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
October 9, 2025 through October 21, 2025
Date Received From Subject
October 9, 2025 Tom Smegal BAWSCA’s Review and Comments on SFPUC WSIP 2024 Notice of Change and FY
2024-25 WSIP Annual Report (email + 3 attachments)
October 10, 2025 Peter Drekmeier TRT Letter Re: Drought Planning (email + attachment) October 13, 2025 Steve Lawrence Item 6a re contracting
October 13, 2025 Wes Saunders SFRPD Crocker Amazon ball field renovation/ Opposition October 13, 2025 Dave Warner An Early Peek at Projected Water Bills; Add Financial Risk Check (email + attachment)
October 16, 2025 Sophie Constantinou Artificial turf on PUC land (email + attachment) October 20, 2025 Andre Adeyemi [INVITATION] Filipino American History Month Unity Photo (email + attachment)
October 21, 2025 Kathryn Riley BCDC Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group Meeting November 3rd
,
1 From: Tom Smegal <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 4:58 PM
To: Lennear, Tiffany
Cc: Herrera, Dennis J; Flynn, Ronald P; Miller, Katie L; Ritchie, Steve; Kastama, Alison A; Feitelberg, Brittany K; Robinson, Stephen D; Yousefkhan, Mojgan; Roiz, Teresa; Francis, Tom; Schutte, Allison C
Subject: BAWSCA’s Review and Comments on SFPUC WSIP 2024 Notice of Change and FY 2024-25 WSIP Annual Report
Attachments: 2025_Oct_9_BAWSCA_LTO_SFPUC_re WSIP 2024-25 annual report_FINAL.pdf; 2025_Oct9 _BAWSCA_LTO_State Agencies_re WSIP Annual Report_FINAL.pdf; 2025_Oct9_BAWSCA LTO_State re SFPUC WSIP NOC_FINAL.pdf
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
Dear President Stacy and members of the Commission (c/o TiƯany Lennear, Director of Commission AƯairs),
This email transmits my letter to you providing BAWSCA’s recommendations to SFPUC’s FY 2024-25 Annual Report on the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP).
Also attached are copies of BAWSCA’s letters to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, Seismic Safety Commission, and Division of Drinking Water – SWRCB providing comments on:
1. SFPUC’s 2024 Notice of Change to the WSIP, and;
2. SFPUC’s 2024-25 Annual Report on the WSIP.
Please call me if you have any questions or comments,
Respectfully,
Tom Smegal
Thomas F. Smegal
CEO/GM
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
155 Bovet Road, Suite 650
San Mateo, CA 94402
Mobile: (408) 640-6490
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.BAWSCA.org
155 Bovet Road, Suite 650, ⚫ San Mateo, CA 94402 ⚫ ph 650 349 3000 ⚫ fx 650 349 8395 ⚫ www.bawsca.org October 9, 2025
Via E-mail Transmittal
The Honorable Kate H. Stacy, President
and Members of the Commission
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
RE: BAWSCA Review of the SFPUC Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 Annual Report, Water System Improvement Program (WSIP)
Dear President Stacy and Members of the Commission,
BAWSCA has reviewed the State required WSIP FY 2024-25 Annual Report and presents four recommended actions for the Commission to direct SFPUC staff to implement. BAWSCA notes three minor errors in the report that SFPUC Staff should take note of for future Annual Reports (assuming a similar section is copied forward). Finally, BAWSCA shares two questions that BAWSCA Staff will pose to SFPUC Staff directly, that dependent on the response, may suggest that future Annual Reports be updated.
Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The Commission should direct Staff to prioritize future Notice of Change (NOC) submissions, such that future NOCs are submitted to the State within a few months of Commission action.
Discussion: Paragraph 4 of the Executive Summary references the adoption of the WSIP’s latest baseline scope, budget and schedule on April 9, 2024. The NOC Report was submitted to the state legislature 17 months after adoption of the changes by the SFPUC (September 9, 2025). In the past, the NOC reports were generally issued between 4 to 6 months after adoption of changes by the SFPUC Commission. Even with acknowledgement of the delay due to internal administrative changes, an organization the size of the SFPUC should be able to comply with this Water Code regulatory requirement to promptly furnish the State with the NOC. Future NOCs, if required, should be submitted within a few months of adoption.
Recommendation 2: The Commission should direct Staff to include the full text of the currently adopted Water Enterprise Levels of Service (LOS) Goals and Objectives in future annual reports.
Discussion: WSIP LOS Goals and Objectives are referenced in Section 3.1 of the Annual Report (pages 5-6). The FY23-24 Annual Report contained the full text of the 2023 Amended Water Enterprise LOS Goals and Objectives in this section. Doing so helped clarify their extent and intent.
The Hon. Kate Stacy, President
October 9, 2025
Recommendation 3: The Commission should direct Staff to prepare a WSIP Program Completion report when all WSIP projects have achieved final construction completion. That commitment should be noted in future Annual Reports.
Discussion: A WSIP Program Completion report is needed to document actual project performance against planned project performance with respect to the LOS goals. The report could also document how the SFPUC’s 10-Year CIP program achieves/supports these goals into the future. BAWSCA’s Board and its member agencies are particularly interested in the development of such a report.
The WSIP PEIR identified the LOS as guiding the identification, design and implementation of the WSIP projects facilities. As the WSIP nears completion, nearly all of the WSIP facilities are in operation. A final assessment of the actual performance of the projects with respect to these goals is integral and critical information to the definition of completeness. If an LOS shortfall is identified, the SFPUC will need to implement alternative projects to make up the difference via the implementation of their Alternative Water Supply Plan.
Recommendation 4: The Commission should direct Staff to prepare a plan, associated with the Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project (RGSRP), to cover the deactivation, storage, and reactivation of wells and associated pumps (note that several RGSRP are proposed to be deactivated). Once completed, the plan could be included as an appendix to future Annual Reports.
