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
January 23, 2026 through February 2, 2026
Date Received From Subject
1/23/2026 Shawn Walton Please lower my power bills
1/23/2026 Mathew Hom January 27, 2026 Meeting Comment - CleanPowerSF proposes to lower rates by 20-25%
1/23/2026 Thomas Scott CleanPowerSF - Proposed Rate Decrease 1/23/2026 Maggie Laush Approve rate reductions for CleanPowerSF customers!
1/23/2026 Michael Kirschner CleanPowerSF is proposing to lower rates by at least 20%
1/23/2026 Lily Anna Go local go clean
1/24/2026 Marcus da Cunha CleanPowerSF Rate Reduction
1/27/2026 Rodney Minott Opposition to Item 10 (1/27/26): CleanPowerSF Net Billing Tariff Proposal
1/27/2026 George Koster Public comment on Item 10 adopting Net Billing Tariff Schedule
1/27/2026 Pam Farmer Proposed Rate Change to CleanPowerSF 1/28/2026 Mayor Lurie, Supervisor
Shamann Walton,
SFAAHCS, and SFHRC
Celebrate & Honor Black History Month
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
January 23, 2026 through February 2, 2026
Date Received From Subject
1/28/2026 Tom Smegal BAWSCA Comments on SFPUC's Draft 10-Year CIP for the Water Enterprise and Hetch Hetchy Enterprise
(email + attachment)
1/28/2026 SFPUC Water Resources
Division
AB 1823 Report on San Francisco Public Utilities
Commission Dry Year Supplies
1/28/2026 Gail Sredanovic Public comment to the SFPUC
1/29/2026 Peter Drekmeier SFPUC Finances
1/29/2026 Kenneth Nicholson Edgewood trial repair
1/29/2026 Dennis Herrera Assembly Member Papan Ltr
1/29/2026 Dennis Herrera Millbrae Campus Project Update October 2024 1/31/2026 Denise Louie Re: Racial equity, diversity and inclusion 1/31/2026 Robert Hall West Sunset Playground Resurfacing Harm to kids, Westside Basin
2/2/2026 RainReadySF RE: 1650 Davidson Ave: Zum floodwater issue needs resolution
1 From: Shawn Walton <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2026 2:00 PM
To: Commission
Subject: Please lower my power bills
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
I wholeheartedly support the CleanPowerSF proposal to lower rates. It's cold, and the only thing that hurts more than the icy tile floor on my bare feet in the morning is the incredibly high PG&E bill I pay for the privilege. We need this.
Shawn Walton
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Mathew Hom
To: Commission
Subject: January 27, 2026 Meeting Comment - CleanPowerSF proposes to lower rates by 20-25% Date: Friday, January 23, 2026 2:25:56 PM
To whom it may concern:
I am a San Francisco resident, and Californians pay the highest rate for electricity in the continental USA, and the second highest in the country overall, so I fully support CleanPowerSF's proposal to lower rates by 20-25% to offset the high cost of living in the state. Please let me know of any similar actions under consideration to lower natural gas rates also, as many buildings in San Francisco still rely on this fuel for heating and cooking.
Regards,
Mathew Hom
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: thomas scott
To: Commission
Subject: CleanPower SF - Proposed Rate Decrease
Date: Friday, January 23, 2026 2:57:49 PM
Hello,
I am a San Francisco (Richmond neighborhood) resident and customer of CleanPowerSF. I am writing to express my support for CleanPower SF's proposed rate reduction, and encourage the SFPUC to support it.
I believe that making clean power more affordable for more people will not only help those people directly, but also allow SF to stand as a shining example to other cities in the United States that clean power is in fact as or more affordable than other power sources. This will drive adoption and encourage innovation, creating a flywheel that will further lower energy costs and reduce climate harming emissions.
Thank you for your consideration,
Thomas
________________
Thomas Scott
+1.803.361.3213
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Maggie Laush
To: Commission
Subject: Approve rate reductions for CleanPowerSF customers! Date: Friday, January 23, 2026 3:26:34 PM
Dear esteemed Commissioners,
I'm writing to show my strong support for reducing rates for CleanPowerSF customers in response to PG&E's rate adjustments late last year.
I love living in a dense urban environment, and part of that joy is knowing my own environmental footprint is as small as I'm able to make it. I live in a ~300 square foot apartment in the Mission District, use energy efficient devices, and take pride in paying to be a CleanPowerSF customer. I was disappointed to see PG&E rate changes disproportionately impact users who live small like I do, to subsidize those users with greater energy needs, most often due to larger homes in more variable climates.
Not all people are living small by choice, of course, and are constrained by the housing and affordability crisis. That means the rate hikes are also disproportionately born by those who can't afford to pay more--for space, electricity, gas, or anything else.
CleanPowerSF's proposed rate reductions make cleaner, greener energy accessible to all San Franciscans at the dependable price point we've come to rely on.
I urge you to approve these rate reductions!
Best,
Maggie (District 8).
--
Maggie Laush
(425) 953-3455
UC Berkeley | MCP 2020 | [email protected]
Georgetown University | BSFS 2014 | [email protected] This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Mike Kirschner
To: Commission
Subject: CleanPowerSF is proposing to lower rates by at least 20% Date: Friday, January 23, 2026 3:29:42 PM
SFPUC will vote on CleanPowerSF's proposed rate reduction on January 27.
As a CleanPower SF customer (100% renewable sourced) I fully expect SFPUC to vote to accept the proposed rate reduction.
With PG&E's skyrocketing and irrationally high electric delivery charges, which they are increasing so they can continue to be profitable while they provide unacceptably poor levels of service, we need all the help we can get to keep electricity rates anywhere near acceptable.
Right now they are obscenely high and it's just going to get worse.
On top of this BAAQMD is forcing homeowners like me to replace gas-fired water heaters and furnaces with electric equivalents when they fail (after 1/127 and 1/1/29, respectively). I have ZERO interest in this, despite being an environmental consultant. As long as PG&E owns the electricity delivery monopoly in San Francisco, I intend to use gas as long as possible.
So give us a break. Accept CleanPowerSF's proposed rate reductions.
Thank you.
Michael Kirschner
1528 Noe Street
San Francisco
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Lily Anna
To: Commission
Subject: Go local go clean
Date: Friday, January 23, 2026 4:29:22 PM
Hello, I'm sending an email to voice my support for CleanPowe Power SF.
Please help us make a change! We want to support local providers instead of PGE. New year, new thinking! Thank you,
Lily
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Marcus da Cunha
To: Commission
Subject: CleanPowerSF Rate Reduction
Date: Saturday, January 24, 2026 5:42:54 AM
I’m a resident of San Francisco and a subscriber of CleanPowerSF. I support their rate reduction.
