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
June 19, 2025 through June 24, 2025
Date Received From Subject
June 19, 2025 Kip Vanderbilt Ongoing SFPUC Billing Failures — Request for Immediate Action and Accountability
June 19, 2025 Robert Hall Public Comment: Regulate SF RPD's expansion of artificial turf pollution
June 23, 2025 Peter Drekmeier Letter Re: AWS Program Report (email and attachments)
June 24, 2025 Paul Alvin Arnido Re: Account inquiry - Legacy Partners
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Kip Vanderbilt
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Tully Murphy; Mark Murphy Subject: Ongoing SFPUC Billing Failures — Request for Immediate Action and Accountability Date: Thursday, June 19, 2025 3:22:39 AM
Dear Mr. Herrera,
I am writing to express my continued frustration with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s repeated failure to provide timely and consistent water billing.
This week, We received yet another cumulative bill covering nine months of service, despite having experienced this exact issue last year. I was assured the matter would be addressed, yet here we are again with no meaningful resolution.
As Emily Hoeven pointed out in her November 2024 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, these billing issues are not isolated cases—they represent a systemic problem within SFPUC.
The inability to issue automatic monthly bills, a standard practice among public utilities.
This is not only inefficient and inconvenient, it prevents customers from monitoring usage, identifying leaks early, and managing household budgets. Frankly, it reflects poor management and a lack of accountability from within the department.
I respectfully request:
1. A clear explanation of why this continues to happen;
2. A timeline for restoring monthly billing;
3. A public acknowledgment of the issue and accountability from SFPUC leadership;
4. Consideration of compensation or relief for affected customers.
I have copied Mayor Daniel Lurie, the Board of Supervisors, and Ms. Hoeven, as this issue affects thousands of San Franciscans and deserves oversight at the highest level.
I look forward to a prompt and substantive response—not just for myself, but for all ratepayers who deserve better from their public utility.
Sincerely,
F. Kip Vanderbilt
3139 Jackson Street, SF, CA 94115
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Robert Hall
To: Commission
Subject: Public Comment: Regulate SF RPD"s expansion of artificial turf pollution Date: Thursday, June 19, 2025 8:14:51 PM
Dear Commissioners,
I urge the SFPUC to take a firm regulatory stance against the expansion of artificial turf fields managed by the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department (RPD). These installations are not merely a land-use decision — they are a pollution source with serious implications for public health and water quality in our region.
Artificial turf fields contribute directly to microplastic pollution. The infill and synthetic plastic blades degrade into tiny fragments over time and are easily carried into storm drains, groundwater, and ultimately San Francisco Bay. Recent studies, including one from researchers sampling the Mediterranean Sea, found that artificial turf fibers made up more than 15% of large plastic particles in their marine samples — a startling indicator of how prevalent and persistent this form of plastic pollution has become.
Even more alarming, these synthetic fields are also reservoirs of toxic PFAS, or “forever chemicals.” According to the San Francisco Estuary Institute, fish collected from across the Bay since 2009 were found to contain 20 different PFAS compounds, including one never before documented in marine life. These chemicals are strongly associated with cancer, reproductive harm, immune dysfunction, and other severe health risks in humans. Artificial turf fields, which often include PFAS in their backing, coatings, or blades, pose a long-term contamination threat — especially when sited near creeks, wetlands, or stormwater conveyance systems.
Given SFPUC's mandate to protect water quality and public health, I ask that you exercise your authority to deny further expansion of artificial turf acreage in San Francisco, and require rigorous environmental oversight of existing fields. The risks are clear, the science is urgent, and San Francisco must lead with precaution.
Thank you for your consideration.
Robert Hall
1946 Grove St. San Francisco, 94117
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Report Suspicious From: Peter Drekmeier
To: Commission
Subject: Letter Re: AWS Program Report
Date: Monday, June 23, 2025 2:00:02 PM
Attachments: TRT Letter Re- AWS Program Report.pdf
SFPUC Resolution 08-0200.pdf
Dear President Stacy and Commissioners:
Please see my attached letter regarding the SFPUC's Alternative Water Supply Program Annual Report.
