Correspondence Log — CleanPowerSF Sfpuc Commission, February 24, 2026

OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high -quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.

525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Correspondence Log
February 6, 2026 through February 19, 2026

Date Received From Subject
2/6/2026 Lourdes Enriquez February 11, 2026 BAWSCA Board Policy Committee Meeting Agenda (email +
attachment)
2/6/2026 Lourdes Enriquez FW: February 11, 2026 BAWSCA Board Policy Committee Meeting Agenda (email +
attachment)
2/9/2026 Peter Drekmeier Letter Re: Budget, Demand & AWS Plan 2/9/2026 Dave Warner BAWSCA’s Large Wholesale Rate
Increases Linked to a Trend of Declining
Demand Projections (email + attachment)
2/9/2026 Alison Kastama SFPUC Response to BAWSCA Comments on SFPUC's Draft 10-Year CIP for the
Water Enterprise and Hetch Hetchy
Enterprise (email + attachment)
2/9/2026 Denise Louie Comment for February 10th meeting 2/9/2026 Robert Hall Hazardous Chemicals in SF Artificial Turf Concealed from the Public
2/12/2026 Mayor Comm Affairs Staff City Hall Lunar New Year Celebration 2026 (email + attachment)
2/12/2026 Julie Ortiz Notice of Preparation of the City and County of San Francisco’s 2025 Urban
Water Management Plan and Water
Shortage Contingency Plan
2/16/2026 Valerie Howard I Oppose Artificial Turf for Crocker Amazon Ball Field Renovation
2/17/2026 Helene Whitson I oppose Artificial Turf for Crocker Amazon Ball Field Renovation
2/18/2026 Valerie Howard Re: I Oppose Artificial Turf for Crocker Amazon Ball Field Renovation
2/19/2026 John Bauters Sierra Club Comment Letter: SFPUC 2025 Draft Urban Water Management Plan
Demand Projections (email + attachment)

1 From: Lourdes Enriquez <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 2:00 PM
To: BAWSCA WMR
Cc: Smegal, Tom; Deborah Grimes; Christiane Barth
Subject: February 11, 2026 BAWSCA Board Policy Committee Meeting Agenda Attachments: 26_BPC_Feb11_Agenda_Final.pdf
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious
Attached is the agenda for BAWSCA’s Board Policy Committee meeting on Wednesday, February 11, 2026 at 1:30pm.

Click here to download a complete copy of the agenda and attachments for this meeting from our website, or go to:
http://bawsca.org/about/board/agendas
If you have questions, please call (650) 349-3000.

Thank you,
Lourdes Enriquez
Lourdes Verzosa-Enriquez
Assistant to the CEO/General Manager
Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency
155 Bovet Road, #650
San Mateo, CA 94402
650-349-3000
www.bawsca.org

21208055.3

February 11, 2026
1:30 p.m.

Burlingame Community Center – Sequoia Room
850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame

CLICK HERE TO VIEW LIVESTREAM
AGENDA
Agenda Item Presenter Page#

1. Call To Order, and Roll Call (Ragsdale)
Roster of Committee Members (Attachment)

Pg 3

2. Comments by Chair (Ragsdale)

3. Consent Calendar (Ragsdale)
A. Approval of Minutes from the December 10, 2025 meeting (Attachment)

Pg 5

4. Public Comment (Ragsdale)
Members of the public may address the committee on any issues not listed on the agenda that are within the purview of the committee.

Comments on matters that are listed on the agenda may be made at the time the committee is considering each item. Each speaker is allowed a maximum of three (3) minutes.