Thank you.
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Rodney Minott
To: Commission
Cc: Rodney Minott
Subject: Opposition to Item 10 (1/27/26): CleanPowerSF Net Billing Tariff Proposal Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 7:30:41 AM
Dear SFPUC Commissioners,
I am a San Francisco resident and CleanPowerSF customer with rooftop solar, and I strongly oppose approval of Item 10 on the January 27, 2026 agenda regarding CleanPowerSF’s proposed Net Billing Tariff and revised NEM schedule.
This proposal would significantly reduce the value of locally generated rooftop solar and undermines San Francisco’s climate goals by discouraging customer-owned clean energy. Many residents installed solar in good faith based on prior policies, and shifting to sharply lower export credits—without strong grandfathering protections or meaningful transition measures—is unfair and destabilizing.
If CleanPowerSF intends to move to hourly export pricing, it must first ensure:
- Robust grandfathering and long transition periods for existing customers - A substantially higher and transparently justified local solar credit - Battery incentives in place before export compensation is reduced - Full public disclosure of bill impacts and inclusion of stakeholder opposition in Commission materials
San Francisco voters created CleanPowerSF to support local clean generation, not to penalize residents who invested in it. I urge the Commission to reject or delay this proposal and direct staff to return with a plan that truly protects rooftop solar customers and accelerates local renewable adoption.
Sincerely,
Rodney Minott
San Francisco
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: George Koster
To: Commission
Cc: George Koster
Subject: Public comment on Item 10 adopting Net Billing Tariff Schedule Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 3:08:54 PM
Dear San Francisco, Public Utilities Commissioners,
I couldn’t spend more hours waiting on the phone to make a public comment. So, here’s my written comment
I am a San Francisco homeowner who invested in rooftop solar and battery storage in good faith—based on the City’s long-standing commitment to locally generated clean energy and the voter mandate that created CleanPowerSF.
I am writing to urge you to vote NO on CleanPowerSF’s proposal to move forward with adopting the Net Billing Tariff (NBT) schedule—a rate methodology designed by Pacific Gas & Electric that systematically undermines the value of rooftop solar and discourages local clean-energy generation.
CleanPowerSF exists precisely because San Franciscans wanted a local, accountable alternative to PG&E. Adopting PG&E’s Net Billing framework contradicts that mission.
Five critical issues this proposal creates for rooftop solar owners
1. Severe Undervaluation of Exported Solar Energy
Net Billing pays homeowners far below the real grid value of clean, locally generated power—energy that is consumed by our neighbors and reduces strain on the transmission system.
2. Creation of a Two-Tier (Bifurcated) Rate System
This proposal locks in fundamentally different economics for existing solar owners versus new adopters, penalizing future participants and eroding trust in City energy programs.
3. Chilling Effect on Future Solar and Battery Adoption Undermining compensation for exports dramatically weakens the financial case for rooftop solar, especially for middle-income households and small property owners.
4. Reduced Grid Resilience and Local Reliability
Rooftop solar paired with batteries provides critical resilience during outages and peak demand. Net Billing disincentivizes exactly the distributed resources San Francisco needs as climate risks increase.
5. Departure from Voter Intent and Local Control
San Franciscans voted for CleanPowerSF to advance local clean energy—not to mirror the policies of an unregulated investor-owned utility with a documented record of catastrophic failure.
Why this matters
Voters did not choose CleanPowerSF so it could adopt the same rate structures as PG&E [the utility that has burned down communities, blown up neighborhoods, and killed its own customers], while prioritizing shareholder returns over public safety.
CleanPowerSF was created to do better:
to support local clean-energy generation,
to reward residents who invest in climate solutions,
and to keep energy policy aligned with San Francisco’s values—not PG&E’s business model.
I respectfully ask the Commission to:
Reject adoption of PG&E’s Net Billing Tariff, and
Direct CleanPowerSF staff to develop a locally appropriate, pro-solar compensation structure that reflects the true value of distributed clean energy to San Francisco.
A NO vote today protects rooftop solar owners, preserves voter trust, and keeps CleanPowerSF aligned with its original public mission.
Thank you for your time, your service, and your commitment to San Francisco’s clean-energy future.
Sincerely,
George Koster
25 Amethyst Wy, SF, CA 94131
650-248-8100
San Francisco Homeowner & CleanPowerSF Customer
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Pam Farmer
To: Commission
Subject: Proposed Rate Change to CleanPower SF
Date: Tuesday, January 27, 2026 4:47:28 PM
To whom it may concern :
As a 19 year resident of San Francisco and home solar panel owner I am adamantly opposed to this proposal.
CleanPowerSF should be supporting local clean energy generation, not underpaying San Franciscans for the value of the clean solar energy they export to their neighbors.
Thank you-
Pamela Farmer, MD
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Tom Smegal
To: Lennear, Tiffany
Cc: Herrera, Dennis J; Ritchie, Steve; Robinson, Stephen D; Miller, Katie L; Kastama, Alison A; Francis, Tom; Schutte, Allison C; Feitelberg, Brittany K
Subject: BAWSCA Comments on SFPUC"s Draft 10-Year CIP for the Water Enterprise and Hetch Hetchy Enterprise Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 1:34:32 PM
Attachments: 2026_Jan_23_Smegal letter to SFPUC re 10-year CIP_FINAL.pdf Importance: High
Dear President Arce and Members of the Commission (c/o Tiffany Lennear, Director of Commission Affairs),
This email transmits BAWSCA’s comments on the SFPUC’s Draft 10-Year Capital Improvement Plans for the Water Enterprise and Hetch Hetchy Enterprise.
BAWSCA appreciates the opportunity to provide comments, and the hard work of the SFPUC staff in developing the plan.
Please call me directly if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
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 January 28, 2026
Via email
The Hon. Joshua Arce, President
and Members of the Commission
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
RE: General Comments and Observation – SFPUC’s Draft 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan for their Water Enterprise and Hetch Hetchy Enterprise
Dear President Arce,
BAWSCA has reviewed the draft materials developed for the SFPUC’s 10-Year CIP for the Water Enterprise and the Hetch Hetchy System FY 2027-2036. This letter presents BAWSCA’s comments and questions prior to the Commission’s 10-Year CIP hearing on January 29, 2026, and the Commission’s consideration for adoption at the February 10, 2026 regular Commission meeting. BAWSCA’s intent is to provide this letter to the SFPUC sufficiently in advance of the February 10, 2026 adoption such that a written reply can be crafted in advance of that meeting.