Thank you.
-Peter
-----------------------
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
Tuolumne River Trust
[email protected]
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 Eddie Corwin, Vice Chair Eric Riemer, Treasurer Marek Robinson, Secretary Jose Borroel Cindy Charles Harrison “Hap” Dunning Eric Gonzalez Camille King Marty McDonnell Homero Mejia John Nimmons Iris Stewart-Frey Bart Westcott Brad Wurtz June 23, 2025 President Kate Stacy and Commissioners San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) [email protected] Re: Item 12-f on 6/24/25 SFPUC Agenda: Alternative Water Supply Program Annual Progress Report. Dear President Stacy and Commissioners: There is growing concern that the SFPUC’s drought planning policy – the Design Drought – is overly conservative and could lead to expensive investments in alternative water supplies (AWS) that will not be needed. This would lead to even greater rate increases borne by consumers. The City of Palo Alto recently spent $559,000 on a One Water Plan (AWS study) that was then rejected by its Utilities Advisory Commission (see my letter in your current Correspondence Log). The Commission rejected the Plan because they believed it was based on a false premise that Palo Alto might be subject to 50% rationing, a figure provided by the SFPUC. Before proceeding with the AWS Plan, the SFPUC should revisit the Design Drought and amend it to avoid over-investing in unneeded water supply infrastructure – stranded assets. Much has changed since the Design Drought was conceived in the early 1990s, including the following: • Entering the 1987-92 drought of record, water demand was at an all-time high of 293 mgd. However, it has been under 200 mgd for the past decade (see Slide 1). • The SFPUC adopted its Water First Policy, prioritizing water supply over hydropower generation. Combined with lower water demand, the Water First Policy has produced amazing results. Slide 2 shows that 2020 and 2021 experienced similar precipitation as 1976 and 1977, yet on June 10, 2021 the SFPUC had 350,000 acre feet more in storage than on the same date in 1977. • In 1989, Cherry Lake (an SFPUC reservoir) was drained for maintenance, eliminating 273,000 acre feet from storage. • The SFPUC’s Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment reviewed 100 years of observed data, 1,100 years of tree-ring data, and 25,000 simulated model runs, but could not produce a single drought as severe as the Design Drought. The Design Drought is 72% more severe than the worst drought on record (1987-92). Revisiting the Design Drought is long overdue. Interestingly, the Design Drought was never codified by the Commission. Staff has claimed that it was adopted in Resolution 08-0200 (attached), but you’ll see there is no mention of it.
2 Additional Comments/Questions How will rate increases resulting from AWS investments impact demand? The SFPUC should learn from the San Diego County Water Authority’s experience and its own observations with the Regional Water System (RWS) to assess how increased investments in AWS might lower demand and result in stranded assets. At the time the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) was adopted in 2008, the SFPUC projected RWS demand would reach 285 mgd by 2018. To begin paying for the WSIP, rates tripled by 2018, sending a strong price signal for people to conserve. Actual demand in 2018 was only 196 mgd. Would the South Bay Purified Water Project violate Proposition 218? Before proceeding with the South Bay Purified Water Project, it would be wise to enlist an outside expert to conduct a quick review of whether the Project could withstand a Proposition 218 challenge (beneficiary pays). Many people have been under the impression that the South Bay Project was conceived to meet the current demand of 9 mgd from San Jose and Santa Clara. This is not the case. The AWS Plan states: The cities of San Jose and Santa Clara are currently interruptible customers of the SFPUC and have requested permanent status, as discussed in Chapter 2 (Background). The two cities’ combined projected demand is 15.5 mgd for the planning horizon. They have requested a guaranteed supply from the SFPUC of 9 mgd (total). In order for the SFPUC to consider granting San Jose and Santa Clara permanent status and to minimize impacts to the existing permanent Wholesale Customers, the two cities must secure a reliable supply to meet their additional demands beyond the 9 mgd that they have requested as a guarantee. This project would produce 6.5 mgd of purified water to serve the needs of San Jose and Santa Clara beyond the cities’ purchases from the SFPUC, while augmenting RWS supplies by 3.5 mgd in dry years. Implementation of this project would support the SFPUC’s decision to make San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers. Making San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers would increase BAWSCA’s Water Supply Assurance from 184 mgd to 193 mgd. This would mean