Discussion: To address operational and maintenance concerns, the SFPUC intends to remove pumps installed in several wells that are a part of the RGSRP, storing the pumps in a warehouse setting until the time (during a drought) when said wells would be put into service. A formal plan for that activity is needed, one that identifies the staffing, technical requirements and timeframe needed such that deactivated wells can be brought online to support dry year supply needs. Steps needed to keep the pumps in good condition during storage should also be covered in the plan.
Minor Report Errors:
Table 3-4: Progress Towards Meeting LOS Goals (page 7)
Discussion: Alameda Creek Recapture needs to update the expected Substantial Completion date to be consistent with the construction phase completion date of 6/30/31 shown in Appendix A.
Table 3-4: Progress Towards Meeting LOS Goals (page 9)
Discussion: Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery needs to have updated Substantial Completion dates for Contract C and Contract D consistent with the dates shown in the WSIP Q4 FY24-25 Report (Appendix B). Also, the percent progress towards LOS goals needs to be made consistent with Appendix B.
The Hon. Kate Stacy, President
October 9, 2025
Section 7.2 – Status of Risk to Active Construction Projects (page 32)
Discussion: The last paragraph states the top ten risks are 8 for RGSR Phase 2A, and 2 for RGSR Phase 2B. Table 7-2 shows 7 for RGSR Phase 2B, and 3 for RGSR Phase 2A. These tallies need to be reconciled
Questions BAWSCA Intends to Pose to SFPUC Staff:
Section 3.2 – Progress Towards Meeting LOS Goals (page 10) – Question about LOS status
Discussion: For the RGSRP, three well sites will have their rehabilitated pumps stored rather than be re-installed. Since the LOS status assumes all constructed facilities to be in-service, it is essential to confirm that the assets can be utilized if needed. Does the LOS status require revision (assuming that a plan is prepared as noted in Recommendation 4 indicates a delay of sorts could result from this practice)?
Table 4-1 – Project Schedule Forecast and Variance (page 15) – Question about the need for a contingency plan.
Discussion: The schedule for the Bioregional Habitat Restoration Project shows completion at the end of 2027. However, this project relies entirely on purchase of mitigation credits from banks that have not yet been developed or approved. Is this schedule realistic? Does SFPUC have a contingency plan should no bank be developed?
BAWSCA appreciates the work of the SFPUC staff, its contractors, and its consultants as the WSIP progresses towards completion. BAWSCA also appreciates the SFPUC Commission’s consideration of BAWSCA’s recommendations provided in this letter.
Sincerely,
Thomas F. Smegal
CEO/General Manager
TS/TF/le
cc: Assembly Member John Harabedian- Chair, Joint Legislative Audit Committee David Rabbitt, Chair, Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission Mr. Stefan Cajina, Chief, North Coastal Section, Division of Drinking Water, State Water Resources Control Board
Dennis Herrera, General Manager, SFPUC
Steven Ritchie, Assistant General Manager - Water Enterprise, SFPUC The Hon. Kate Stacy, President
October 9, 2025
Stephen Robinson, Assistant General Manager – Infrastructure, SFPUC Katie Miller, Director, Water Capital Programs, SFPUC
Alison Kastama, BAWSCA Liaison, SFPUC
Vlad Rakhamimov, Staff Engineer, North Coastal Section, Division of Drinking Water, State Water Resources Control Board
Marco Pacheco, San Francisco District Engineer, Division of Drinking Water, State Water Resources Control Board
Darrin Polhemus, Deputy Director, Division of Drinking Water, State Water Resources Control Board
Daniel Newton, Assistant Deputy Director, Northern California Drinking Water Field Operations Branch, State Water Resources Control Board
Sara K. McBride, Executive Director, Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission Jia Wang-Connelly, Senior Structural Engineer, Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission
BAWSCA Board of Directors
BAWSCA Water Management Representatives
Allison Schutte, Hanson Bridgett, LLP, Legal Counsel
155 Bovet Road, Suite 650, ⚫ San Mateo, CA 94402 ⚫ ph 650 349 3000 ⚫ fx 650 349 8395 ⚫ www.bawsca.org October 9, 2025
Via E-mail Transmittal
Assembly Member John Harabedian, Chair
Senator John Laird, Vice Chair
Joint Legislative Audit Committee
1021 O Street, Suite 4350
Sacramento, CA 94249-0041
David Rabbitt, Chair
Debra Garnes, Vice-Chair
Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95691
Mr. Stefan Cajina, Chief
North Coastal Section, Division of Drinking Water
State Water Resources Control Board
850 Marina Bay Parkway, Bldg. P, Second Floor
Richmond, CA 94804
RE: BAWSCA Review of the SFPUC Fiscal Year (FY) 20 24-25 Annual Report, Water System Improvement Program (WSIP)
Dear Assembly Member Harabedian, Chair Rabbit, and Chief Cajina,
BAWSCA has reviewed the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2024-25, dated September 1, 2025 (Annual Report). Attached is BAWSCA’s comment letter to the SFPUC, which includes a request that the Commission direct staff to implement the identified recommendations.
As detailed in the Annual Report, the overall WSIP program has had significant achievements associated with project completion since its’ inception. However, there remain two key projects that have yet to be completed: the Alameda Creek Recapture Project (ACRP), located in the Sunol Valley Region; and the Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project (RGSR Project), located in the San Francisco (Regional) Region.
The ACRP’s construction was halted in April 2023 due to the need to revisit the project’s overall design. The RGSR Project, which was broken into three phases, has proven to be a difficult project to construct. The SFPUC is committed to addressing the challenges associated with completing those two key projects yet admits that the time required to complete the WSIP has increased significantly. Specifically, the WSIP is now scheduled to be completed by June 30, 2032, as documented in the Notice of Change (NOC) that was sent to the State on September 9, 2025.
Both the ACRP and RGSR Projects are key components of the WSIP, in that each is needed to achieve the WSIP Level of Service (LOS) Goals for Water Supply Reliability.
