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
February 23, 2025 through March 5, 2025
Date Received From Subject
February 23, 2025 Steve Lawrence Item 11, Sunol Valley Plant February 24, 2025 Dave Warner Affordability and the Design Drought February 24, 2025 Sinead and Michael O’Shaughnessy Public Comment on Agenda Item 7b - Award Contract No. WW.727
February 27, 2025 Ally Kofford RE: RE: Acct
February 28, 2025 SolutionsNotSandbags San
Francisco
Re: [External Message Added] City and County of San
Francisco public records request #24-2378
March 4, 2025 Judy Irving SHAME ON YOU
March 4, 2025 Gregg Wrisley Fighting the Clean Water Act March 4, 2025 Barbara Kyser USEPA & Clean Water Act
March 4, 2025 Lesley Stansfield Shame on you!
March 4, 2025 Alice Smith Why did our safety net for clean water fail in San Francisco
March 4, 2025 Bryan Eckert Supreme Court ruling: SF against EPA
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
February 23, 2025 through March 5, 2025
Date Received From Subject
March 4, 2025 Katie Bramlett What in the sewage is happening here? March 4, 2025
Nicole Kemeny What?!
March 4, 2025 Denise Louie SF v EPA / Managing effluent March 4, 2025 Martin Gothberg (Untitled)
March 4, 2025 Virginia Tincher Time to fix the sewage system! March 5, 2025 Anthony Barreiro Congratulations SFPUC for gutting the Clean Water Act
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Steve Lawrence
To: Commission
Subject: item 11, Sunol Valley plant
Date: Sunday, February 23, 2025 3:26:59 PM
Hon. President and fellow Commissioners:
You are asked in item 11 to ok $45 million more for Sunol Valley facilities. We've built the plant and a water temple. Why are we spending for those who live outside the city? What is the obligation? How much have we spent so far? This $45 million is for the "short-term;" how much is expected overall? Is all this spending reasonable, or does the agency need to learn lessons? Please have Sunol spending explained in plain terms so you understand—and the public can, too.
Steve Lawrence
February 24, 2025
Re: Affordability and the Design Drought
Dear Commissioners,
Thank you for your service.
As you know, for both this year and last the SFPUC’s proposed financial plans continue to call for increased spending which has now caused average water and sewer bill projections to start exceeding affordability thresholds in FY 2037, a little more than 11 years from now1. The increases are primarily in fixed costs including debt service.2 Because 30% of the 10 year capital plan spending occurs in the first 2 years, the flexibility to reduce fixed costs is disappearing faster than one might expect.
The SFPUC’s precarious financial situation, dependent on events unfolding better than planned in order to keep bills below affordability thresholds, means that the SFPUC should be looking closely at opportunities to hold down costs.
One such opportunity is the SFPUC’s design drought model. The risk of the design drought occurring has never officially been quantified, despite its use as a stress test on the Regional Water System.
The design drought model requires 1.3 million acre feet3 of storage in order to survive its constructed 8.5-year drought using demand of 265 mgd.
Is the design drought model the right model to be using? The SFPUC has never answered this question quantitatively. Instead, responses to queries about design drought risk have only been anecdotal. Per the minutes of the workshop on the design drought on August 23rd, 2022, the minutes state:
“He [Mr. Ritchie] stated regardless of the length of any drought, operationally [they] need to plan for the subsequent two years to be dry.”
1 Figure 1 in the enclosed leOg-W6er dated February 10, 2025 reflects affordability thresholds being exceeded. 2 Reducing the debt component funding capital spending from 78% to 71% was a significant improvement in the current financial projecOg-R6ons, but it appeared not to miOg-R6gate average bill increases. As a side note, at the February 11th meeOg-R6ng it was also great to hear of a couple projects being removed from the last 10 year capital plan, including shelving the Daly City recycled water project. 3 Excluding dead pool (unusable water in storage).
The statement leaves unanswered questions including: Why two years and not one or three? For the two years, why does the model need to use the 1976-77 drought and not just extend the annual average of the 1987-1992 drought another two years, or use some other calculation? What’s the risk of the drought continuing for an additional two years? How does the risk vary at different levels of demand?
The SFPUC’s own Long Term Vulnerability Assessment (LTVA) hinted that the design drought was somewhere between a once in 7,000 years event to a once in 70,000 years event, while incorporating the impact of climate change.
Billions of dollars are at stake. The 10 year capital plan has no significant investment in alternative water supplies (AWS). If reducing the design drought model by one year provides an additional 20-25 mgd per year of supply while holding the design drought return risk to longer than 1,000 years, isn’t that a risk worth at least considering? Eliminating the need for 20-25 mgd of supply would save added AWS capital costs of $2 billion to $5 billion.4
With water bills projected to increase above affordability thresholds in a comparatively short 11 years, please make a motion5 to have staff produce a quantified risk6 of the design drought occurring. This way you have a data-based foundation for making a risk-return tradeoff decision and could potentially save billions of dollars.
