Allen
Subject: KATE POOLE Senior Director, Water Division, Nature Program. April 28,2022 Date: Friday, April 29, 2022 10:46:45 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
"Another fundamental restriction written into California’s constitution is that all water must be used reasonably, a concept that changes over time to reflect the changing reality of “environmental, social, hydrologic, economic, and technological conditions.” Surely, what was a “reasonable” use of water in late-1800, early-1900 California is likely to be vastly different from what we consider a reasonable use of water in modern-day California. Is it hard to imagine Governor Newsom standing up today to argue that using water to irrigate millions of acres of nut orchards is a more reasonable use of water than providing sufficient water for communities and rivers? Yet, that is precisely how our water system currently functions, with antiquated “senior water rights” given primacy over all other uses." Water Rights, and Wrongs, in California | NRDC
NRDC
Among other things, the
public trust doctrine
guarantees that “the shores, and rivers and bays and arms of the sea, and the land under them…
Forwarded by Dick Allen
District 7
From: Turkington, Tom
To: Commission
Cc: Turkington, Tom
Subject: Modifications to Submittal Document and Award of PRO 0232, New CDD campus at 2000 Marin Design Services Date: Friday, April 29, 2022 1:32:22 PM
Attachments: Pro 0232 New CDD Campus Design Services Award_04.29.2022.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please find attached a letter for the SFPUC Commission’s consideration.
We look forward
to whatever response you deem appropriate.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Best regards,
Tom
Tom Turkington
Principal
KMDARCHITECTS
[email protected]
m (415) 720-3078
417 Montgomery Street, Suite 200
San Francisco, CA 94104
kmdarchitects.com
tw | fb | in | ig
April 29, 2022
To: The PUC board
From: KMD Architects
Re: Award of PRO 0232, New CDD campus at 2000 Marin Design Services and Modifications to Submittal Documents
Dear Board Members:
KMD Architects and our team of consultants, prepared and submitted our proposal for the above referenced project twice. We were shortlisted both times and pursued this at great time and expense to our firm and to our consultant partners.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission initially awarded the PRO 0232, New CDD campus at 2000 Marin Design Services contract to our firm, KMD architects on December 20th, 2021.
We were subsequently informed on February 4, 2022 that our proposal and award was being rejected for not complying with the RFP requirements. To better understand the grounds of our rejection I requested and held a zoom call on February 4th with representatives of the SFPUC to discuss this. At that time, I was informed that we could not make any changes to our documents to cure the administrative errors. None of the cited discrepancies, including an OPS error, would have materially changed the submittal and our qualifications. One cited discrepancy was that per the OPS form a consultant markup stated a maximum of 5% and we intentionally entered 0% and as stated such. The supposition by the SFPUC appears to be that we could not have a $0 markup.
Based on the Zoom call we submitted a letter to the SFPUC protesting the rejection of our award on February 8,2022.
Our challenge of the rejection was denied and the rejection affirmed by the SFPUC on February 11, 2022.
The reason for the rejection to be upheld is shown on the attached letter from the SFPUC indicating there were administrative errors in our OPS document which were not allowed to be corrected by us. Had we been provided the opportunity to correct the errors our award would have been upheld.
More importantly, subsequent to this denial of our protest, through a public record request, we obtained and reviewed correspondence between the SFPUC and the current awardee Mark Cavagnero and Associates regarding administrative errors in their proposal which caused them to initially be rejected as well. As you will see in the attached letter dated February 20,2022 members of the SFPUC offered to correct an error on their OPS form and did so for Mark KMD Architects
Award of PRO 0232
April 29, 2022
Cavagnero in their OPS form. This opportunity to correct our form was not provided to KMD Architects.
Thank you for your consideration of this and we look forward to any response you deem appropriate
Sincerely,
KMD Architects
Tom Turkington
Principal
Cc: File
From: Felicia Dunham
To: Ng, Melissa
Cc: Cox, Kyndra; Kang Kiang; Mark Cavagnero
Subject: RE: PRO.0232 New CDD Campus at 2000 Marin Design Services Date: Monday, March 21, 2022 3:02:22 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Melissa:
Thank you for getting back to me. We have not received a request for insurance documentation.