Engagement Background and Timeline
Water Supply Agreement Requirements
The Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement (WSA) between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County includes the following provision regarding BAWSCA’s review of CIP materials:
• 6.09. SFPUC Adoption of Regional Water System 10-Year Capital Improvement Program. E. BAWSCA and Wholesale Customer Notice and Review. “Beginning in 2020, at least 30 days before the first budget meeting, the SFPUC shall provide BAWSCA and the Wholesale Customers with written notice of the dates of the two budget meetings. At least 30 days before the first budget meeting, the SFPUC shall also provide BAWSCA and the Wholesale Customers with a draft of the 10-Year CIP and meet with those same parties to review potential candidate projects that it is considering for inclusion in the 10-Year CIP. Final materials for the first budget meeting will be made available to BAWSCA and the Wholesale Customers no less than 14 days prior to that budget meeting. Final materials for the second budget meeting will be made available to BAWSCA and the Wholesale Customers on the same date that they are made available to the Commission. Prior to the Commission’s adoption of the 10-Year CIP at the second budget meeting, San Francisco shall respond, in writing, to all written comments by BAWSCA and the Wholesale Customers on the 10-Year CIP that were submitted prior to the date of the first budget meeting.”
The Hon. Joshua Arce, President
January 23, 2026
Timeline of BAWSCA’s Receipt of CIP Materials
BAWSCA was provided draft line-item budget information for projects within the Hetch Hetchy CIP and Water Enterprise CIP on Dec 12, 2025. A virtual meeting with SFPUC staff took place on December 29, 2025, where questions were posed by BAWSCA staff and answers were provided by SFPUC staff. SFPUC noted that work was still taking place to finalize the proposed CIP prior to presenting it to the Commission. Data sheets that provide additional CIP project information were provided to BAWSCA on January 12, 2026. The remainder of the proposed CIP presentation materials were provided to BAWSCA on January 15, 2026.
General Observations
BAWSCA has the following general observations regarding the 10-Year CIPs for the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise and the Water Enterprise
• For both Enterprise CIPs, the revenue equals the requested appropriations, indicating that they are balanced CIPs.
• In the Water Enterprise CIP, there is a total of 62 projects. 16 projects were removed from the prior CIP. 8 new projects were added.
• In the Hetch Hetchy CIP, there is a total of 9 water division projects and 25 joint water/power division projects. 3 water division projects and 8 joint water/power division projects were removed from the prior CIP. 2 new water division projects and 3 new joint water/power division projects have been added
Review of CIP Materials
Presentation Slides
BAWSCA has reviewed the proposed presentation slides that will be used by the SFPUC to guide the discussion at the Commission’s January 29, 2026, meeting. Our comments are as follows:
• Priorities and Project Drivers – BAWSCA notes that the SPFUC’s approach is designed to meet Level of Service (LOS) goals and objectives, meet regulatory obligations, manage risk to water deliveries, and maintain financial sustainability (keep rates affordable, maintain a strong credit rating, and balance risk). BAWSCA supports that approach.
• Planning for the Long Term – SFPUC notes that the WSIP debt load now constrains water system capital spending. The regional and local water systems have capital needs totaling $10.1B ($6.8B in Local/Regional + $3.3B in HHW), including addressing regulatory requirements for all reservoirs and dams. The approach SFPUC has taken proposes to spread necessary projects over a 30-year period while prioritizing the most critical for inclusion in the 10-year CIP. BAWSCA understands the need to prioritize the most critical projects to address financial constraints. BAWSCA is also aware that due to regulatory requirements or unforeseen circumstances, new and existing projects may need to move into or out of a future 10-year CIP. The ability to defer identified work on dams and reservoirs requires ongoing engagement between the SFPUC and the State of California officials charged with dam safety. There is the risk that the State will require that work be performed sooner than planned. That work is significant in cost.
The Hon. Joshua Arce, President
January 23, 2026
• Regional Water Prioritization Strategy - To constrain the CIP, the SFPUC has deferred transmission pipeline, water treatment, dam, and watershed projects. R&R funding was also reduced. The SFPUC notes that deferrals and funding reductions were strategically applied to allow continued insight into needed work, while constraining current spending (e.g. three major dam safety projects are deferred and smaller interim safety measure projects were developed as stop-gaps and prioritized for implementation). BAWSCA approves of such an approach, but cautions that interim measures, particularly those proposed for dams, must be agreed to by the State as an acceptable means to defer the work needed. Lowering the budget for R&R activities may also prove unachievable if projects that are deferred require additional attention.
• Hetch Hetchy Water Prioritization Strategy – The SFPUC contends that the proposed CIP is expected to result in significant overall operational risk reduction. BAWSCA supports that contention.
• Regional Water 10-Year Capital Plan: Appropriations Schedule – The SFPUC presented a bar graph that indicates the level of appropriations necessary for each year of the coming ten years. Levels in years 3,4 and 5 are significantly greater than those years that precede and follow. BAWSCA is aware that this higher level is primarily due to the cost of the work associated with the proposed Millbrae Operations Center construction.
• Millbrae Operations Center: BAWSCA understands that significant facility upgrades are necessary, and BAWSCA staff have recently been provided with added documentation that helps illuminate the decision-making process and proposed work to be done. While BAWSCA agrees that upgrades to the Millbrae Operations Center are important to enhance water supply reliability, water quality, and emergency response, it is imperative that the scope and timing of the project clearly represent the most cost-effective solution.
As requested in Attachment 1 to this letter, there is additional information BAWSCA seeks to enable it to better understand how this project has evolved over time.
Specifically, BAWSCA seeks to know more clearly how changes in design, implemented in response to structural problems that were identified at the Rollins Road satellite facility, progressed. The SFPUC’s January 21, 2020 Alternatives Report for the Millbrae Operations Center included a preferred alternative that differs from that currently proposed by the SFPUC. Detail as to how that evolved – the cost estimate, the project’s schedule, and scope/layout of work to be performed - is essential for BAWSCA’s understanding of the current proposed scope. As part of that information package, BAWSCA also seeks a deeper description of the use and need for the wellness facility component of the Millbrae Operations Center Project. SFPUC’s response, and added documentation, will help BAWSCA and other stakeholders draw a conclusion as to whether the final proposed project is in the interests of regional customers.
• BAWSCA is also aware that there are significant concerns that have been expressed by the City of Millbrae staff and elected officials regarding the impact of certain elements of the proposed work on their community. It is BAWSCA’s understanding that SFPUC staff is preparing additional responses to Millbrae’s questions and engaging in substantial dialog with Millbrae. BAWSCA asks that it be provided with copies of all relevant documents and information provided to Millbrae and timely updates on the status of The Hon. Joshua Arce, President
January 23, 2026
discussions with that city, including but not limited to any changes to the project that result in significant cost increases or schedule delays.