Assembly Member Harabedian, Chair Rabbit, and Chief Cajina October 9, 2025
BAWSCA provided the following recommendations to the SFPUC Commission regarding the status and progress of the WSIP for the State’s consideration:
Recommendation 1: The Commission should direct Staff to prioritize future Notice of Change (NOC) submissions, such that future NOCs are submitted to the State within a few months of Commission action.
Recommendation 2: The Commission should direct Staff to include the full text of the currently adopted Water Enterprise Levels of Service (LOS) Goals and Objectives in future annual reports.
Recommendation 3: The Commission should direct Staff to prepare a WSIP Program Completion report when all WSIP projects have achieved final construction completion. That commitment should be noted in future Annual Reports.
Recommendation 4: The Commission should direct Staff to prepare a plan, associated with the Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project (RGSRP), to cover the deactivation, storage, and reactivation of wells and associated pumps (note that several RGSRP are proposed to be deactivated). Once completed, the plan could be included as an appendix to future Annual Reports.
BAWSCA’s comment letter to the SFPUC Commission provides additional details as to why these recommendations were given. The letter also identifies minor errors in the Annual Report as well as shares two questions that BAWSCA staff intend to pose to SFPUC staff surrounding the information provided in the Annual Report.
Please feel free to reach out to BAWSCA if we can provide further assistance in the State’s review of the SFPUC’s FY 2024-25 Annual Report, or if you would like to discuss BAWSCA’s comment letter to the SFPUC. I can be reached by phone at (408) 640-6490 or via email at [email protected]
BAWSCA sincerely appreciates the time and attention given by the State in helping ensure the SFPUC’s progress in completing the critically important WSIP continues.
Sincerely,
Thomas F Smegal
Chief Executive Officer/General Manager
TS/TF/le
Enclosure
cc: SFPUC Commissioners
Dennis Herrera, General Manager, SFPUC
Assembly Member Harabedian, Chair Rabbit, and Chief Cajina October 9, 2025
Stephen Robinson, Assistant General Manager - Infrastructure, SFPUC Steven Ritchie, Assistant General Manager - Water Enterprise, SFPUC Katie Miller, Director, Water Capital Programs, SFPUC
Alison Kastama, BAWSCA Liaison, SFPUC
Vlad Rakhamimov, Staff Engineer, North Coastal Section, Division of Drinking Water, State Water Resources Control Board
Marco Pacheco, San Francisco District Engineer, Division of Drinking Water, State Water Resources Control Board
Darrin Polhemus, Deputy Director, Division of Drinking Water, State Water Resources Control Board
Daniel Newton, Assistant Deputy Director, Northern California Drinking Water Field Operations Branch, State Water Resources Control Board
Sara K. McBride, Executive Director, Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission Jia Wang -Connelly, Senior Structural Engineer, Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission
BAWSCA Board of Directors
BAWSCA Water Management Representatives
Allison Schutte, Legal Counsel, Hanson Bridgett, LLP
155 Bovet Road, Suite 650, ⚫ San Mateo, CA 94402 ⚫ ph 650 349 3000 ⚫ fx 650 349 8395 ⚫ www.bawsca.org 22233651.1
October 9, 2025
Via E-Mail Transmittal
Assembly Member John Harabedian- Chair
Senator John Laird - Vice Chair
Joint Legislative Audit Committee
1021 O Street, Suite 4350
Sacramento, CA 94249-0041
David Rabbitt, Chair
Debra Garnes, Vice-Chair
Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission
3650 Schriever Avenue
Mather, CA 95691
Mr. Stefan Cajina, Chief
North Coastal Section, Division of Drinking Water
State Water Resources Control Board
850 Marina Bay Parkway, Bldg P, Second Floor
Richmond, CA 94804
SUBJECT: BAWSCA Comments on Wholesale Regional Water System Security and Reliability Act 2024 Notice of Changes to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water System Improvement Program
Dear Assembly Member Harabedian, Chair Rabbitt, and Chief Cajina,
On April 8, 2024, the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) held a public hearing to consider proposed changes to the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP). A hearing was required to comply with the Wholesale Regional Water System Security and Reliability Act (AB 1823, Water Code Section 73500 et seq.). The Commission approved the proposed changes at the close of the hearing. Following approval, and in accordance with AB 1823, the SFPUC was required to provide documentation of the changes to the State of California legislature in a timely manner. That documentation, termed a Notice of Change (NOC), was submitted to the State on September 9, 2025. BAWSCA is using this letter to provide primary comments, observations and suggestions as related to this most recent WSIP NOC.
Primary Comments -- Timeliness and Transparency:
1. This NOC was submitted to the State 17 months after adoption of the changes by the SFPUC. The SFPUC should submit notices within a few months of adopting changes. In the past, NOC reports were generally issued between 4 to 6 months after adoption of changes by the SFPUC’s Commission. Even with acknowledgement of the delay due to internal administrative changes, an organization the size of the SFPUC should be able to comply with the regulatory requirement to promptly furnish the State with the NOC.
Assembly Member Harabedian, Chair Rabbitt, and Chief Cajina, October 9, 2025
22233651.1
2. Prior NOC reports have contained a section discussing Level of Service (LOS) goals. Such a discussion is not included in the body of this current NOC report.
Future NOCs should include such a discussion. Prior NOCs included a section in the text of the main body of the reports (for example, such a discussion was included as Section 7 in the 2022 NOC). While this current NOC does contain LOS discussion in appendices, BAWSCA believes that for clarity there is a need in the report’s main body to discuss (and share SFPUC’s perspective on) if and how delays to the WSIP impact SFPUC’s progress in meeting LOS goals. This narrative could offer information about mitigating features and context for understanding the significance of the WSIP’s schedule changes on public health and safety.
Observations and Suggestions for Clarification:
1. The third paragraph in the introduction section of the NOC notes that there are two projects in construction. A similar statement is made in Section 2 of the NOC in the Alameda Creek Recapture Project (ACRP) status discussion. BAWSCA observes that this is not accurate since the ACRP is now back in the planning phase and is not under construction.