Your constituents will appreciate that nothing is “off the table” for managing affordability.
Kind regards,
Dave Warner
4 The most recent AWS plan listed projects with a capital cost of ~$200 million per mgd, which seems unusually high. The $2 billion figure was calculated as 20 mgd x $100 million/mgd capital cost. The $5 billion figure was calculated as 25 mgd x $200 million/mgd.
5 My understanding is that staff does not have to respond to requests other than resoluOg-R6ons. 6 QuanOg-R6fied risk, meaning measured in a return period as the LTVA has done with the 1987-92, 1976-77 and 2012- 2016 droughts.
cc: Dennis Herrera, SFPUC General Manager
Steven Ritchie, SFPUC Assistant General Manager, Water Enterprise Nancy Hom, SFPUC Chief Financial Officer
Laura Busch, SFPUC Deputy Chief Financial Officer
Erin Corvinova, SFPUC Financial Planning Director
SFPUC Citizens’ Advisory Committee
Tom Smegal, BAWSCA CEO
Enclosure
February 10, 2025
Re: Financial ProjecOg~M)ons Put You in a Tough Spot
Dear Commissioners,
Thank you for your service.
There are a number of concerns with the proposed financial plans. The biggest one is that staff has projected that average bills will now exceed affordability thresholds starWgJ“7ng around 2040, a first (see figure 1). 1 This puts you in a difficult posiWgJ“7on. If you approve the financial plans with projected bills exceeding affordability targets, what will staff do next year, propose financial plans that exceed affordability thresholds by even more? Where’s the limit? When will it stop or when do commissioners say, “no more”? It is almost as if this set of projecWgJ“7ons is a test. Is this commission a rubber stamp, so to speak, and approves whatever staff puts in front of it?
1 Please see my leWgJ”7er dated January 27, 2025 regarding past affordability and financial projecWgJ“7ons, copy enclosed.
Figure 1: In the added black oval note how combined water and sewer bills exceed affordability thresholds starWgJ“7ng around 2040. Also note how substanWgJ“7al rate increases are projected for the next 10 years.
Lower than projected demand would increase average bills even more Average bill increases are based on growing water sales. What would average bill increases look like if demand doesn’t grow as expected? Staff will say that their average bill projecWgJ“7ons are not based on demand, but number of accounts.
Companion quesWgJ“7ons would be: What is the assumpWgJ“7on for account growth? What would average bills look like if the number of accounts come in below projecWgJ“7ons? Risk to projecWgJ“7ons is something to be considered when evaluaWgJ“7ng financial plans.
Staff will likely argue that they will work hard so that affordability thresholds are not exceeded, despite the projecWgJ“7on. If their planning process came up with these numbers, they need to be taken at face value. If your consWgJ“7tuents see figure 1, telling them that staff is trying to prevent this from happening isn’t much of a comforWgJ“7ng statement, parWgJ“7cularly when staff said similarly last year about working to hold down average bills when they were slightly below the affordability threshold.
Figure 2: Note that water sales are projected to increase, although by not as much as previously projected. Retail sales are expected to increase from 51.7 mgd last year to 53.7 mgd this year and then slightly decline aWg33”er that. Wholesale sales are projected to increase from 122.7 mgd last year to 128.2 mgd this year and conWgJ“7nue to increase aWg33”er that.
Staff hasn’t given you a strong defense
To defend such exceptional increases to your constituents, so far the most you can say is that staff said they need to do all the projects they have in their plans on the timeframes they set. For three of you, you don’t have the benefit of last year’s presentations (even though they weren’t as comprehensive as one might have liked).
As a regulatory body, unlike staff, best practices for your role likely include:
Demonstrating that the commission (you, as opposed to staff) has conducted adequate due diligence in evaluating the financial plans. Understanding level of due diligence taken by staff and tradeoffs they made. Just saying that they reduced the capital plan from some higher number isn’t much of a demonstration of diligence.
Understanding numerically the relationships and tradeoffs between capital investment, investment timing, and average bills.
Actions to consider:
1. Ask to review a prioritized list of projects that make up the 10 year capital plan. Ask to understand the criteria used for prioritizing. Review the list and spot check some projects for how they were prioritized. The goal with this item is to assess the adequacy of the level of due diligence taken by staff.
2. Ask for an analysis showing the relationship between capital investment and average bills. How would a $1 billion reduction in capital investment change projected average bills? Ask how deferring $1 billion of projects for 1-2 years affects average bills. The goal with this item is to be able to assess the tradeoff between lower rates and not delaying the lowest priority projects along with assessing the level of staff due diligence.
Ultimately is the timing of the lowest priority investments worth the impact they have on average bills?