the SFPUC would need to develop an additional 9 mgd of AWS to meet its contractual obligations. The South Bay Purified Water Project would produce 6.5 mgd to meet the additional requests from San Jose and San Jose in all years. In dry years, the project would produce an additional 3.5 mgd for use by the SFPUC. Assuming the SFPUC were to make San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers, it would use its 3.5 mgd from the South Bay Project to contribute toward meeting the cities’ existing demands (9 mgd), and would still need to come up with an additional 5.5 mgd to meet the total demand of 9 mgd. If the AWS needed to make San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers is greater than the current price of SFPUC water, and the cost of developing that AWS is spread throughout the service area, this would mean that customers outside of San Jose and Santa Clara would be subsidizing water for those cities. This issue at least deserves a precursory review.
3 How do the SFPUC’s AWS cost projections compare to those of Valley Water? On June 10, 2025, Valley Water staff gave a presentation to their Board on the agency’s “Water Supply Master Plan 2050.” One of their slides is attached as Slide 3 in this letter. The Commission should ask SFPUC staff to compare these cost projections to those in the SFPUC’s AWS Plan, and if the differences are large, the issue should be explored more thoroughly. Thank you for receiving my comments. Sincerely, Peter Drekmeier Policy Director (Slides on following pages.)
4 Slide 1
Slide 2
5 Slide 3
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
City and County of San Francisco
RESOLUTION NO. 08-0200
WHEREAS, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission approved and adopted a Long-Term Strategic Plan for Capital Improveme nts, a Long-Range Financial Plan, and a Capital Improvement Program on May 28, 2002 under Resolution No. 02- 0101; and
WHEREAS, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commissio n determined the need for the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) to address water system deficiencies including aging infrastructure, exposure to seismic and other ha zards, maintaining water quality, improving asset management and delivery reliability, and meeting customer demands; and
WHEREAS, Propositions A and E passed in November 2002 by San Francisco voters and Assembly Bill No. 1823 was also approved in 2002 r equiring the City and County of San Francisco to adopt a capital improvement program designed to restore and improve the regional water system; and
WHEREAS, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commissio n staff developed a variant to the WSIP referred to as the Phased WSIP; and WHEREAS, the two fundamental principles of the program ar e 1) maintaining a clean, unfiltered water source from the Hetch Hetchy sy stem, and 2) maintaining a gravity-driven system; and
WHEREAS, the overall goals of the Phased WSIP for the regional water system include 1) Maintaining high-quality water and a gravity-driven system, 2) Reducing vulnerability to earthquakes, 3) Increasing delivery reliability, 4) Meeting customer water supply needs, 5) Enhancing sustainability, and 6) Achieving a cost-effective, fully operational system; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2008, the Planning Commission reviewe d and considered the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (PE IR) in Planning Department File No. 2005.0159E, consisting of the Draft PEIR and the Comments and Responses document, and found that the contents of said report and the procedures through which the Final PEIR was prepared, publicized and revie wed complied with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (C EQA), the CEQA Guidelines and Chapter 31 of the San Francisco Administrative Code ("Chapter 31") and found further that the Final PEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City and County of San Francisco, is adequate, accurate and objecti ve, and that the Comments and Responses document contains no significant revisions to the Draft PEIR, and certified the completion of said Final PEIR in compliance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and Chapter 31 in its Motion No. 17734; and
WHEREAS, this Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final PEIR, all written and oral infor mation provided by the Planning Department, the public, relevant public agencies, SFPUC and o ther experts and the administrative files for the WSIP and the PEIR; and
WHEREAS, the WSIP and Final PEIR files have been made a vailable for review by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and the public, and those files are part of the record before this Commission; and