Details: The substantial WSIP change documented in the NOC relates the schedule and cost changes to the ACRP. The NOC indicates a 96.5-month extension to complete the ACRP. This results in a roughly 5-year extension for completing the WSIP. Even though this is a substantial increase in the project and program schedule, BAWSCA believes this schedule extension is reasonable considering that the ACRP project is back in the planning phase due to identified constructability concerns that required revisiting the proposed ACRP design. BAWSCA continues to believe the project is viable and important. BAWSCA notes that other sections of the NOC indicate that the ACRP is back in the planning phase (for example, page 13 of the Report under CUW35201 ACRP notes that it is in the planning phase).
2. Page 14 of the NOC, first paragraph, discusses the status of the Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery Project (RGSRP). BAWSCA suggests that the SFPUC’s decision to remove and store well pump systems requires additional planning by the SFPUC.
Details: On page 14 of the NOC, the SFPUC notes their plan for the removal and long- term storage of well pump systems installed at the Hickey, Funeral Home and Treasure Island sites. BAWSCA is concerned that long-term storage of pump systems may prove problematic. It is BAWSCA’s understanding that pumps stored long-term are not easily maintained nor easily put back into operation. During times of drought, it may be necessary to quickly reinstall well pumps. There could be an impact on the ability of the SFPUC to achieve its LOS goals if the pumps are not operable. BAWSCA has suggested that the SFPUC develop a plan detailing how the well pumps would be maintained during their storage. That plan should also include the procedures that would be followed for their reinstallation (one that includes the steps and their approximate timeline necessary to bring the wells into service). Further NOC reports, if required, could incorporate a commitment to develop that plan. .
3. Page 15 of the NOC, Bioregional Habitat Restoration (39-Month Change). BAWSCA is concerned that mitigation credits, if necessary, may prove difficult to identify Assembly Member Harabedian, Chair Rabbitt, and Chief Cajina, October 9, 2025
22233651.1
and secure, and suggests that the SFPUC consider providing an update when and if a future NOC is required.
Details: The schedule change for this project is to allow more time for mitigation banks to develop so that SFPUC can purchase required mitigation credits. BAWSCA suggests that the SFPUC provide an update, in any subsequent NOC if required, as to the need for and likelihood of purchasing credits.
4. Page 25, Table 6-1 of the NOC. Since the ACRP is back in the planning stage, BAWSCA believes that a future NOC may be required. If so, the SFPUC should submit an NOC notice to the State within a few months, as noted in Primary Comment 1.
Details: Table 6-1 notes the current budget for the ACRP is $48.97M. However, as of the end of Q3 FY24-25, approximately $37.2M of this amount has been expended on previous planning and for the terminated construction contract. While the SFPUC remains optimistic that additional WSIP funding may not be required, BAWSCA is hesitant to reach that same conclusion until a full redesign and cost estimate is developed. If a subsequent NOC is needed, BAWSCA believes that the recommendations given in this letter regarding the content and timely submittal of any future NOC be considered by the SFPUC.
BAWSCA continues to support the SFPUC’s efforts to implement the WSIP in accordance with the schedule, budget and scope as documented in their NOC. The WSIP’s implementation is of vital importance for the protection of the 1.8 million residents and associated businesses in Alameda, San Mateo, and Santa Clara Counties that BAWSCA represents and who rely on the San Francisco Regional Water System for a reliable supply of high-quality water.
Sincerely,
Thomas F. Smegal
Chief Executive Officer/General Manager
TS/TF/le
cc: Wesley Opp, JLAC Chief Consultant
Sara K. McBride, Executive Director, Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission Jia Wang-Connelly, Senior Structural Engineer, Alfred E. Alquist Seismic Safety Commission
Vlad Rakhamimov, Staff Engineer, North Coastal Section, Division of Drinking Water, State Water Resources Control Board
Marco Pacheco, San Francisco District Engineer, Division of Drinking Water, State Water Resources Control Board
Darrin Polhemus, Deputy Director, Division of Drinking Water, State Water Resources Control Board
Assembly Member Harabedian, Chair Rabbitt, and Chief Cajina, October 9, 2025
22233651.1
Daniel Newton, Assistant Deputy Director, Northern California Drinking Water Field Operations Branch, State Water Resources Control Board
The Honorable Kate H. Stacy, President, SFPUC Commission The Honorable Joshua Arce, Vice President, SFPUC Commission The Honorable Avni Jamdar, Commissioner, SFPUC Commission The Honorable Steve Leveroni, Commissioner, SFPUC Commission The Honorable Meghan Thurlow, Commissioner, SFPUC Commission Dennis Herrera, SFPUC, General Manager
Steven Ritchie, SFPUC, Assistant General Manager, Water Enterprise Stephen Robinson, SFPUC, Assistance General Manager of Infrastructure Katie Miller, SFPUC, Director, Water Capital Programs
Alison Kastama, SFPUC, BAWSCA Liaison
BAWSCA Board of Directors
BAWSCA Water Management Representatives
Allison Schutte, Hanson Bridgett, LLP, Legal Counsel
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Report Suspicious From: Peter Drekmeier
To: Commission
Subject: TRT Letter Re: Drought Planning
Date: Friday, October 10, 2025 1:02:28 PM
Attachments: TRT Letter to SFPUC re- Drought Planning.pdf -----------------------
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
October 10, 2025
President Kate Stacy and Commissioners
SFPUC
[email protected]
Re: Substantial Difference between Valley Water and SFPUC Drought Planning.
Dear President Stacy and Commissioners:
In June 2025, Valley Water released their Draft Water Supply Management Plan 2050. Valley Water is planning for a future drought that is equivalent to the drought-of-record (1987-92) with a few adjustments that take into consideration potential impacts from climate change on water supply.