• Hetch Hetchy Water 10-Year Capital Plan: Appropriation Schedule – The SFPUC presented bar graphs showing the level of appropriation needed for each of the ten fiscal years, by project type (e.g., water, power or joint water/power). BAWSCA’s role does not include oversight over power projects; therefore, BAWSCA’s focus is on the water and water/power project types. It is clear from the bar charts that starting in year 5 and beyond that joint projects form the bulk of the expenditures. BAWSCA understands that the highest project cost in that mix will be work associated with the full replacement of the Moccasin Penstocks since repair is not feasible. BAWSCA supports the need to replace the penstocks yet will need to be engaged as replacement concepts are moved forward and a final approach selected. Such an expensive project must be approached in a careful and cost sensitive manner. In addition, over the coming ten years, several new buildings are proposed for construction at the SFPUC’s Moccasin facilities (a new engineering and records building, a new warehouse, and a new water quality laboratory). While BAWSCA has asked SFPUC staff to schedule a meeting with our key staff to provide additional details regarding that set of proposed work, BAWSCA does not ask that it be removed from the CIP. Finally, and as the SFPUC shared earlier in their presentation, there is dam safety work that is being deferred beyond this 10-year CIP. It is critical that the SFPUC gain the concurrence from the State that such deferral is acceptable.
10-Year CIP Budget Spreadsheets for the Water Enterprise and the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise
BAWSCA’s review of the 10-Year CIP for the Water Enterprise and the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise indicate that the SFPUC has worked to prioritize projects and keep the overall CIP budget from rising above the budget amount adopted by the SFPUC during the prior 10-year CIP cycle.
Holding costs help to address rate affordability concerns that have also been expressed by BAWSCA’s member agencies. From our recent discussions with SFPUC staff, BAWSCA better understands the SFPUC’s approach to project deferrals. While BAWSCA staff is of the opinion that project deferrals will not place the reliability of the water system at undue risk, BAWSCA recommends that the SFPUC be ready to make CIP adjustments as required when and if the need for a particular project to be implemented sooner becomes evident. The construction of new buildings, both in Moccasin as well as in Millbrae, are significant CIP line-items. BAWSCA has detailed our comments on those in the above section of this letter and again expresses BAWSCA’s interest in the progress and outcome of stakeholder engagement.
BAWSCA offers the following additional observations:
• Alternative Water Supply Projects – Unlike in prior budget cycles, the SFPUC does not propose to spend significant funds on the development of regional alternative water supply projects other than an expenditure in year 10 that would go toward a potential potable reuse project in partnership with other agencies on the Peninsula. This is a point which BAWSCA believes may need to be raised to members of the public that contend the SFPUC is budgeting too much money to develop alternative water supply projects.
BAWSCA cautiously supports this budgeting approach, since until regulatory issues associated with the Bay-Delta Plan are sorted out, there remains some uncertainty as to what level of additional supply may be necessary to address the region’s supply needs in times of drought. A key concern in years beyond this 10-year period is that The Hon. Joshua Arce, President
January 23, 2026
affordability goals may be hard to maintain when the expense of deferred dam work is coupled with the possible need to develop alternative water supply projects.
• Regional Water Treatment – BAWSCA is pleased to see that projects at the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant, the Tesla UV Treatment Facility, and at the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant have been included in the 10-year CIP.
• Moccasin Reservoir Long Term Dam and Reservoir Improvements – BAWSCA is pleased to see that this project has been included in the 10-year CIP.
• O’Shaughnessy Dam Outlet Works Phase II – BAWSCA is pleased to see that significant construction will take place during the 10-year CIP and is supportive of the fact that additional work will extend beyond the 10-year cycle.
Project Data Sheets - Specific Questions for SFPUC Staff BAWSCA has reviewed project data sheets in combination with the line-item budget worksheets developed for both the Water Enterprise as well as the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise. Questions are provided as Attachment 1 to this letter. The questions are primarily directed at SFPUC staff and their purpose is to provide clarification.
BAWSCA appreciates our ability to review the 10-year CIP for both the Water Enterprise and the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise. BAWSCA finds that the 10-Year CIP for FY 2027-36 for both enterprises are robust, even though some accommodations have been made to consider such important concepts as rate affordability goals. BAWSCA’s approach to the review has been to ensure that key projects continue to be funded in coming years, particularly over the next two years, so that progress on identified asset needs are addressed, for example the continued inclusion of ongoing work at the Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant. BAWSCA looks forward to attending the upcoming Commission meetings on the 10-Year CIP.
Sincerely,
Tom Smegal,
CEO / General Manager
cc: Dennis Herrera, SFPUC, General Manager
Steven Ritchie, SFPUC Assistant General Manager of Water Enterprise Stephen Robinson, SFPUC, Assistant General Manager of Infrastructure Katie Miller, SFPUC, Director Water Capital Programs
Alison Kastama, SFPUC, BAWSCA Liaison
BAWSCA Water Management Representatives
Allison Schutte, Hanson Bridgett, LLP, Legal Counsel
Encl.
Attachment 1 – Questions Regarding Projects as Detailed on Project Data Sheets
(This page was intentionally left blank)
Attachment 1
Questions Regarding Projects as Detailed on Project Data Sheets as Prepared for the 10-Year CIPs for the Water Enterprise and the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise
Hetch Hetchy Enterprise
1. Mountain Tunnel Improvement Project – The project description section should be revised to exclude the South Fork Siphon from the project. That siphon work has now been moved into a new project, separate from the Mountain Tunnel Improvement Project.
2. R&R Dam and Reservoir Conditions Assessment – This project does not appear in the FY 24-25 Water Enterprise Managed Capital Project Report. The SFPUC should include regular reporting on this ongoing capital project moving forward.
3. Mountain Tunnel South Fork Siphon Extension – This is a new project created because scope was dropped from the Mountain Tunnel Improvement Project. BAWSCA recommends that the SFPUC create a new NAR/AAR specific to this facility once work on the Mountain Tunnel Improvement Project is completed.
4. R&R Roads and Bridge Improvements – The project data sheet does not identify the specific details of why annual funding should be up to ten times the current annual expenditure rate. Additional discussion is warranted.
5. R&R Communications System Upgrades – BAWSCA observes that this line-item proposes about $20M more appropriation than the current CIP. This appears to be a very expensive ongoing cost, and BAWSCA requests additional details as to why that is.