3. Ask for tangible data to assess risk. What would projected average bills be if demand and account projections came in 5% below forecast. What is staff’s track record for bringing in capital projects on plan and how would
variances affect average bills. 2 What will be the impact to average bills if investments in alternative water supplies are needed? 3
4. Ask for a follow up meeting, ideally a workshop, to further evaluate the proposed financial plans in the context of additional materials that staff provides to you from your requests.
By taking steps like these, you are demonstrating care in making an informed decision on the financial plans. These financial plans are unusual. The decision you are being asked to make is to approve the SFPUC proceeding with a financial plan where its own affordability thresholds will be exceeded.
Hand waving without specific data is a red flag.
As you know, it is difficult for you to tell staff which projects to delay. It is for them to decide. But clearly with the direction costs are going, you need to set boundaries, as apparently the affordability policy wasn’t a boundary.
You are not alone. What advice might your counterparts at either the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA) or the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) give? Likely general advice would be to be prepared for lower demand than you might otherwise expect 4. Water agencies across California are facing these issues.
Increasing spending in an environment of lower demand is a recipe for a deteriorating financial situation, not to mention a loss of adaptability should unforeseen events occur.
Other items to note:
2 You will recall that the Q4 2024 Water Enterprise Capital Improvement Plan projects report showed current projects being on average 20% over budget.
3 The AWS plan indicates the regional water system (RWS) provides a firm yield of 152 mgd. Based on the 2035 demand projecWgJ“7on of 195.7 mgd from figure 2, 38 mgd of AWS would be needed (5 mgd saved through the raWgJ“7oning model).
4 MenWgJ“7oning SDCWA because of the financial challenges they’ve had due to demand not materializing as planned and MWD for their work on managing rate increases in the face of lower demand.
10 Year Spending Projections Keep Increasing
Despite staff noting that the 10 year capital plan has gone down from last year by a modest 6.5% to $11.1 billion (while the prior year was a 34% increase up from $8.8 billion), spending projections continue to increase (see figure 3). Given the 10 year capital plan not continuing to increase, it is not clear what is driving the expense increases. Consider asking staff the cause of the increased spending in the 10 year financial plan despite the small decline in the 10 year capital plan.
Figure 3: 10 year financial plan spending projecWgJ“7ons conWgJ“7nue to increase. Note that in 2033 the 2023-24 plan projected 2033 spending to be $899 million. 2 years later the 2033 projecWgJ“7on is $1,092 million.
$709
$899
$1,039
$1,092
$700
$800
$900
$1,000
$1,100
$1,200
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 $ millions
Water Enterprise Projected Annual Expenditures
2023-24 plan 2024-25 plan 2025-26 plan
What last year’s audited financial statements tell us: Flat sales for services and increasing expenses
The fiscal year 2024
audited financial
statements showed a
slight decline in sales
for services (water
sales) and increasing
expenses. Overall
revenues increased
slightly ($1 million)
primarily due to
interest income.
Expenses increased
11% ($72 million). See
figure 4.
The good news is the
audit appears to be of
high quality. However
expenses growing
faster than revenues is
a concern. It would be worth asking what to make of FY 2024 expense growth.
Comparing last year’s financial results to last year’s budget
SFPUC staff doesn’t
provide a comparison
of results to budget.
However it is useful
to see to understand
forecast accuracy.
The comparison in
figure 5 was an
attempt to provide a
comparison. however
it should be provided
Figure 4: A summary of the Water Enterprise Income Statement from FY 2023 to FY 2024 (flat revenues, higher expenses). Note 2023 is on the leWg33” and 2024 is on the right (different order than a normal audited financials presentaWgJ“7on)
2023 2024
Revenues Actual Actual % change
Charges for services 661,241 650,233 -2%
Rents and concessions 13,282 8,566
Other operating revenues 16,568 18,101
Interest and investment income 11,156 25,097 125% Other non-operating revenues 40,679 42,071
Total revenues 742,926 744,068
Expenses
Operating expenses 460,253 529,356
Interest expenses 214,913 222,055
Other (8,196) (12,065)
Total expenses 666,970 739,346 11%
75,956 4,722 -94%
Margin 10% 1%
Change in net position before capital
contributions and transfers
Water Enterprise Changes in Net Position (~ income statement) $ millions
Figure 5: Overall FY 2024 revenues grew more than budgeted, by $23 million. Expenses also grew more than budgeted, by $31 million. Not enough data was available to explain why actual revenues exceeded budgeted revenues, nor why total expenses exceeded budgeted expenses.
Normally one would expect expense forecasWgJ“7ng one year out to be fairly accurate.
Actual Budget Variance
Total revenues 744,068 721,300 22,768 3.2% Total expenses 739,346 708,700 30,646 4.3% Change in net position 4,722 12,600 (7,878) Water Enterprise FY 2024 Comparison to Budget
$ millions
by staff. There’s not much to be made of this comparison other than the result is slightly negative, expense growth exceeding revenue growth over budget.