FELICIA DUNHAM, AIA, LEED AP
SENIOR ASSOCIATE
MARK CAVAGNERO ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS
1045 Sansome Street Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94111
Main 415.398.6944 x208 l Direct 415.947.7600 x208
Mobile 415.377.3495 l [email protected]
Cavagnero.com l LinkedIn l Facebook l Instagram l Twitter
Please note: I will be out of the office March 28-April 1, 2022.
From: Ng, Melissa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 21, 2022 2:43 PM
To: Felicia Dunham <[email protected]>
Cc: Cox, Kyndra <[email protected]>; Kang Kiang <[email protected]>; Mark Cavagnero <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: PRO.0232 New CDD Campus at 2000 Marin Design Services
Hi Felicia,
The PRO.0232 New CDD Campus at 2000 Marin Design Services is subject to Board of Supervisors’ approval, calendared for May. Have you received a request for insurance documentation from my colleague, LaWan Jones?
Thank you,
Melissa Ng
Contract Administration Bureau
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
[email protected]
sfpuc.org
From: Felicia Dunham <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2022 2:55 PM
To: Ng, Melissa <[email protected]>
Cc: Cox, Kyndra <[email protected]>; Kang Kiang <[email protected]>; Mark Cavagnero <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: PRO.0232 New CDD Campus at 2000 Marin Design Services
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Melissa:
I am checking in to see if you need anything from us related to contracting for the PUC CDD Campus project at 2000 Marin. We haven’t heard anything from you recently and want to make sure we did not miss any correspondence.
Thank you.
FELICIA DUNHAM, AIA, LEED AP
SENIOR ASSOCIATE
MARK CAVAGNERO ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS
1045 Sansome Street Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94111
Main 415.398.6944 x208 l Direct 415.947.7600 x208
Mobile 415.377.3495 l [email protected]
Cavagnero.com l LinkedIn l Facebook l Instagram l Twitter
Please note: I will be out of the office March 28-April 1, 2022.
From: Felicia Dunham
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 6:13 PM
To: 'Ng, Melissa' <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Cox, Kyndra' <[email protected]>; Kang Kiang <[email protected]>; Mark Cavagnero <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: PRO.0232 New CDD Campus at 2000 Marin Design Services
Hello Melissa:
I had a chance to review the corrections in detail and concur with the edits.
Thank you again for catching the error.
FELICIA DUNHAM, AIA, LEED AP
SENIOR ASSOCIATE
MARK CAVAGNERO ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS
1045 Sansome Street Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94111
Main 415.398.6944 x208 l Direct 415.947.7600 x208
Mobile 415.377.3495 l [email protected]
Cavagnero.com l LinkedIn l Facebook l Instagram l Twitter
From: Felicia Dunham
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 12:11 PM
To: 'Ng, Melissa' <[email protected]>
Cc: Cox, Kyndra <[email protected]>; Kang Kiang <[email protected]>; Mark Cavagnero <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: PRO.0232 New CDD Campus at 2000 Marin Design Services
Hello Melissa:
Thank you for catching the error. Your calculations look ok, but I want to review in more detail. I will confirm later today.
Thanks again.
FELICIA DUNHAM, AIA, LEED AP
SENIOR ASSOCIATE
MARK CAVAGNERO ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS
1045 Sansome Street Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94111
Main 415.398.6944 x208 l Direct 415.947.7600 x208
Mobile 415.377.3495 l [email protected]
Cavagnero.com l LinkedIn l Facebook l Instagram l Twitter
From: Ng, Melissa <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 22, 2022 4:20 PM
To: Felicia Dunham <[email protected]>
Cc: Cox, Kyndra <[email protected]>; Kang Kiang <[email protected]>; Mark Cavagnero <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: PRO.0232 New CDD Campus at 2000 Marin Design Services
Hi Felicia,
I am currently drafting the contract agreement in preparation of seeking Board of Supervisors approval. The submitted OPS will be part of the contract as Appendix B-1 Fee Schedule.