6. Cherry Dam Spillway Short-Term – The budget for this project increased due to added scope for upper spill channel armoring. Its completion date has been extended to 2028 to enable a 6-month close out phase. Funding now covers through FY27, yet the most recent Hetch Hetchy Quarterly Report has the work extending into FY28. This seems inconsistent, and additional discussion is warranted.
7. R&R Power Distribution Implementation – There is a substantial increase in funding proposed in this 10-Year CIP (compared with the prior), going from a budget of $5M to a budget of $18.5M. BAWSCA needs additional information to justify the significant increase.
Water Enterprise
1. Millbrae Operations Center – This project is a primary component of the 10-year CIP, and it has generated concerns from the City of Millbrae. As noted in this comment letter, BAWSCA requests documentation and description of the conclusion to move the Rollins Road operations to the Millbrae Yard including reasons other alternatives were not preferred. Furthermore, there are several changes in the preferred alternative between what was presented in the January 21, 2020 Alternatives Analysis and the plans depicted in the August 2024 conceptual design, including the deletion of a new south shops building and the redesignation of an existing retail building as “new south shops” instead of a storage warehouse. BAWSCA would like to understand these changes and the rationale behind them. It would also be helpful for BAWSCA to understand the need for a wellness facility and SFPUC’s planned uses for the facility.
2. Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant R&R – The appropriations for this line-item proposed for the coming 10 years is $3.3M, which is less than half of the level budgeted during the last 10-year CIP cycle. Annual R&R expenditures trend higher as well.
Should additional money be allocated for this line-item?
3. West Bay Field R&R – The appropriations for this line-item proposed for the coming 10 years is $3.8M, which is approximately 75% of the level budgeted during the last 10-year CIP cycle. Annual R&R expenditures trend higher as well. Should additional money be budgeted for this line-item?
4. Bay Division Pipeline 4 PCCP Repair – The budget for this work was adjusted such that only planned activities can be performed over the coming 10-year cycle. The project’s completion date has been extended as well. The SFPUC notes that the budget will be revisited in the next 10-year CIP update cycle. BAWSCA believes that it is entirely possible additional money may be required to address PCCP repair issues.
5. San Bruno Jail Waterline Replacement – No appropriations have been requested, even if the project’s budget is $22.3M and the project’s completion date is December 2030.
Why was this project budget left out of the CIP budget? Will this project move forward in the coming years?
6. Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant WQD Trailer – Were there cost overruns on this project since the budget apparently has increased (and perhaps budget reallocation took place)?
7. Regional Conveyance Via South Bay Aqueduct – There are no funds requested in the 10-Year CIP for this project. It appears that it has been deferred. Should the details have been taken out of the CIP?
Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 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 Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 554 -3155
sfpuc.gov
E
rika Contreras
Secretary of Senate
California Legislature
State Capitol, Room 3044
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dr
. Erica Pan
Director and State Public Health Officer
California Department of Public Health
P.O. Box 997377, MS 0500
Sacramento, CA 95899-7377
January 28, 2026
Sue Parker
Chief Clerk of the Assembly
California Legislature
State Capitol, Room 3196
Sacramento, CA 95814
Darrin Polhemus
Division of Drinking Water, Director
State Water Resources Control Board
1001 I St., 24th Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Madams and Sir:
I
n accordance with Assembly Bill 1823, a bill codified in Chapter 841 of the California Water Code, Section 73504(a), the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is herewith reporting on the progress it has made during 2025 in securing additional water supplies to supplement its Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System supply during dry years.
T
his past year, the SFPUC has continued the implementation of its water supply projects in the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP). The projects are either complete or close to completion. The dry-year water supply projects included in WSIP were designed to allow the SFPUC to meet at least 80 percent of its customer demand during droughts assuming current system supplies and operation and rationing up to no more than 20 percent in any one year of a drought. However, the SFPUC’s ability to meet its customer demand during dry years may be affected by the State Water Resources Control Board’s amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay / Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay-Delta Plan Amendment), which was adopted in December 2018. The Bay-Delta Plan Amendment calls for the release of 40% of the unimpaired flow in the Tuolumne River from Don Pedro Reservoir. The SFPUC staff analysis of the Bay-Delta
Plan Amendment shows that its implementation could cause a significant reduction in available water supply and an associated need to increase rationing to up to 50% during droughts in SFPUC’s service area. SFPUC staff continue to engage in negotiations with other parties and the State to reach agreement on an alternate plan referred to as the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes program. Meanwhile, planning for new, alternative water supplies is ongoing and is described below.
The SFPUC has continued planning that was initiated in 2020 for additional water supply under the Alternative Water Supply Program to meet future dry-year water needs in its service area. The planning efforts involve evaluating new storage and supply opportunities in the region to meet anticipated future needs based on technical, financial, and institutional feasibility. As assessment of these projects has progressed, several projects that were under review have been deemed infeasible for institutional or financial feasibility and are not being pursued at this time.
The remaining projects being developed include those outlined below.
• Regional Groundwater Storage and Recovery (RGSR) Project – The RGSR Project is a strategic partnership between the SFPUC and three partner agencies: the City of Daly City, the City of San Bruno and the California Water Service Company (serving South San Francisco and Colma). The project sustainably manages
groundwater and surface water resources in a way that provides supplies during times of drought. During years of normal or heavy rainfall, the project would provide additional surface water to the partner agencies in San Mateo County, allowing them to reduce the amount of groundwater that they pump from the South Westside Groundwater Basin. Over time, the reduced pumping would allow the aquifer to naturally recharge and result in increased groundwater storage of up to 20 billion gallons of new water supply available during dry years. Phase 1 of this project consisted of construction of thirteen well sites and was completed in 2016. Phase 2 has been separated into two contracts. Phase 2A consists of inspection and service of each well and existing well pumps, addition of variable frequency drives to improve efficiency, and installation of cathodic protection to address potential corrosion. The Phase 2A work achieved substantial completion in December 2025. Phase 2B consists of work at SSF Main Well and pipeline installation to connect the well to Cal Water's pump station and treatment facility.
• PureWater Peninsula Project - This purified water project could provide 6 mgd of water supply through reservoir water augmentation at Crystal Springs Reservoir in San Mateo County. Treated wastewater from Silicon Valley Clean Water would go through a water purification process that uses multi-barrier treatment technology to meet state and federal drinking water quality standards. The purified water could then be transmitted to Crystal Springs Reservoir as indirect potable reuse. The SFPUC is currently preparing a Needs Assessment Report for the project and developing an implementation plan.