The SFPUC, on the other hand, is planning for a much more severe drought. The Design Drought combines the two worst droughts from the 20th Century to create an 8.5-year megadrought. While the Design Drought is only two years longer than the 1987-92 drought, the additional two years (1976 and 1977) were the driest on record, making the Design Drought significantly more severe.
You’ll see from Table 3-9 in the SFPUC’s Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment (LTVA)1 that a repeat of the 1987-92 drought at 240 mgd demand creates a deficit of 707 thousand acre feet (TAF). Deficit can be thought of as the difference between water entitlements and demand, or in other words, water that must come out of storage. The 1976/77 drought creates a deficit of 594 TAF, which is 72% of the 1987-92 deficit. In other words, the Design Drought is 72% more severe than the 1987-92 drought, which is what Valley Water is planning for.
The SFPUC should ask itself: Is Valley Water’s drought planning not conservative enough, or is the Design Drought too conservative, or is it a combination? Not being conservative enough could lead to unacceptable water shortages, whereas being too conservative could lead to unnecessary rationing and over-investing in expensive alternative water supplies.
1 Long Term Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Enterprise - Phase I (2021), p. 70 –
https://www.sfpuc.gov/sites/default/files/about-us/policies- reports/LTVA_AdaptationPlanSFPUC_Phase1.pdf
2 According to the LTVA, the return period (likelihood of occurrence) for the 1987-92 drought is projected to be once in 420 years (see Table 5-1). While the final LTVA did not include a return period for the Design Drought, based on a draft document that did include a projection, and then adjusting that figure proportionally to changes made to the known droughts, the Design Drought might be expected once in 8,000 years (details available upon request).
The SFPUC’s Alternative Water Supply (AWS) Plan2 projects the SFPUC might need to develop between 92 and 122 mgd of alternative water supplies by 2045. The cost would be between $17 billion and $25 billion. Removing one year from the Design Drought would reduce the
2 SFPUC Alternative Water Supply Plan, February 2024 – https://www.sfpuc.gov/sites/default/files/about- us/policies-reports/AWS%20Report%20Feb2024_web.pdf
3 perceived need for AWS by 25 mgd, saving $4.6 billion. If the SFPUC were to plan for the same drought as Valley Water, this would reduce the perceived need for AWS by 50 mgd, saving $9.2 billion.
Please schedule a workshop on the Design Drought to better understand its impact on SFPUC finances and water rates.
Sincerely,
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
[email protected]
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Steve Lawrence
To: Commission
Subject: item 6a re contracting
Date: Monday, October 13, 2025 6:23:03 PM
Hon Commissioners:
The staff memo probably gets it right when one of seven “Desired Outcomes” is "reducing cost." SFPUC’s aims are to convenience itself, its staff, not to cost ratepayers least. The Commission is the only friend ratepayers have.
Looking at the number of contracts issued in various categories is misleading. The big contracts, the ones costing ratepayers tens and hundreds of millions more than they should are Construction Management/General Contractor. These huge contracts go to a select group of insiders, often further disguised by joint ventures. It’s a set-up for corruption as well as waste.
Please be not bowled over by the memo's complexity and fine sounding words. See through the BS. Protect the ratepayers
.
Thank you, Steve Lawrence, resident
Sent from Outlook
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Wes
To: Commission
Subject: SFRPD Crocker Amazon ball field renovation/ Opposition Date: Monday, October 13, 2025 7:46:07 PM
Hello Commission ,
I am writing in opposition to the San Francisco Recreation and Parks misguided plan to triple qthe amount of artificial turf at Crocker Amazon Park. Given the avalanche of news about the harms of plastics on human health, wildlife and the environment in general, could the PUC Commission please call on San Francisco Recreation and Park to reduce their plastic footprint, including artificial turf fields, dog parks and playgrounds? These surfaces deteriorate over time and shed microplastics into storm drains and the Bay. The SFRPD renovation project
at Crocker Amazon Park is particularly
concerning, with thousands of pounds of plastic being added while removing 17 acres of habitat. This will put SFRPD’s artificial turf acreage well over 60 acres in the city.
The California Coastal Commison has already denied plans within their jurisdiction.Ultimately this will be on PUC land above watershed.The PUC has duty and responsibility to take the lead on this issue.
Thank you,
Wesley Saunders
“Today, it is no longer entirely rational to imagine an escape, though, reflexively, we do so anyway — entertaining fantasies of purification and paying for novel detox treatments. Perhaps we will soon be cultivating gut microbes to chew through PFAS
collecting in our digestive tracts; perhaps we will unleash microscopic G.M.O. sanitation teams on 27 million metric tons of nanoplastics in the oceans. Already, there are those undertaking
a kind of boutique dialysis treatment claiming to rid the blood of microplastics. But for most of us, this doesn’t seem like the kind of problem you can so easily solve — say, by discarding a worn plastic spatula or restricting your child to wood-chip playgrounds.
Progress through public policy isn’t easy, either, though improvements over decades past suggests it is, nevertheless, possible. Internationally, final negotiations to produce a global plastics treaty begin this week — but in the absence of policy, production is expected to double or triple
over the next decades, and global plastic manufacturing has grown more than 400-fold since World War II. The author Assaad Razzouk calls it “the mother of all oil spills,” and, because plastics are made from fossil fuels, it was put there by some pretty familiar environmental villains. For decades, we were told that the problem of plastic could be solved by recycling, though those in the industry knew it wasn’t true and probably would never be.”
From the NY 08/04/25-David Wells
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Dave Warner
To: Lennear, Tiffany
Cc: Herrera, Dennis J; Ritchie, Steve; Hom, Nancy; Busch, Laura; Corvinova, Erin E Subject: An Early Peek at Projected Water Bills; Add Financial Risk Check Date: Monday, October 13, 2025 10:30:17 AM
Attachments: Early peeks at affordability and financial risk 2025-10-13.pdf Hi Tiffany,
Thank you for your excellent support of the commission meetings. They are valuable in so many ways. Would you forward the attached letter to the commissioners? I've copied here the staff included on my cc list.