Normally expenses are relatively easy to forecast compared to the uncertainty and lack of ability to control revenues/sales.
Water & sewer bill comparison incomplete
Staff likes to provide a comparison of average water and sewer bills against other agencies where the SFPUC’s charges look reasonable. The data they present is valuable, but incomplete as the amount of water and sewer service purchased is quite different between agencies. If you were to compare the cost of consuming
4.8 ccf between Los Angeles and San Francisco, San Francisco’s cost would be more than double that of Los Angeles (see figure 6). Water rates are not a good measure of efficiency, but it is worth keeping in mind that it costs the SFPUC a lot more than the LADWP to deliver a ccf of water and provide sewer service for that water.
Figure 6: On the basis of a comparable number of ccf, San Francisco’s combined water and sewer bills would be more than double those of Los Angeles. Note that this data is from 2023. $40.14
$62.14 $67.14 $70.52 $74.09
$21.72
$74.20 $77.90 $82.18 $86.63
$3.61 $7.84
$12.82
$-
$20.00
$40.00
$60.00
$80.00
$100.00
$120.00
$140.00
$160.00
$180.00
$200.00
Los Angeles
(current)
San Francisco
(2023)
San Francisco
(proposed 2024)
San Francisco
(proposed 2025)
San Francisco
(proposed 2026)
Average Single Family Residential Monthly Bill
(using San Francisco's average water usage)
2023 based Comparison of Water & Sewer Bills for 4.8 ccf Water Wastewater Stormwater
$62
($13/ccf)
$136
($28/ccf)
$145
($30/ccf)
$153
($32/ccf)
$161
($33/ccf)
A large proportion of the average water bill goes to debt service.
A primary difference between the SFPUC and LADWP’s cost to deliver a ccf of water is the use of debt. For water bills alone, 50% of a San Francisco water bill goes to debt service while for a Los Angeles water bill, 23% goes to debt service (see figure 7). For reference, for a San Diego County Water Authority Customer, 23% also goes to debt service. San Francisco’s use of debt is exceptional.
Just to understand the impact of debt service costs alone it is important to compare the cost of delivering water on a ccf basis in addition to looking at average bills.
Debt service is a big challenge. The current plan calls for 70% of the 10 year capital plan to be paid for with debt. Adding this debt over the next 10 years and factoring in a 30 year payback, we are locking in high fixed costs for generations.
F
igure 7: For water bills alone (excludes sewer), the porWgJ“7on of the bill that goes to debt service makes up half of the cost of a San Francisco bill while for Los Angeles about a quarter of the bill goes to debt service. Note that this data is from 2023.
$39.01
$64.28
$-
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
$70.00
LADWP SFPUC
2023 Water Rate Comparison Showing Portion Going to Debt Service Single family homes based on 5 ccf usage per month
Debt service
Operations
Total
A question to consider asking is how can we reduce our use of debt. One answer is to slow down capital spending. Another is to lower the proportion of debt used to finance capital projects. This would have a rate impact, which is another area that would be useful to explore. If we reduced our debt financing from 70% to 65%, how would that affect rates over the short and long term? These are just some of the topics that the proposed financial plans raise. Another topic that unfortunately likely needs study: How do we reduce our operating expenses? Is there an opportunity for a modest downsizing (on a personal note I find this sentence breathtaking/hard to write). Perhaps looking at slowing capital spending is easier than looking at reducing operating expenses.
Hopefully this letter is useful as you consider approval of the proposed financial plans.
Best regards,
Dave Warner
cc: Dennis Herrera, SFPUC General Manager
Steven Ritchie, SFPUC Assistant General Man ager, Water Enterprise Nancy Hom, SFPUC Chief Financial Officer
Laura Busch, SFPUC Deputy Chief Financial O fficer
Erin Corvinova, SFPUC Financial Planning Di rector
Enclosure
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: [email protected]
To: Commission
Cc: "Mike (MOS)"; [email protected]
Subject: Public Comment on Agenda Item 7b - Award Contract No. WW.727 Date: Monday, February 24, 2025 1:25:14 PM
Importance: High
Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to submit my comments for the record regarding Agenda Item 7b – Award of Contract No. WW.727
and to express my deep disappointment as a Micro LBE that the City chose to throw out our bid. As a family, the O’Shaughnessy’s have a long history of working with the City, and it is incredibly disheartening to see how this project was handled pre-award. Given our long-standing commitment to public works, we expected a fair process. Instead, we have been met with an overly rigid and unfair interpretation of the specifications, which has ultimately resulted in what we believe is an unjust outcome. I urge the Commission to request a review of how specifications are written and how they are being applied in bid determinations, as these issues have real consequences for small, local businesses like ours. As a micro LBE, biding a job in Oct and losing it in Feb can be detrimental as unlike larger companies we have to plan with the resources we have available and now have to aggressively switch our plans given the decision to award this contract to the next lowest bidder. This decision also comes at a cost of over $280,000 for the City.