• South Bay Purified Water Project - Valley Water, the City of San Jose, and the City of Santa Clara are in the early planning stage of developing a joint purified water project that would serve the local demands of San Jose and Santa Clara during all types of water years, while also supplementing the water supply provided through the SFPUC’s Regional Water System in dry years. An initial concept for an advanced water treatment facility (i.e., purified water facility) using source water from the San Jose-Santa Clara Regional Wastewater Facility was studied with the SFPUC, prior to Valley Water joining the partnership. The project is currently being revised maximize utility and ensure the critical needs of all partners are met.
The SFPUC remains engaged with the Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara, and the Bay Area Water Conservation and Supply Agency, to determine water supply benefits for the Regional Water System.
The SFPUC and its Wholesale Customers also continue to advance conservation within our service areas. In addition to demand reduction measures, the SFPUC is simultaneously pursuing studies to evaluate the potential for additional recycled water and purified water in San Francisco and investing in innovation that can result in further demand reduction or supply increases. Following the completion of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan by July 1, 2026, the SFPUC also intends to update the Alternative Water Supply Plan originally published in February 2024.
Implementation of the WSIP dry-year projects and the pursuit of alternative water supplies to meet future needs are necessary to ensure sufficient water during droughts for our Retail and Wholesale Customers.
These efforts will continue to carry the upmost importance to the SFPUC into the future.
Cordially,
Steven R. Ritchie
Assistant General Manager, Water
CC:
SFPUC: Dennis J. Herrera, General Manager
Ron Flynn, Deputy General Manager
SFPUC Commissioners
BAWSCA: Tom Smegal, CEO/General Manager
Tom Francis, Water Resources Manager
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: certifiedhypnotist
To: Commission
Subject: Public comment to the SFPUC
Date: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 5:02:40 PM
Gentlemen:
I am a native San Francisco and currently a Menlo Park resident, and co-chair of the Social Justice Task Force of San Mateo County Democracy for America. Our Task Force and the entire club have voted to oppose the Delta Conveyance and to support enivornmental groups like Restore the Delta
clling for better stewardship.
As a long term resident I recall the work of Save the Bay to oppose filling in the bay. I remember when pollution was so bad that sometimes it filled our streets like fog and "Bayshore" was used as a synonym for"stench." Fortunately wiser heads found solutions. You now stand at a crossroads, called to find solutions to the obvious decline of the Delta and estuary system.
The Voluntary Agreements are clearly not working.The decline of fish stocks and the increase in toxic algae blooms do an environmental injustice to residents and to tribes while harming our precious environment. If you have read Cadillac Desert you know that our usage and pricing of water largely favors wealthy developers and growers growing water-intensive crops for export at the expense of everyone else.
Please choose to at least begin to correct flawed decisions . Adopt the Bay Delta Plan. What you decide here will be a legacy for future generations.
Gail Sredanovic
2161 Ashton Ave.
Menlo Park, CA
94025
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Peter Drekmeier
To: Commission
Subject: SFPUC Finances
Date: Thursday, January 29, 2026 7:32:08 AM
Attachments: Screenshot 2026-01-28 at 8.52.32 PM.png
PastedGraphic-1.png
Dear Commissioners:
For today’s budget hearing, I’d like to draw your attention to the following slide.
Here are a few things to consider;
Bullet 1: The $4.8 billion figure does not include debt service, which doubled the cost.
Bullet 2: Water rates have actually quadrupled since the WSIP was adopted. The impact of water rate increases on demand was likely underestimated. As rates increase, demand decreases and rates must increase further to cover fixed costs — the death spiral.
Bullet 4: We are already witnessing the impact of a $4.8 billion investment. How will an additional $10 billion in spending (plus debt service) affect the SFPUC’s financial viability?
Good luck today.
-Peter
Please note my new email address.
-----------------------
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
Yosemite Rivers Alliance
(Formerly Tuolumne River Trust)
[email protected]
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Kenneth Nicholson
To: Commission
Subject: Edgewood trial repair
Date: Thursday, January 29, 2026 9:20:36 AM
Our entire Neighborhood use that trailhead frequently for exercise and to enjoy nature.
It’s a long detour around and through the parking lot. It’s also a construction storage site and the contractors would prefer not to have walkers going through there.
Please, no more delays to restoring access,
Kenneth Nicholson
78 Woodland Ave
Kenneth E Nicholson
[email protected]
Daniel Lurie
Mayor
Joshua Arce
President
Stephen E. Leveronl
Vice President
Avnl Jamdar
Commissioner
Kate H. Stacy
Commissioner
Meghan Thurlow
Commissioner
Dennis J. Herrera
General Manager
San Francisco
Water Power Sewer Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 525 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, CA 94102
(415) 554-3155
sfpuc.gov
January 15, 2026
Assembly Member Diane Papan
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0021
-.7)3
Dear Assembly ember Papan:
Thank you for your letter, dated December 30, 2025, which I received on January 7, 2026.
Your letter raises several issues about the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's (SFPUC) plans for the SFPUC-owned site on El Camino Real in Millbrae. At bottom, you ask for transparency and engagement with the City of Millbrae, and I agree with that sentiment. I write, however, to add clarity to a couple of issues raised by Millbrae. I do this only so that we can move forward in the spirit of cooperation and transparency.
In February 2019, SFPUC met with Millbrae City Manager Tom Williams regarding the short lease term (5 years) we planned to issue for the building currently occupied by Outdoor Supply Hardware (OSH). We told him the five-year term was necessary because we were developing a project that had the potential to use the entire site, including the spaces currently used by Kentucky Fried Chicken and OSH. At that time, the site was occupied by Orchard Supply Hardware, but it did not have a lease as it had been terminated when it went into bankruptcy. So as of February 2019, the City of Millbrae had received information directly from the SFPUC that we were looking at a development project for the entire site.
Nevertheless, I agree that the SFPUC could have engaged more directly with the City of Millbrae as the project scope continued to develop and became clearer, and for that I apologize. The SFPUC, however, did not refuse to meet with the City of Millbrae or its representatives. While you identify Steve Ritchie and Rosanna Russell as being unresponsive, they have no records of anyone from the City of Millbrae reaching out without a response.
To the contrary, in July 2024 (months before the RFP went out) Steve and Rosanna immediately agreed to a request for a meeting from 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.
Millbrae city officials and representatives to discuss the site. During this same timeframe I personally spoke to an outside consultant that the City of Millbrae hired to discuss the site with us, and I directed my staff to engage with the City of Millbrae and/or its representatives. At the City of Millbrae's request, an in-person meeting was set for July 26, 2024. The SFPUC met with the City of Millbrae's representative, but Millbrae staff cancelled their attendance at the meeting given a recent recall vote. In that meeting, the Millbrae representative asked the SFPUC to extend the lease for OSH but did not ask to change the scope of the project. We extended the OSH lease.