Best regards,
Dave
October 13, 2025
Re: An Early Peek at Projected Water Bills; Add Financial Risk Check? Dear Commissioners,
At your last meeting, commissioner Arce wonderfully implored staSg()U to provide an early peek at projected water bills so that he could facilitate community engagement to generate an understanding and support for upcoming increases. By early, he meant well before budgets are formally presented to commissioners in January, as by that time there’s little that can be done to change the underlying cost structure which of course is a primary driver of bill increases. My interpretation of the response was that staSg()U politely deflected this request by stating that there will be time between January when budgets are presented and the spring when rate increases are proposed. However, having an early peak would enable commissioners to better influence budgets and build support within the community. Trying to promote something that is already final is harder than promoting something that can still be influenced.
To make matters worse, and as another commissioner alluded to, the SFPUC’s financial situation is more precarious than the financial projections might have you think. The three factors that should generate concern are:
1) Financial projections assume regional water system (RWS) demand is going to continually increase over the next 25 years. However, trend analysis indicates there’s a likelihood that demand will decline. A continuing decline would adversely aSg()Uect both water and sewer rates. 2) The SFPUC’s RWS is a fixed cost system. No matter how much or how little water is sold, costs remain about the same and have to be spread amongst whatever water sales occur.
3) The SFPUC relies heavily on long-term debt making up 50% or more of its cost structure. Should spending need to be reduced, half of the SFPUC’s costs can’t be touched as they are debt service payments.
In light of the San Diego County Water Authority’s (SDCWA) financial diSg()Uiculties from over-forecasting demand, they substantially reduced their
demand projections from growing to now significantly declining (as you can see in the attached letter).
Please ask staSg()U to provide a financial scenario of 5 years or more where demand declines by 8-10% (a much smaller decline than what the SDCWA is now projecting) rather than increases. You will be surprised at the implications, both on aSg()Uordability and financial viability.
The sooner this risk and its implications are understood, the less drastic any corrective actions need to be. Step one is to understand the risk.
Reviewing such a scenario in parallel with an early look at aSg()Uordability projections might save as much as a year in terms of being able to develop and review contingency plans.
Water agencies across California are facing the challenges of declining demand. Understanding the associated financial risks now are in your constituents’ best interests.
Kind regards,
Dave Warner
cc: Dennis Herrera, SFPUC General Manager
Steven Ritchie, SFPUC Assistant General Ma nager, Water Enterprise Nancy Hom, SFPUC Chief Financial Officer
Laura Busch, SFPUC Deputy Chief Financial Officer
Erin Corvinova, SFPUC Financial Planning D irector
SFPUC Citizens’ Advisory Committee
Tom Smegal, BAWSCA CEO
Enclosure
March 24, 2025
Re: Learning from the San Diego County Water Authority
Dear Commissioners,
As you may know, General Manager Herrera hosts regular mee*g415ngs on various topics with a number of NGO’s including the Tuolumne River Trust and the Bay Area Council (referred to as Bay Area Water Stewards (BAWS) mee*g415ngs).
At last week’s mee*g415ng Jeff Stephenson, Director of Water Resources at the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA)
provided a review of events that led up
to their current financial challenges and mul/g415ple years of large past and projected annual water rate increases.
The popular press (and I) had
characterized the problem as them having built the Carlsbad desal plant while demand fell off, leading to big rate increases and financial problems. But he provided a more insigh*g414ul bigger picture. There are some remarkable similari*g415es to SDCWA’s experiences and with what the future might hold for the SFPUC.
What led to the SDCWA’s current situa/g415on
The SDCWA is a wholesale water supplier to 22 retail agencies that serve 3 million residents.
Mr. Stephenson started with their 1991 drought situa*g415on where the region came close to running out of water and there was a massive cry across the region for “never again,” and included wan*g415ng to have independence from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). The SDCWA started making a series of investments, including dams and lining canals that eventually included the Carlsbad desal plant. In the mean*g415me, other local agencies started pursuing other supplies. They all were forecas*g415ng increasing demand as they had done for years.
But demand declined. Not only did they see gross per capita demand (GPCD) decline but two agencies dropped out and others reduced their purchases. Jeff described that for the last several years they’ve had major annual rate increases (he men*g415oned in the 14% range). Not stated by Jeff but financially SDCWA reserves and a number of metrics have fallen below their policy minimum thresholds along with going through budget cuts. It’s also worth no*g415ng that the San Diego mayor objected to a proposed 18% rate increase that was later scaled
back to 14%. The latest financial plan has a number of years projected with 10% rate increases and projects declining demand.
Mr. Stephenson’s recommended learnings
Things he recommended learning from SDCWA’s experiences:
- Collabora*g415on with other water agencies. If they had collaborated be*g425er, they as a group might have been able to be*g425er manage regional investments.
This is relevant to the SFPUC and BAWSCA. For example, the SFPUC is looking at a 30+ mgd local recycled water project within San Francisco (project leveraging the Southeast Pollu*g415on Control Plant, not a part of the regional water system (RWS) alterna*g415ve water supply (AWS) plan). Should this happen, this could cause a major drop in demand on the RWS, causing a further jump in water rates, which at some point could cause a ratepayer revolt.
- Be nimble. Jeff emphasized that there were so many unknowns that came along, that just weren’t predictable. Be nimble to be able to adapt to changes.
The SFPUC is anything but nimble. Its costs are at least 95% fixed in part due to the large debt loads it is carrying (on a percentage of budget basis, more than double SDCWA’s load). And while SDCWA’s debt is mostly declining, the SFPUC’s debt is substan*g415ally increasing.
- Look carefully at your demand forecast. Jeff thought maybe flat line (perhaps a poor choice of words) despite popula*g415on growth.
While the SFPUC’s finance department’s demand projec*g415ons are close to flat for retail, BAWSCA’s s*g415ll show substan*g415al increases. Should these increases not occur, as San Diego experienced, rates will need to increase more than projected.