At the time of bid submission, Michael O’Shaughnessy Construction (MOS) was the lowest bidder at $8,421,657, which was $280,792 less than Precision Engineering, the second-lowest bidder. This project was bid on October 10, 2024, and on December 18, we were issued a Notice of Non- Responsibility determination, as it was decided that Norcal Pipelines did not meet the bidder qualifications for their portion of the work. As is common industry practice, we relied on their Norcal to thoroughly review project specifications and confirm their ability to meet all necessary requirements. We immediately requested a hearing on December 19 and submitted additional information to the City on January 10, 2025. This submission included:
A release letter from Norcal, voluntarily removing themselves from the bid.
A letter from SAK, agreeing to replace Norcal and providing their experience statements—all with no change to the bid price.
However, on January 28, the City after holding a hearing without in-person discussion, upheld the decision but did not address our request for substitution. We again requested substitution on January 29, but this was formally denied.
The issue we want the Commission to be aware of is that Specification Section Bidder Qualifications 00-21-13-1.10.E states:
"The City will promptly notify the apparent low Bidder in writing if the City, after due investigation, has any reasonable objection to any person or entity proposed in response to Subparagraphs C and D, above, and will request the apparent low Bidder to submit an acceptable substitute without an increase in Bid price, subject to the restrictions set forth in the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (California Public Contract Code §4100 et. seq.)." Despite this clear language in the specifications, which allows for substitution without an increase in bid price, our request was ignored and later denied. If the City, as they stated, intends to apply the California Public Contract Code 4100 only to the post-award process, then this specification should not be included in the Bidder Qualifications section, as it misleads contractors into believing that substitution is possible during the bidding phase. This calls into question the fairness and consistency of the City’s contract award process and the way bidder qualifications are being interpreted. We ask the Commission to carefully examine this issue and consider how these practices impact small, local businesses such as ours.
Transparency, fairness, and clarity in the bidding process are essential to maintaining competitive integrity and ensuring that LBEs are given a real opportunity to participate.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sinead and Michael O’Shaughnessy
Michael O’Shaughnessy Construction, Inc.
Virus-free.www.avast.com
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Importance:
Ally Kofford
Customer Service; Customer Service; Customer Service; Commission Dave Krueger
RE: RE: Acct
Thursday, February 27, 2025 3:25:03 PM
image001.png
SF Water Sewer letter 20250206.pdf
High
Hello, it’s been some time since I’ve followed up on this. I am not able to get a hold of any via phone, even if I wait 30 minutes+. I also sent a letter beginning of February that I’ve received no other correspondence from, letter attached here for your reference. I also emailed, see below.
Just a recap: we do not know a Clarence Z. Chu, we keep receiving invoices for him and we have no relationship or relevance to this person. I’ve done an extensive google search for this person and I am not able to find anything. The account number being billed to us is # and the meter #0020366013. Again, we have nothing to do with this account or this person.
The only account we have, that we pay for, has nothing to do with Clarence Chu and the meter number is completely different.
We received a notice this week stating that if we do not pay these charges there will be a lien placed on the building. I would recommend you dig deep into your records to find Clarence Chu’s actual billing address and threaten him with that information as, again, we have nothing to do with his accounts. HE set up these accounts, not us.
I would appreciate an immediate response from you, but I realize that isn’t feasible. We have, unfortunately, been dealing with this since December.
Respond ASAP please, I would greatly appreciate ANY kind of correspondence.
Ally Kofford
Email:[email protected]
Office: 707-252-6688
Fax: 415-861-5565
License #364692
From: Ally Kofford
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2025 10:24 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Acct #
Importance: High
Good morning, we’ve received a bill in the name of Clarence Z. Chu for $285.29 at Alabama Street. We do not know of a Clarence Chu and there are no tenants at this address by that name. Can you please let me know the meter number you are pulling this information from?
I tried to call to speak to someone directly but was on hold for over 25 minutes.
Thank you!
Ally Kofford
Email:[email protected]
Office: 707-252-6688
Fax: 415-861-5565
License #364692
February 6, 2025
San Francisco Water, Power and Sewer
PO Box 7369
San Francisco, CA 94120-7369
RE: Account Numer
We have received a couple invoices for this account number for someone in the name of Clarence Z. Chu, which of whom we do not know. He is not a tenant of ours and we have no history of this account number in our payables.
We have cross checked the meter numbers and the one listed on the bill is not attached to the building we are receiving invoices for.
I’ve tried to get in touch with someone from your company for weeks now via phone and email.
I thought maybe an old fashioned letter would get someone’s attention.
Please respond to me via phone, email or letter:
(707) 252-6688 – Office
[email protected]
PO Box 3826
Napa, CA 94558
I would appreciate a response ASAP to avoid any unnecessary actions moving forward and to clear this balance and name from our building.