In September 2024, the SFPUC issued an RFP to obtain early construction contractor involvement during the design phase of the project. The Millbrae City Manager attended the site visit for the RFP.
The City of Millbrae also reached out to the SFPUC about documents.
SFPUC's response to Millbrae's request for documents was due on October 21, 2024, but we engaged before that. To protect the competitive process and preserve the confidential information included in the RFP documents, we do not give out our RFP materials other than to potential proposers who sign an NDA. This is standard practice. But we made clear that we would provide the material to the City of Millbrae if they signed an NDA. By October 10, 2024, the San Francisco City Attorney's Office and the City of Millbrae's General Counsel reached agreement on the language for a non-disclosure agreement. The SFPUC awaited the executed agreement, but it never came.
Instead, on October 21, 2024, the due date for the response, a number of things happened. First, Steve Ritchie and Alison Kastama met with Tom Williams and City of Millbrae Community Development Director, Andrew Morgensen, and presented an overview of the project, which included a PowerPoint that showed the scope of the project and which expressly stated, "OSH occupies area designated for the New South Shops and area that will be storage etc. during New Lab and Office and other construction." That PowerPoint is included with this letter, At that point, the City of Millbrae had the scope of the project and information about SFPUC plans for the building occupied by OSH.
That same day, the City of Millbrae's outside counsel wrote to a San Francisco Deputy City Attorney to confirm a conversation in which he said, "I've advised my client about the pros and cons of signing the confidentiality clause and that they are taking the path that they think is best for them on this matter." In other words, despite having reached an agreement on language, Millbrae city representatives decided for themselves that they did not want to sign the agreement. They made this decision knowing that if they signed it, they could immediately receive the entire RFP. Once again, they also knew at that time that the proposed project included the space occupied by OSH. Now that the competitive process is closed, Millbrae has all the requested documents.
The time lapse between the request and the receipt is due to the City of Millbrae's decision, not the SFPUC's.
I explain this to you for two reasons. First, to make clear that there is another side to the story than the one you are being told. And second, because you also state that the City of Millbrae wants nothing more than to collaborate and negotiate with the SFPUC in good faith.
Unfortunately, I have not found that to be the case. I have witnessed Millbrae city representatives falsely telling our Commission that the SFPUC does not pay property taxes. In fact, we do. I have witnessed them falsely telling our Commission we hid this project from BAWSCA.
We didn't. It was specifically discussed at BAWSCA meetings in 2023 and 2024, before the RFP was issued. I have witnessed them falsely telling our Commission that Millbrae subsidizes San Francisco retail water customers. They don't. The City of Millbrae, like all BAWSCA members, pays for its share of water, which includes a proportionate share of the cost of maintenance and infrastructure benefitting BAWSCA members. There is a detailed agreement that lays out the cost, and an annual true up. The fact is that the City of Millbrae never pays more than its share.
I close this letter the same way I began; I agree that transparency and engagement are important. But transparency, factual honesty and cooperation are a two-way street. We will reach out to Millbrae city representatives in the hopes that we can get our discussions back on a more positive and cooperative path.
Sincerely,
DA/ Dennt Herrera
Genera11v1anager
Enclosure
cc:
San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie
Tom Smegal, General Manager, Bay Area Water Supply and
Conservation Agency
Tom Chambers, Chair, Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency Board of Directors
Joshua Arce, President, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Tom Williams, City Manager, City of Millbrae
Services of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Millbrae Campus Project Update
October 21, 2024
1 Regional Water Capital Program Key Project
• Millbrae Yard Campus
Improvements ($411M)
• SFPUC’s Rollins Road building in
Burlingame is seismically unsafe
• Millbrae water quality laboratory is
outdated
• South Shops building is unsafe and
unusable
• Millbrae Yard has numerous “temporary”
outbuildings and storage containers
2 Site Construction and OSH Lease
• OSH occupies area designated for the
New South Shops and area that will be
storage etc. during New Lab and
Office and other construction
• OSH lease expires in October 2025
• KFC lease expires in January 2026
• Proposals for Pre-Construction and
Construction Services (Construction
Manager / General Contractor) due
October 30, 2024
• Construction on the OSH site is currently
scheduled to start in October 2026
• Site prep could start earlier
4 This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Denise Louie
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Racial equity, diversity and inclusion
Date: Saturday, January 31, 2026 6:14:36 PM
Hi Commission President Arce and Commissioners,
Last month, I sent you email regarding General Manager Herrera's $700,000 budget for "Racial Equity, Diversity and Inclusion." I have not received any response.
I call your attention to a lawsuit settled in January 2026, wherein the City was forced to permanently defund 4 programs based on race and/or gender.
See https://clearinghouse.net/case/45800/
.
Please tell me if the $700,000 budget item has been approved or if it has been rejected.
Thank you,
Denise Louie
Vice President, Asian American Legal Foundation
https://www.asianamericanlegal.com/
On Tuesday, January 13, 2026 at 11:47:14 AM PST, Denise Louie <[email protected]> wrote:
Hi General Manager Herrerra,
Thank you for your report to the PUC Commission. However, it has raised some questions.
1) Please define "racial equity, diversity and inclusion." 2) Please also explain how racial equity, diversity and inclusion are used at the PUC. 3) Please provide policies, plans and practices that address racial equity, diversity and inclusion at the PUC.
Thank you in advance for your attention to these questions.
Respectfully,
Denise Louie
Vice President, Asian American Legal Foundation
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Robert Hall
To: Schuknecht, Alex (REC); Durana, Maria (REC); Recpark Commission; Commission Cc: Susan Mullaney
Subject: West Sunset Playground Resurfacing Harm to kids, Westside Basin Date: Saturday, January 31, 2026 8:36:56 PM
Attachments: 593733703_1292648332906957_7628405306533501819_n.jpeg Alex, are you the project manager on the West Sunset Playground Resurfacing Project? I can’t find anything about it on your website but saw a notification on Facebook.
How many square feet of impermeable surfacing are you creating with this project? Will the water be routed into the stormwater system and out to the ocean or do you have another method to capture the toxins that go into the drinking water table? Is SFPUC advising and monitoring?
Are you using artificial turf? Do you have a containment plan in the windy Sunset for the microplastic? Are you using PIP and crumb rubber below some of the surfaces to soften areas? What are the plans for the chemicals (PAH, PFAS, etc.).