Remarkable similari/g415es in demand projec/g415ons
The two charts in figure 1 show how both the SDCWA (chart on the le*g332) and SFPUC (chart on the right) have been projec*g415ng increasing demand since 2000 while demand has declined. Since 2020
the SFPUC’s finance department made
somewhat more conserva*g415ve projec*g415ons.
The SDCWA five year financial forecast
now projects a 24% decline in demand as
shown as shown in figure 2 while the
SFPUC con*g415nues to project increasing
demand.
Figure 1: Past history of demand projec*g415ons compared to actual demand. SDCWA (on the le*g332) and the SFPUC on the right are remarkably similar. Both projected
increasing demand against a trend of long term declines. 216
195
100
150
200
250
300
350
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
MGD
SFPUC Combined Retail and Wholesale Projections
Comparison to Actual Demand*
Actual 2000 UWMP 2005 UWMP
2010 UWMP 2015 UWMP 2020 UWMP
2015 ~FP 2020 FP
*Comparison is between the UWMP projections (dashed lines) and the finance department sales projections (dotted lines) where 6 mgd of projected water loss (non-revenue) has been added to the finance department figures. 2015 finance department projections were visually estimated from the charts in General Manager Herrera's letter to commissioners dated July 5, 2022.
~190
Figure 2: Comparison of SFPUC and SDCWA
demand projec*g415ons to 2030. The SDCWA is
now projec*g415ng declining demand.
217 223
182 193
334
254
150
200
250
300
350
2025 2030
MGD
2030 Demand Projection
Comparison
Water Enterprise
Finance Bureau
SDCWA
The SFPUC’s larger debt service means reduced ability to meet unknowns As shown in figure 3, SFPUC has significantly higher debt service costs than the SDCWA, which means higher fixed costs both in the short term and long term along with higher overall costs. It reduces the ability to address unknowns and adapt to changes in both the short term and for long term trends. It also increases exposure to adverse changes in capital markets par*g415cularly with increases in debt issuances in the next 10 years.
For 2025 the SFPUC’s debt service costs are 49% of water sales. By 2030 that is expected to grow to 54% of water sales, which during that *g415meframe water sales are expected to grow from ~$700 million to ~$900 million, meaning that debt service costs are growing faster than water sales, a troubling trend.
Figure 3: The SFPUC’s water enterprise has much higher debt service costs than the SDCWA. Note that the SFPUC’s debt service costs are increasing while SDCWA debt service costs are declining. $339
$440
$160
$80
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
2025
2026
2027
2028
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035
2036
2037
2038
2039
2040
2041
2042
2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
2048
2049
$ millions
Debt Service Costs: SFPUC & SDCWA Comparison
SFPUC Water SDCWA
For the SDCWA, 2025 debt service costs are 21% of water sales and by 2030 debt service costs are expected to decline to 17% of water sales.
The SDCWA has a current debt/cash funding mix of 35%/65% compared to the SFPUC’s 71%/29% (which is an improvement from last year’s 78%/22%).
The SFPUC’s higher fixed costs also reduces adaptability While the SDCWA was able to mi*g415gate a por*g415on of its declining demand with reduced water purchases, the SFPUC does not have such an ability. The vast majority of the SFPUC’s water enterprise costs do not vary with water sales. This means that the SFPUC has li*g425le ability to address unexpected downturns in demand.
The SDCWA has also been trying to mi*g415gate its downturn in demand by selling excess supply to the other agencies. Mr. Stephenson did not report success with that approach although he remains hopeful.
Possible Ac/g415ons
1) Both Mr. Herrera (despite a health issue) and Mr. Ritchie were in the mee*g415ng. Please ask them for their views on what the SFPUC should take from the discussion.
2) Consider star*g415ng the process to be prepared for a downside scenario. It’s hard to image demand declining by 24% by 2030 but ask to see a downside financial scenario, perhaps using a decline in demand in the 8-10% range in five years, consistent with the SFPUC’s long term trend since 1990. What would retail and wholesale rates look like? What would affordability look like? What would the SFPUC’s policy metrics look like? Understanding the scenario is a first step towards being prepared.
3) Check that Mr. Ritchie and the execu*g415ve team have all the financial tools they need in order to assess the cost/benefit tradeoffs for all contemplated and in-process capital projects. For example, do he and the team have at their finger*g415ps how specific projects affect water rates along with how the *g415ming of those projects affect rates? Do he and the team also have an understanding of debt implica*g415ons of each project?
4) Consider asking for recommenda*g415ons on how SFPUC’s opera*g415ng costs could be reduced.
Hopefully SDCWA’s experiences will help the SFPUC avoid similar problems, or at least be be*g425er prepared.
Kind regards,
Dave Warner
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
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Sophie Constantinou
To: Commission; Susan Mullaney; Bob Hall; Wesley Saunders; Lydia Bruno; Johanna Gendelman Subject: Artificial turf on PUC land
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025 10:04:33 AM
Attachments: Animal Commission Letter - Artificial Turf in City Parks.pdf Dear PUC Commission
Recently we have become aware of plans to upgrade the baseball fields at Crocker Amazon to artificial turf. Crocker Amazon is a unique piece of public land in that it is on PUC reservoir tract but managed by RPD. There are a few serious concerns about the plans: one is the removal of over 100 trees, another is the loss of 20 acres of natural permeable land with a known toxin that could leach into that reservoir and the bay. All of which could be prevented with upgraded natural grass fields, which is healthier for the users and the groundwater.
A decade ago the PUC, SFE and RPD built a Task Force to examine the impact of artificial turf, the outcomes were inconclusive but all parties committed to reconvene. The science is now much more definitive in regards to the impact of PAHs, PFAS and microplastics on our biological and ecological health. This should be considered before vulnerable land is exposed to forever chemicals.
We have a presentation we could share with the PUC Commission, would you be interested in this presentation?
We have already presented to the Urban Forestry Council and the Commission on Animal Care and Control to positive response and this letter of support (attached).