Thank you,
Ally Kofford
Krueger Bros. Builders
Krueger Bros. Builders, Inc.
TEL # (415) 863-5846
E-Mail: [email protected] | https://kruegerbrosinc.com This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: SolutionsNotSandbags San Francisco
To: Prather, Joel; Mayor Daniel Lurie; Commission; Commission; Board of Supervisors (BOS) Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Public Records; Noonan, Chloe E; Moncrease, Lexus; Mission Creek; The Marina 94123
Subject: Re: [External Message Added] City and County of San Francisco public records request #24-2378 Date: Friday, February 28, 2025 10:26:20 AM
Attachments: Request 24-2378 - NextRequest - Modern FOIA & Public Records Request Software feb 28 2025 .pdf Dear Mayor Lurie,Mr. Prather and San Francisco PUC Commission; Please see attached Next Request 24-2378 and the email chain below, a copy is attached. We understand that this subject is both an embarrassment and may have legal ramifications but the lack of response to a reasonable request for documents under California's Public Records Act raises serious concerns about what actions or behavior SF may be attempting to avoid public scrutiny of.
Please let us know if you plan to honor this Calif. Public Records Act request.
Also, we'd like to suggest that this and all other public records requests to San Francisco PUC be opened and published to the public on the Next Request software. Currently other City departments using the software have the requests open and searchable. The Next Request site specifically suggests to the public to search for requests first so that if others had similar requests, one can obtain the records without creating unneeded additional requests. Again, the intentional shielding of this public information raises concerns about why SFPUC would be concerned about public records being made available to the public.
According to the Next Request website (https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests ):
Explore 28231 requests
If you need San Francisco records that may have been previously released, please search past requests.
You may find what you need!
Thank you.
SOLUTIONS NOT SANDBAGS
Bringing Awareness to SF's Failing Sewer System
Website: SolutionsNotSandbags.org
YouTube I Instagram I Twitter I Facebook
Original Request from https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests/24-2378 Dated April 18th, 2024
Dear Custodian of Records:
In the Meeting Minutes for the Nov.19, 2018 meeting (see attached and below) regarding the decommissioning of the Pierce St. Outfall, there were 5 participants and 2 others on the distribution. We request all emails for the dates 1/1/2016 to the present (4/18/2024) from and to these participants as well as their successors regarding:
1. Pierce St. outfall in any respect/any item (ie, condition, modifications, concerns, plans to decommission, follow up after floods, etc)
2. Any additional outfalls which were considered for closure This is all emails from and to the participants:
1. Greg Norby
2. Joel Prather
3. Howard Fung
4. Mira Chokshi
5. Sarah Minick
And the others involved:
1. Amy Chaistain
2. Vi Lam
It is noticed that Ms. Lam is not a city employee, if any emails were sent from or to any city employee from or to Vi Lam, please include them. If as a part of Vi Lam's consulting work, she was provided a City email, Please provide any emails from that account.
Mr. Norby and Ms. Chokshi are not currently employed by SFPUC however we request their email archives be checked for any relevant emails. We also request any and all emails from all SFPUC employees related to the above subjects to and from Mr. Norby and Ms. Chokshi if you are not able to access their email archives. Hopefully you can access their archives and prevent having to search all current employees emails.
Thank you for your assistance on this,
Solutions Not Sandbags
From: Pierce Decommisioning- Minutes of Meeting with AGM_11192018. docx.pdf https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tDDqLFEFG273LBQItSA1uTeVIHFiGXJT/view?usp=drive_link SUBJECT: Pierce CSD Decommissioning Meeting with WWE AGM Date and Time: 11/19/2018 9:30-10:00
Location: 525 Golden Gate
Attendees: Greg Norby (GN), Howard Fung (HF), Saed Toloui (ST), Mira Chokshi (MC), Sarah Minick (SM)
Distribution: Attendees, Vi Lam, Amy Chastain
Recorded By: Saed Toloui
Meeting Purpose: To present Pierce St. CSD decommissioning and receive approval form AGM.
On Tue, Jan 21, 2025 at 7:13 AM Prather, Joel <[email protected] > wrote:
Thank you SNS,
And you are correct, it’s our team of 500+ out there day in and day out, doing the best we can with the resources we have to protect public health and this beautiful environment entrusted in our care.
Joel Prather
Assistant General Manager – Wastewater Enterprise
415.385.5977
San Francisco Water Power Sewer
| Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
From: SolutionsNotSandbags San Francisco <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 20, 2025 8:34 AM
To: Prather, Joel <[email protected]>; The Marina 94123 <[email protected]>; Mission Creek <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Public Records <[email protected]>; Noonan, Chloe E <[email protected]>; Moncrease, Lexus <[email protected]>; Almendral, Desiree D <[email protected]>; KUS, ESTIE (CAT) <[email protected]>; KELLY, PATRICK (CAT) <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [External Message Added] City and County of San Francisco public records request #24-2378
Dear Joel Prather: I was asked to correct my comment below, I wanted to say: We appreciate the work you do and it seems like you and your team trying to do the right thing. The people of Solutions Not Sandbags appreciate all the effort that Dear Joel Prather:
I was asked to correct my comment below, I wanted to say:
We appreciate the work you do and it seems like you and your team trying to do the right thing.