We noticed that the base labor cost and actual labor cost in rows 392 through 397 had a miscalculation. Since the billing rates were calculated correctly, we have recalculated the actual labor costs and sum totals and will use these final calculations for the contract. Please see highlighted cells in the attached OPS for reference.
Please confirm the final calculations of the Fee Schedule based on the billing rates in the submission.
The pdf file will be included in the contract as Appendix B-1.
Thank you,
Melissa Ng
Contract Administration Bureau
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
[email protected]
sfpuc.org
From: Felicia Dunham <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 6:39 PM
To: Ng, Melissa <[email protected]>
Cc: Cox, Kyndra <[email protected]>; Kang Kiang <[email protected]>; Mark Cavagnero <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: PRO.0232 New CDD Campus at 2000 Marin Design Services
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Melissa:
Thank you very much for your message.
We are surprised and excited to be recommended for the project! We were really disappointed by the loss – especially by such a slim margin. We look forward to working with you and Shelby on this project and can’t wait to get started.
Thanks again.
FELICIA DUNHAM, AIA, LEED AP
SENIOR ASSOCIATE
MARK CAVAGNERO ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS
1045 Sansome Street Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94111
Main 415.398.6944 x208 l Direct 415.947.7600 x208
Mobile 415.377.3495 l [email protected]
Cavagnero.com l LinkedIn l Facebook l Instagram
From: Ng, Melissa
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2022 5:42 PM
To: Felicia Dunham
Cc: Cox, Kyndra
Subject: PRO.0232 New CDD Campus at 2000 Marin Design Services
Dear Felicia,
Please find the attached correspondence regarding your firm’s proposal on San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Request for Proposal (RFP) for PRO.0232 New CDD Campus at 2000 Marin Design Services.
Please contact our office with any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Melissa Ng
Contract Administration Bureau
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
[email protected]
sfpuc.org
OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
Project Administration Bureau
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 8th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.4306
F 415.554.3225
TTY 415.554.3488
February 18, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Mark Cavagnero Associates
Felicia Dunham
[email protected]
Subject: Recommendation of Contract Award
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Contract No.
PRO.0232, New CDD Campus at 2000 Marin Design Services
(Rebid of PUC.PRO.0198)
Dear Felicia Dunham:
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) had initially posted the ranking of the above-referenced project on December 20, 2021, but has since identified defects in the proposals. The SFPUC is obligated to evaluate and reject proposals that are not materially responsive to the minimum qualifications in the RFP. This determination is central to the process of competitive bidding for public contracts, and should never be ignored. It applies regardless of where the procurement is in the review process, and can even overturn a contract award to a materially non-responsive bidder.
Accordingly, the SFPUC is now recommending contract award to Mark Cavagnero Associates.
Should you have any other questions or concerns, do not hesitate to contact our office.
Respectfully,
Melissa Ng
Contract Administration Bureau
Cc: Kyndra Cox, SFPUC
File PRO.0232
OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high-quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Correspondence Log
May 4, 2022 through May 4, 2022
Date Received From Subject
May 4, 2022 Brian Browne Data Validation
From: Brian Browne
To: Hood, Donna
Subject: Data Validation
Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 8:27:16 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Donna -
I am not sure the Brown Act et al intended the current formalization of FOI requests? The current process, to my mind, has both glued up and diluted the efficiency of the legislated process.
During the period of Mr. Kelly's leadership of the CPUC I received the following data. Would the SFPUC-Commission please check and validate these data. Please have corrections made as required. I would think the Commission would also have an interest in that rates are set by the revenue requirement process.
I am working on both a academic chapter and a summary article and need validation. My work is made public for review by the Commission.