We recently expressed our concern in an OpEd in the SF Chronicle .
We look forward to your reply.
Thank you
Sophie Constantinou
Board President, California Native Plant Society Yerba Buena Chapter _______________________
Sophie Constantinou
22 Richland Ave
San Francisco CA 94110
415-378-6085
Commission of
Animal Control &
Welfare
ㅡ
Commissioners
Michael Angelo Torres
Chairperson
Irina Ozernoy
Vice-Chair
Mikaila Garfinkel
Secretary
Nick Chapman
Commissioner
Michael Reed
Commissioner
Dayna Sherwood
Commissioner
Department Representatives
Amy Corso
San Francisco Department of Animal
Care and Control
George Han, MD, MPH
San Francisco Department of Public
Health
Joe Majeski
San Francisco Police Department
Christopher Campbell
San Francisco Recreation and Park
Department
August 14, 2025
Mayor Daniel Lurie
San Francisco City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Room 200
San Francisco, CA 94102
RE: Recommendations opposing artificial turf renovation plan at Crocker Amazon Park
Dear Mayor Lurie,
As it is the responsibility of the Commission of Animal Control and Welfare to advise the Office of the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors, and the Office of the City Administrator on animal issues, we want to share our recommendations regarding an upcoming renovation project that will impact wildlife in our city.
The Commission recently learned of the upcoming renovation plan for Crocker Amazon Park. While the Commission supports the sentiment of this project, we have serious concerns around the proposed use of artificial turf in the park and want to recommend revisions to the renovation plan. These recommendations are built on documented evidence around the plastic crisis
impacting both humans and the wildlife that lives among us.
According to the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department, the Baseball and Softball Renovation Plan for Crocker Amazon would create six state-of-the-art diamonds and associated amenities, five of which will be composed of petroleum-based artificial turf, rendering 75% or more of the 40-acre park surface either plastic or concrete.
Along with eliminating the existing natural grass lawn used by the community, coyotes, birds and other wildlife, the plan would remove dozens of established healthy trees and shrubs used for nesting.
The concerns around the plastic crisis are not benign. Just this month, The Lancet Medical Journal published a report on the harmful impact of plastics to human and planetary health. Plastic-related fatalities in California wildlife have been documented for decades.
Evidence shows that the ubiquity of plastics is a growing concern:
• Plastic pollution is transforming Earth systems, worsening climate change and biodiversity loss, and making oceans more acidic. (source)
• Synthetic turf breaks down into smaller greenhouse gas emissions pieces, is carried long distances by the wind and other mechanisms and is likely a major source of aquatic plastic pollution. (source)
• San Francisco Estuary Institute found microplastic pollution in every part of the Bay, at some of the highest levels measured globally. (source)
• Artificial turf fields must be replaced every 8-10 years. Since there are no U.S. facilities for recycling, the plastic carpets and rubber crumb infill are often dumped or sent back to landfills in a form that is even more environmentally problematic. (source)
Based on this evidence, the Commission recommends revising the Crocker Amazon Park renovation plans to replace artificial turf with natural grass or other natural solution that would reduce harm to local wildlife. We also propose a moratorium on the expansion of artificial turf surfaces in our parks until further evidence is evaluated.
Thank you in advance for your consideration regarding our recommendations. If there are any questions or if there is anything the Commission can do to assist, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Michael Angelo Torres
Chair, San Francisco Animal Commission – Commission of Animal Control and Welfare
San Francisco City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, Rm 362
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
Phone: (415) 554-6074
Email: [email protected]
CC: San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Office of the San Francisco City Administrator
San Francisco Department of Recreation and Parks
San Francisco Environment Department
San Francisco Department of Public Health
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Adeyemi, Andre (MYR)
Cc: Garcia, Moises (MYR)
Subject: [INVITATION] Filipino American History Month Unity Photo Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 1:27:38 PM
Attachments: 2025 SF Filipino American History Month Unity Photo.png Good Afternoon,
Please share the email below with your commissioners. Thank you! Mayor Daniel Lurie requests the pleasure of your company at a City Hall unity photo in honor of Filipino American History Month.
Filipino American History Month Unity Photo
Date: Wednesday, October 29, 2025
Time: 4:00 PM, please arrive by 3:45 PM to begin blocking Location: City Hall, Shultz Grand Staircase
We encourage all self-identifying elected officials, commissioners, department heads, and city staff to join this celebratory photo to help honor the contributions and heritage of our city’s Filipino community and workforce.
Please register to help us plan for the scale of the photo:
https://forms.office.com/g/HC4HJ83Asq
-Andre
Andre Adeyemi
(Book time with me )
Director of Appointments
Office of Mayor Daniel Lurie
(415) 554-4000
Want to make an impact? Apply here for mayoral
appointment consideration!
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Peters, Michelle D on behalf of Info
To: Lennear, Tiffany
Subject: FYI: BCDC Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group Meeting November 3rd Date: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 1:13:15 PM
Hi Tiffany,
This cane in on the Communications line.
Thanks,
Michelle
From: Riley, Kathryn@BCDC <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 11:52 AM
Subject: BCDC Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group Meeting November 3rd
Dear Commissioners, Staff, and Interested Individuals: BCDC will hold a Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group meeting on Monday, November 3rd from 3-5pm. The meeting notice, including the agenda and information on how to attend ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Dear Commissioners, Staff, and Interested Individuals:
BCDC will hold a Sediment and Beneficial Reuse Commissioner Working Group meeting on Monday, November 3rd from 3-5pm.
The meeting notice, including the agenda and information on how to attend the meeting, can be found here:
https://www.bcdc.ca.gov/event/november-3-2025-sediment-and-beneficial-reuse-commissioner- working-group/
Should you have questions, please contact Rachel Cohen at [email protected] .
Thank you,
Kathryn Riley
Secretary – Planning & Sediment Division
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission 375 Beale Street, Suite 510, San Francisco, CA 94105