The people of Solutions Not Sandbags appreciate all the effort that the City employees had done trying to get all the problems addressed. We all hope you are not severely impacted by the upcoming Trump administration if they decide to investigate the problems at San Francisco PUC.
Thank you again for your time and effort
On Sat, Jan 18, 2025 at 7:59 AM SolutionsNotSandbags San Francisco <[email protected] >
wrote:
Mr. Prather:
Thanks for your help on this!
I appreciate the work you do and it seems like you and you're trying to do the right thing.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2025 at 7:09 AM Prather, Joel <[email protected] > wrote:
Good morning SNS,
Thanks for reaching out.
I’ve included our Public Records team, hopefully they can give you an update.
Joel Prather
Assistant General Manager – Wastewater Enterprise
415.385.5977
San Francisco Water Power Sewer
| Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
From: SolutionsNotSandbags San Francisco <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2025 2:49 PM
To: Prather, Joel <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [External Message Added] City and County of San Francisco public records request #24-2378
Mr. Prather I'm checking on the status of the below public records request, dated May 13th, 2024. It's been an exciting 8 months now and I nearly forgot about it! Let me know the status of this request. Thank you! SNS SOLUTIONS NOT SANDBAGS Mr. Prather
I'm checking on the status of the below public records request, dated May 13th, 2024. It's been an exciting 8 months now and I nearly forgot about it!
Let me know the status of this request. Thank you!
SNS
SOLUTIONS NOT SANDBAGS
Bringing Awareness to SF's Failing Sewer System
Website: SolutionsNotSandbags.org
YouTube I Instagram I Twitter I Facebook
On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 4:40 PM CCSF Public Records <[email protected] > wrote:
-- Attach a non-image file and/or reply ABOVE THIS LINE with a message, and it will be sent to staff on this request. --
City and County of San Francisco Public Records
A message was sent to you regarding
record request #24-2378:
Dear Requester,
We are continuing to conduct a diligent search for records responsive to your request. Due to the need to continue searching and for consultation with another agency or among two or more components of our office, we are extending the time within which to respond to your request. We will produce any responsive records as soon as reasonably possible on an incremental or rolling basis.
Best Regards,
SFPUC Public Records
View Request 24-2378
https://sanfrancisco.nextrequest.com/requests/24-2378
Questions about your request? Reply to this email or sign in to contact staff at City and County of San Francisco.
Technical support: See our help page
--
SOLUTIONS NOT SANDBAGS
Bringing Awareness to SF's Failing Sewer System
Website: SolutionsNotSandbags.org
YouTube I Instagram I Twitter I Facebook
--
SOLUTIONS NOT SANDBAGS
Bringing Awareness to SF's Failing Sewer System
Website: SolutionsNotSandbags.org
YouTube I Instagram I Twitter I Facebook
--
SOLUTIONS NOT SANDBAGS
Bringing Awareness to SF's Failing Sewer System
Website: SolutionsNotSandbags.org
YouTube I Instagram I Twitter I Facebook
--
SOLUTIONS NOT SANDBAGS
Bringing Awareness to SF's Failing Sewer System
Website: SolutionsNotSandbags.org
YouTube I Instagram I Twitter I Facebook
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Judy Irving
To: Commission
Subject: SHAME ON YOU
Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 10:23:48 AM
I can’t believe you carried this case all the way to the Supreme Court.
You are now in league with Trump.
Congratulations.
Judy Irving
embarrasded for San Francisco
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Gregg Wrisley
To: Commission
Subject: Fighting the Clean Water Act
Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 10:35:40 AM
This is not the SFPUC that I know. Since when do we make it easier for polluters? You should be ashamed.
Gregg Wrisley
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Barbara Kyser
To: Commission
Subject: USEPA & Clean Water Act
Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 11:12:00 AM
I am disgusted that San Francisco won a major case against the US Environmental Protection Agency that will further weaken the Clean Water Act. This Supreme Court decision is a gift to polluters! Barbara and Ed Kyser
Los Altos
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Lesley Stansfield
To: Commission
Subject: Shame on you!
Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 11:13:25 AM
Very disappointed in the decision giving you a pass on strengthening the Clean Water Act. With everything else that’s going on, whose side are you on? Disgusted,
Lesley Stansfield
Noe Valley
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Alice Smith
To: Commission; [email protected]
Subject: Why did our safety net for clean water fail in San Francisco Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 11:16:10 AM
I am amazed that you are working against clean water. This was not the brief we the people thought you had?