Cheers and best,
Brian Browne
Water Delivery Volumes
(MGD)1 Revenues ($)
FYE Total WholesaleRetail
Total Wholesale2 Retail3
1985 275 170 105
$55,434,000$28,921,699$26,512,301
1986 273 170 103 56,961,000 29,099,711 27,861,289
1987 290 185 106 59,582,000 27,602,484 31,979,516
1988 284 181 103 59,741,000 26,559,965 33,181,035
1989 229 138 91 71,153,000 22,034,190 49,118,810
1990 261 160 101 62,914,000 33,879,912 29,034,088
1991 217 132 85 76,214,512 36,243,421 39,971,091
1992 202 125 76 97,794,281 48,039,270 49,755,011
1993 212 133 79106,888,550 60,280,877 46,607,673
1994 228 149 79 90,994,023 44,670,576 46,323,447
1995 224 146 79105,251,495 51,892,697 53,358,798
1996 250 162 89112,799,128 57,448,521 55,350,607
1997 260 171 89120,394,213 60,043,848 60,350,365
1998 245 158 86116,281,737 56,106,018 60,175,719
1999 256 169 87112,883,893 52,117,271 60,766,622
2000 261 173 88135,950,428 72,140,428 63,810,000
2001 264 175 89139,719,486 76,156,486 63,563,000
2002 261 171 89144,304,220 76,388,220 67,916,000
2003 255 169 86148,975,443 75,589,443 73,386,000
2004 264 181 84174,933,601 99,987,601 74,946,000
2005 251 167 84164,089,742 92,098,742 71,991,000
2006 246 164 82167,381,602 84,477,602 82,904,000
2007 256 176 80201,268,555106,915,555 94,353,000
2008 253 173 80219,767,046113,932,046105,835,000
2009 242 164 78236,476,615118,129,615118,347,000
2010 224 149 75241,390,322118,193,322123,197,000
2011 219 144 75273,038,624132,212,624140,826,000
2012 219 144 75341,980,341182,609,341159,371,000
2013 223 148 75389,598,954211,147,954178,451,000
2014 221 150 72370,987,619178,953,619192,034,000
2015 195 128 67369,742,524174,654,524195,088,000
2016 175 111 64412,145,303203,005,303209,140,000
2017 180 116 64466,279,497233,356,497232,923,000
2018 196 129 67520,133,000262,764,000257,369,000
2019 191 125 66520,485,444250,454,444270,031,000
2020 197 132 66595,509,000303,340,000292,169,000
From: Brian Browne
To: Hood, Donna
Cc: Peter Drekmeier
Subject: Clearer presentation Re: Data Validation
Date: Wednesday, May 4, 2022 12:37:26 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Water Delivery Volumes
(MGD)1 Revenues ($)
FYE Total WholesaleRetail
Total Wholesale2 Retail3
1985 275 170 105 $55,434,000 $28,921,699 $26,512,301
1986 273 170 103 56,961,000 29,099,711 27,861,289
1987 290 185 106 59,582,000 27,602,484 31,979,516
1988 284 181 103 59,741,000 26,559,965 33,181,035
1989 229 138 91 71,153,000 22,034,190 49,118,810
1990 261 160 101 62,914,000 33,879,912 29,034,088
1991 217 132 85 76,214,512 36,243,421 39,971,091
1992 202 125 76 97,794,281 48,039,270 49,755,011
1993 212 133 79 106,888,550 60,280,877 46,607,673
1994 228 149 79 90,994,023 44,670,576 46,323,447
1995 224 146 79 105,251,495 51,892,697 53,358,798
1996 250 162 89 112,799,128 57,448,521 55,350,607
1997 260 171 89 120,394,213 60,043,848 60,350,365
1998 245 158 86 116,281,737 56,106,018 60,175,719
1999 256 169 87 112,883,893 52,117,271 60,766,622
2000 261 173 88 135,950,428 72,140,428 63,810,000
2001 264 175 89 139,719,486 76,156,486 63,563,000
2002 261 171 89 144,304,220 76,388,220 67,916,000
2003 255 169 86 148,975,443 75,589,443 73,386,000
2004 264 181 84 174,933,601 99,987,601 74,946,000
2005 251 167 84 164,089,742 92,098,742 71,991,000
2006 246 164 82 167,381,602 84,477,602 82,904,000