WHEREAS, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission sta ff prepared proposed findings, as required by CEQA, (CEQA Findings) and a proposed Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which material was made av ailable to the public and the Commission for the Commission’s review, consideration and action; and WHEREAS, the Phased WSIP includes the following program e lements: 1) full implementation of all WSIP facility improvement proje cts; 2) water supply delivery to regional water system customers through 2018; 3) water supply sources (265 million gallons per day (mgd) average annual from SFPUC watersheds, 10 mgd conservation, recycled water, groundwater in San Francisco, and 10 mgd conser vation, recycled water, groundwater in the wholesale service area); 4) dry-year w ater transfers coupled with the Westside Groundwater Basin Conjunctive Use project to ensure drought reliability; 5) re- evaluation of 2030 demand projections, regional water syste m purchase requests, and water supply options by 2018 and a separate SFPUC decision by 2018 r egarding water deliveries after 2018; and, 6) provision of financial incentive s to limit water sales to an average annual 265 mgd from the SFPUC watersheds through 2018; and WHEREAS, the SFPUC staff has recommended that this Commission make a water supply decision only through 2018, limiting water sales from the SFPUC watersheds to an average annual of 265 mgd; and
WHEREAS, before 2018, the SFPUC would engage in a new planning process to re-evaluate water system demands and water supply options. As part of the process, the City would conduct additional environmental studies and CEQA review as appropriate to address the SFPUC’s recommendation regarding water supply and proposed water system deliveries after 2018; and
WHEREAS, by 2018, this Commission will consider and evaluate a long-term water supply decision that contemplates deliveries beyond 2018 through a public process; and
WHEREAS, the SFPUC must consider current needs as wel l as possible future changes, and design a system that achieves a balance among the numerous objectives, functions and risks a water supplier must face, including possible increased demand in the future; now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, this Commission hereby adopts the CEQA Finding s, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached to this Resolution as Attachment A and incorporated herein as part of this Resolution by this reference thereto, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached to this Resolution as Attachment B and incorporated herein as part of this Resolution by this reference thereto; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, this Commission hereby approves a wate r system improvement program that would limit sales to an average annual of 265 mgd from the watersheds through 2018, and the SFPUC and the wholesale customers would collectively develop 20 mgd in conservation, recycled water, and groundwater to meet demand in 2018, which includes 10 mgd of conservation, recycled water, and groundwater to be developed by the SFPUC in San Francisco, and 10 mgd to be developed by the wholesale customers in the wholesale service area; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission shall set aggressive water conservation and recycling goals, shall bring short and long-term conservation, recycling, and groundwater programs on line at the earliest possible time, and shall undertake every effort to reduce demand and any further diversion from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission watersheds; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, San Francisco Public utilities Commi ssion staff shall provide ongoing updates to this Commission about the progress and development of conservation, recycling, and groundwater programs, and shall provide annual figures and projections for water system demands and sales, and provide water supply options; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, As part of the Phased WSIP, this Co mmission hereby approves implementation of delivery and drought reliability elements of the WSIP, including dry-year water transfers coupled with the Westside Groundwater Basin Conjunctive Use project, which meets the drought-year goal of limiting rationing to no more than 20 percent on a system-wide basis; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, This Commission hereby approves the Phased Water System Improvement Program, which includes seismic and delivery reliability goals that apply to the design of system components to improve seismic and water delivery reliability, meet current and future water quality regulations, provide for additional system conveyance for maintenance and meet water supply reliability goals for year 2018 and possibly beyond; and, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, This Commission hereby approves the following goals and objectives for the Phased Water System Improvement Program:
Phased WSIP GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Program Goal System Performance Objective
Water Quality – maintain
high water quality
• Design improvements to meet current and foreseeable future federal and state water quality requirements.