Why on earth did you take that case to the Supreme Court. Isn't it bad enough that we have the US Government supporting pollution, upending climate control. We didn't need your adding your time and taxpayers' money to defeat Clean Water. --
Alice Schaffer Smith
850 Webster Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Bry Eck
To: Commission
Subject: Supreme Court ruling: SF against EPA
Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 11:22:03 AM
I am truly saddened to see my City move backwards instead of forwards with regard to environmental safeguards. It’s truly reprehensible coming from our City which used to be a beacon of progress toward protecting our environment and safety.
Those responsible for the latest far reaching Supreme Court ruling that undermines our protections through the EPA should be ashamed of themselves. This was a cowardly lawsuit was a cowardly, irresponsible, and short sighted move on the part of PUC and mayor’s office.
I hope all of those responsible will think of their children in future decision making.
Bryan Eckert
778 Oak Street
San Francisco, CA
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Katie Bramlett
To: Commission
Subject: What in the sewage is happening here?
Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 11:47:52 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/04/epa-ruling-sewage-water What has happened here? SF is pro-pollution, anti-clean water? Anti-environment?? Having this particular SCOTUS rule in your favor against the EPA is nothing to be proud of. Shame on you.
Katie Bramlett
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Nicole Kemeny
To: Commission
Subject: What?!
Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 1:19:20 PM
Hello,
Excuse me, but where is the benefit to loosening restrictions on polluters? Are we not suffering enough attacks at the federal level on public health? How do you make your decisions??
Nicole Kemeny
***
A study examining more than a million people in China and the U.S. showed the effects of growing up in clement weather...Such individuals are, on the average, more individualistic, extroverted, and open to novel experience...the magnitude of the effect isn't trivial, being equal to or greater than that of age, gender, the country's GDP, population density, and means of production." Sapolsky, Robert, Determined, 2023
Here lived Maurice Kemeny, born 1899.
He was deported in 1944 and ultimately murdered.
Stolperstein (Wikipedia)
A commemorative plaque for one of my grandfathers. Both were Hungarian holocaust victims.
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Denise Louie
To: Commission; [email protected]; Daniel Lurie
Subject: SF v EPA / Managing effluent
Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 2:15:54 PM
Hi Mayor Lurie, SFPUC Commissioners, and General Manager Dennis Herrera, Like many San Franciscans, I care about the health of our ocean and bay waters.
While the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the City, I urge you to ensure that the PUC will take action to manage storm and nitrogen discharges.
The PUC's $12 b 10-year Capital Plan notwithstanding, I suggest that a new tunnel be constructed along Sunset Blvd leading to the oceanside treatment plant. This would accomplish two things. Wastewater could be stored in the tunnel during heavy storms, for up to 8 hours or as long as it takes for the treatment plant to process wastewater in the existing tunnel. This would help limit the amount of pollutants we discharge into the ocean. Secondly, this would be a back-up system when and if the ocean claims the existing tunnels.
Our governor is a San Franciscan. The chair of the State Senate is a San Franciscan.
I urge you to reach out to them to help fund a project to manage the City's discharges and the health of ocean and bay waters. They might even help with firefighting pipelines for the west side of the City!
I look forward to your response.
Thanks,
Denise Louie
SF native
PUC customer
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Martin Gothberg
To: Commission; [email protected]
Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 4:17:56 PM
Dear Mayor and Commissioners,
The City's discharge of raw sewage may have been adjudicated by the Supreme Court in its 5-4 ruling in your favor but it is STILL a disgusting activity. I look forward to knowing your plan to clean up this mess.
Thank you,
Martin Gothberg
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Virginia Tincher
To: Commission
Subject: Time to fix the sewage system!
Date: Tuesday, March 4, 2025 4:37:01 PM
Dear SFPUC Commissioners,
Now that you can dump raw sewage into our ocean do the right thing and fix the system so raw sewage is treated before it’s released.
If I were a resident of San Francisco I would pay the additional cost on my bill. Ask the residents. I think they would prefer a clean ocean and an extra charge.
As a resident of Palo Alto I will not visit San Francisco again until this situation is fixed and I will let my friends know about the raw sewage.
Regards,
Virginia Van Kuran
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Anthony Barreiro
To: Commission
Subject: Congratulations SFPUC for gutting the Clean Water Act Date: Wednesday, March 5, 2025 11:36:08 AM
As a San Francisco resident, voter, and water customer, I am sad and angry that SFPUC gave the Republican Supreme Court majority a rationale to forbid the EPA from enforcing reasonable water quality standards under the Clean Water Act. You all should be ashamed of yourselves. ==============================================
Anthony Barreiro (he, him) [email protected]
San Francisco, California, Turtle Island
Ramaytush Ohlone Land
==============================================
May all beings be happy, peaceful, and free.
==============================================