2007 256 176 80 201,268,555 106,915,555 94,353,000
2008 253 173 80 219,767,046 113,932,046 105,835,000
2009 242 164 78 236,476,615 118,129,615 118,347,000
2010 224 149 75 241,390,322 118,193,322 123,197,000
2011 219 144 75 273,038,624 132,212,624 140,826,000
2012 219 144 75 341,980,341 182,609,341 159,371,000
2013 223 148 75 389,598,954 211,147,954 178,451,000
2014 221 150 72 370,987,619 178,953,619 192,034,000
2015 195 128 67 369,742,524 174,654,524 195,088,000
2016 175 111 64 412,145,303 203,005,303 209,140,000
2017 180 116 64 466,279,497 233,356,497 232,923,000
2018 196 129 67 520,133,000 262,764,000 257,369,000
2019 191 125 66 520,485,444 250,454,444 270,031,000
2020 197 132 66 595,509,000 303,340,000 292,169,000
On 5/4/2022 8:27 AM, Brian Browne wrote:
Dear Donna -
I am not sure the Brown Act et al intended the current formalization of FOI requests? The current process, to my mind, has both glued up and diluted the efficiency of the legislated process.
During the period of Mr. Kelly's leadership of the CPUC I received the following data.
Would the SFPUC-Commission please check and validate these data. Please have corrections made as required. I would think the Commission would also have an interest in that rates are set by the revenue requirement process.
I am working on both a academic chapter and a summary article and need validation.
My work is made public for review by the Commission.
Cheers and best,
Brian Browne
Water Delivery Volumes
(MGD)1 Revenues ($)
FYE Total WholesaleRetail
Total Wholesale2 Retail3
1985 275 170 105
$55,434,000$28,921,699$26,512,301
1986 273 170 103 56,961,000 29,099,711 27,861,289
1987 290 185 106 59,582,000 27,602,484 31,979,516
1988 284 181 103 59,741,000 26,559,965 33,181,035
1989 229 138 91 71,153,000 22,034,190 49,118,810
1990 261 160 101 62,914,000 33,879,912 29,034,088
1991 217 132 85 76,214,512 36,243,421 39,971,091
1992 202 125 76 97,794,281 48,039,270 49,755,011
1993 212 133 79106,888,550 60,280,877 46,607,673
1994 228 149 79 90,994,023 44,670,576 46,323,447
1995 224 146 79105,251,495 51,892,697 53,358,798
1996 250 162 89112,799,128 57,448,521 55,350,607
1997 260 171 89120,394,213 60,043,848 60,350,365
1998 245 158 86116,281,737 56,106,018 60,175,719
1999 256 169 87112,883,893 52,117,271 60,766,622
2000 261 173 88135,950,428 72,140,428 63,810,000
2001 264 175 89139,719,486 76,156,486 63,563,000
2002 261 171 89144,304,220 76,388,220 67,916,000
2003 255 169 86148,975,443 75,589,443 73,386,000
2004 264 181 84174,933,601 99,987,601 74,946,000
2005 251 167 84164,089,742 92,098,742 71,991,000
2006 246 164 82167,381,602 84,477,602 82,904,000
2007 256 176 80201,268,555106,915,555 94,353,000
2008 253 173 80219,767,046113,932,046105,835,000
2009 242 164 78236,476,615118,129,615118,347,000
2010 224 149 75241,390,322118,193,322123,197,000
2011 219 144 75273,038,624132,212,624140,826,000
2012 219 144 75341,980,341182,609,341159,371,000
2013 223 148 75389,598,954211,147,954178,451,000
2014 221 150 72370,987,619178,953,619192,034,000
2015 195 128 67369,742,524174,654,524195,088,000
2016 175 111 64412,145,303203,005,303209,140,000
2017 180 116 64466,279,497233,356,497232,923,000
2018 196 129 67520,133,000262,764,000257,369,000
2019 191 125 66520,485,444250,454,444270,031,000
2020 197 132 66595,509,000303,340,000292,169,000