Did you read this article about a new study on playground surfacing that came out this week titled:
Hidden danger lurking at kids’ playgrounds
may be linked to cancer: study
Did you also read this study that warned of these harms in 2019? Profiling and potential cancer risk
assessment on children exposed to PAHs in
playground dust/soil: a comparative study
on poured rubber surfaced and classical soil
playgrounds in Seoul
Thanks for looking into this,
Bob Hall
The c... - San Francisco Recreation and Park
Department
facebook.com
The children’s play area at West Sunset Playground has begun a resurfacing project that will remove and replace the existing safety surfaces, as well as some play equipment. It is anticipated to be completed in March 2026. Nearby playgrounds include South Sunset (40th Avenue and Vicente Street), McCoppin Square (1321 Taraval Street), and Sunset Recreation Center (2201 Lawton Street). Stay up to date at sfrecpark.org.
From: RainReadySF
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Prather, Joel; Flynn, Ronald P; Minick, Sarah; Floodwater Grants; RainReadySF; Spitz, Jeremy M; John-Baptiste, Alicia (MYR); Sweet, Alexandra C. (MYR); Walton, Shamann (BOS); Burch, Percy (BOS); Commission; Pallav Prakash; Matt Booth; Daniel Sachs; [email protected]; [email protected]; RainReadySF Subject: RE: 1650 Davidson Ave: Zum floodwater issue needs resolution Date: Monday, February 2, 2026 3:06:41 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Vivek, Jenny and David,
Thank you for reaching out to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) with your concerns about flooding on the property that you lease at 1650 Davidson Avenue and in the adjacent right-of-way, and for sharing information about the upcoming investments you hope to make. Getting students to school with vehicles that improve air quality is an important priority for our city. As described more fully below, the SFPUC looks forward to supporting that effort through improvements to the property funded by the Floodwater Grant Program.
The streets and parcels around Islais Creek are some of the most challenging in San Francisco from a flood management and flood resilience perspective. The area is very low-lying and, prior to development, was underwater and part of San Francisco Bay. The specific property that you lease is within the 100-Year Storm Flood Risk Zone
– meaning that it is highly likely to experience deep and contiguous flooding during a 100-year storm. If you commenced your lease in mid-2019 or later, the landlord was required by San Francisco law to disclose to you as the tenant that the property is in the 100-Year Storm Flood Risk Zone.
The area will face additional threats in the future as climate change raises sea levels and makes precipitation events more extreme. Flooding there this winter has also been exacerbated by the largest king tides that San Francisco Bay has seen since 1998. Earlier in January, the king tides caused overland flooding of bay water from Islais Channel and pushed bay water into our combined sewer infrastructure, taking up valuable capacity in the system.
San Francisco’s combined sewer system conveys stormwater and wastewater to the treatment plants and, during extreme storms, to nearshore outfalls, reducing the risk of flooding in the city.
Very intense storms, such as the 2025 holiday storms, can exceed the capacity of the combined sewer system. Under those circumstances, stormwater may pond and flow overland because it cannot enter the sewer system. It is physically and financially infeasible to design our combined sewer infrastructure to convey the flows delivered in extreme storm events.
In addition, because the pipes along Davidson Ave and the Davidson Wet Weather Pump Station are in good condition and are functioning as designed, we do not have plans for capital investments for those pieces of infrastructure in our current 10-year capital plan, which is carefully prioritized to allocate rate payer dollars in order of criticality.
While improvements to the system in this area are not planned, the SFPUC is able to support eligible property-based improvements that can reduce flood risk through our Floodwater Grant. Our staff have been partnering with Deca Companies on this grant application over the past four months and, upon successful completion of the grant process, we anticipate awarding $245,000 for deployable flood barriers, portable pumps, and backwater valves. These improvements are specifically designed to reduce the risk of flooding to 1620, 1650, and 1680 Davidson. It is our understanding that the grant process is currently on track to be completed in the coming weeks.
In your January 13 letter, you identified a separate flooding challenge in the streetscape that may not be resolved by the anticipated Floodwater Grant – flooding in the right-of-way. The challenge that you are noting is one that cannot be solved with underground infrastructure alone, and the SFPUC does not have jurisdiction over the elevation or design of the streetscape or surrounding land uses. Further complicating the issue is the fact that, according to our records, the segment of Davidson Avenue along which 1620-1650-1680 Davidson are located is unaccepted by the City.
Street acceptance by the City is a statutory and legislative process that occurs, in part, by action of Public Works for streets that meet City standards. Street acceptance is evidenced by Board of Supervisors approval. Since this segment of the street is unaccepted, that means that the City does not own the street segment and is not responsible for maintaining it. It is the responsibility of the adjacent property owners to maintain the street.
To facilitate coordination with other departments on this streetscape challenge, per David Noyola’s email from January 16, the SFPUC is willing to convene a meeting and invite relevant colleagues with jurisdiction over the streetscape to participate. Such a meeting would be focused on explaining the steps required for street acceptance and learning whether the investment that you are anticipating will cover this or could serve as a catalyst for other investment.
Thank you,
Idil
-------------------------------------------------------- Idil Bereket
Communications Manager, External Affairs
415-606-6055
Pronouns: she, her, hers
Connect with us @MySFPUC I sfpuc.gov
From: Jenny Mayfield <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 4:23 PM
To: Teter, Kelly R <[email protected]>; Flynn, Ronald P <[email protected]>; Prather, Joel <[email protected]>; John-Baptiste, Alicia (MYR) <[email protected]>; Sweet, Alexandra C. (MYR) <[email protected]>; Walton, Shamann (BOS) <[email protected]>; Burch, Percy (BOS) <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]; Vivek Garg <[email protected]>; Pallav Prakash <[email protected]>; Matt Booth <[email protected]>; Daniel Sachs <[email protected]>
Subject: Zum floodwater issue needs resolution
Dear all, On behalf of Zum, I am writing to share the attached letter regarding a long-standing and unresolved stormwater infrastructure failure in the public right of way on Davidson Avenue that is materially impacting our operations and placing
Dear all,
On behalf of Zum, I am writing to share the attached letter regarding a long-standing and unresolved stormwater infrastructure failure in the public right of way on Davidson Avenue that is materially impacting our operations and placing essential student transportation services at risk. As detailed in the attached, repeated stormwater overflows have caused ongoing damage to Zum’s facilities and vehicles, disrupted daily operations, and created unsafe working conditions for employees.
The situation has now reached a critical juncture. Current site conditions not only threaten Zum’s ability to reliably transport thousands of San Francisco Unified School District students each day but now place at serious risk a major electrification investment and deployment supported by more than $30 million in time-sensitive Federal and State grant funding. Without immediate action to address the stormwater capacity constraints on Davidson Avenue, both are jeopardized.
Zum remains committed to working collaboratively with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and other City partners to achieve a timely, durable solution. We look forward to hearing from you.
Best, Jenny