• Provide clean, unfiltered water originating from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir and filtered water from local watersheds.
• Continue to implement watershed protection measures.
Program Goal System Performance Objective
Seismic Reliability –
reduce vulnerability to
earthquakes
• Design improvements to meet current seismic standards. • Deliver basic service to the three regions in the service area (East/ South Bay, Peninsula, and San Francisco) within 24 hours after a major earthquake. Basic service is defined as average winter-month usage, and the performance objective for design of the regional system is 229 mgd. The performance objective is to provide delivery to at least 70 percent of the turnouts in each region, with 104, 44, and 81 mgd delivered to the East/South Bay, Peninsula, and San Francisco, respectively.
• Restore facilities to meet average-day demand of up to 300 mgd within 30 days after a major earthquake.
Delivery Reliability –
increase delivery
reliability and improve
ability to maintain the
system
• Provide operational flexibility to allow planned maintenance shutdown of individual facilities without interrupting customer service.
• Provide operational flexibility to minimize the risk of service interruption due to unplanned facility upsets or outages. • Provide operational flexibility and system capacity to replenish local reservoirs as needed.
• Meet the estimated average annual demand of up to 300 mgd under the conditions of one planned shutdown of a major facility for maintenance concurrent with one unplanned facility outage due to a natural disaster, emergency, or facility failure/upset.
Water Supply – meet
customer water needs in
non-drought and drought
periods
• Meet average annual water demand of 265 mgd from the SFPUC watersheds for retail and wholesale customers during non -drought years for system demands through 2018.
• Meet dry-year delivery needs through 2018 while limiting rationing to a maximum 20 percent system-wide reduction in water service during extended droughts.
• Diversify water supply options during non-drought and drought periods.
• Improve use of new water sources and drought management, including groundwater, recycled water, conservation, and transfers.
Sustainability – enhance
sustainability in all
system activities
• Manage natural resources and physical systems to protect watershed ecosystems.
• Meet, at a minimum, all current and anticipated legal requirements for protection of fish and wildlife habitat.
• Manage natural resources and physical systems to protect public health and safety
Cost-effectiveness –
achieve a cost-effective,
fully operational system
• Ensure cost-effective use of funds.
• Maintain gravity-driven system.
• Implement regular inspection and maintenance program for all facilities.
And, be it
FURTHER RESOLVED, This Commission authorizes and directs SFPUC staff to design and develop WSIP facility improvement projects consistent with the Phased WSIP Goals and Objectives.
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Public Utilities Commission at its meeting of October 30, 2008
Secretary, Public Utilities Commission
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Paul Alvin Arnido
To: Customer Service; CSB Retail Services; Commission
Subject: Re: Account inquiry - Legacy Partners
Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2025 6:47:50 AM
Hi, good morning!
Can I have a follow up on this please?
Thank you.
On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 1:18 AM Paul Alvin Arnido <[email protected] > wrote:
Hello, I am Paul one of the account manager here in Legacy partners, I noticed on account (2792503359) that we have been receiving bills with 0 usage the last three months. I wanted to verify meter reads were actual or estimated. Are the meter reads taken manually or electronically? I want to ensure that the meter is working properly and that it is not missing any usage that we could get back billed for. Are we able to schedule an appointment to have someone come out and check the meter? If so, are there any fees involved with doing so? Name on Account:
LPF Yerba Buena Inc
Account #: 2792503359
Tax ID: 27-1530996
Service Address:
399 4th St 788 Harrison St
Thank you.
--
Paul Alvin Arnido
Synergy | Utility Processing
Phone: 435-260-3606 ext 3606| Mountain Standard Time
Fax: (435) 713-2477 | [email protected]
www.conservice.com
--
Paul Alvin Arnido
Synergy | Utility Processing
Phone: 435-260-3606 ext 3606| Mountain Standard Time
Fax: (435) 713-2477 | [email protected]
www.conservice.com