5. Reports and Discussions (Ragsdale)
A. SFPUC 10-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) (Smegal) Issue: What key projects did the SFPUC budget for in the 10-Year CIP for their Water and Hetch Hetchy Enterprises, and what key comments did BAWSCA raise in its review of the CIP?
Information to Committee: Oral report
Committee Action Requested: Questions and Comments
B. BAWSCA’s Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy 2050 – First Year (Ashoori) Accomplishments and Next Steps
Issue: What progress has been made to date and what engagement should the Board expect in 2026 for Strategy 2050?
Information to Committee: Oral report
Committee Action Requested: Questions and Comments
C. Preliminary Fiscal Year 2026-27 Work Plan and Results to be (Smegal) Achieved (Attachment)
Issue: What critical results must be achieved in FY 2026-27 to accomplish BAWSCA’s goals and water reliability objectives? Information to Committee: Memorandum presenting Preliminary Fiscal Year 2026-27 Work Plan and Results to be Achieved.

Pg 21

Pg 33

Pg 39

Committee Action Requested:

1. Comments and suggestions concerning the Preliminary Fiscal Year 2026-27 Work Plan and Results to be Achieved.

2. Feedback on presented results from January 15, 2026 Work Plan and Budget Planning Session.

3. Suggestions concerning presentation of the Preliminary Work Plan and Operating Budget to the Board of Directors in March.

6. CEO Reports (Smegal)
A. Water Supply Conditions
B. Bay Delta Plan/FERC Update
C. CEO’s Letter (Attachment)
D. Board Policy Committee Calendar (Attachment)
E. Correspondence Packet (Under Separate Cover)

Pg 59
Pg 61

7. Closed Session (Schutte)
A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Final License Application Proceedings for Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project, P-2299-082, and La Grange Hydroelectric Project, P-14581-002.

B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 - State Water Board Cases (Third Appellate District Court, Case No.

C101232).

8. Report from Closed Session (Schutte)

9. Comments by Committee Members (Ragsdale)

10. Adjournment to the Next Meeting (Ragsdale)
April 8, 2026 at 1:30pm

Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities
Upon request, BAWSCA will provide for written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in and provide comments at/related to public meetings.

Please submit a request, including your name, phone number and/or email address, and a description of the modification, accommodation, auxiliary aid, service or alternative format requested at least two days before the meeting. Requests should be emailed to [email protected] or submitted by phone at 650-349-3000. Requests will be granted whenever possible and resolved in favor of accessibility.

1 From: Lourdes Enriquez <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 6, 2026 4:16 PM
To: BAWSCA WMR
Cc: Smegal, Tom; Deborah Grimes; Christiane Barth
Subject: FW: February 11, 2026 BAWSCA Board Policy Committee Meeting Agenda Attachments: 26_BPC_Feb11_Agenda_Final_Revised.pdf
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious
Attached is a Revised Agenda for BAWSCA’s Board Policy Committee meeting on Wednesday, February 11, 2026 at 1:30pm.

The revision reflects a teleconference location publication. Agenda items remain the same.

21208055.3

February 11, 2026
1:30 p.m.

Burlingame Community Center – Sequoia Room
850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame

CLICK HERE TO VIEW LIVESTREAM
One (1) member of the Committee will participate in this meeting by teleconference at the following location, 1025 East Strawberry Ln., Boise, ID 83712. When any member(s) of the Committee participates by teleconference, all votes taken at this meeting will be by roll call vote.

REVISED AGENDA
Agenda Item Presenter Page#

1. Call To Order, and Roll Call (Ragsdale)
Roster of Committee Members (Attachment)

Pg 3

2. Comments by Chair (Ragsdale)

3. Consent Calendar (Ragsdale)
A. Approval of Minutes from the December 10, 2025 meeting (Attachment)

Pg 5

4. Public Comment (Ragsdale)
Members of the public may address the committee on any issues not listed on the agenda that are within the purview of the committee.

Comments on matters that are listed on the agenda may be made at the time the committee is considering each item. Each speaker is allowed a maximum of three (3) minutes.

Pg 21

Pg 33

Pg 39

Information to Committee: Memorandum presenting Preliminary Fiscal Year 2026-27 Work Plan and Results to be Achieved.

Committee Action Requested:

1. Comments and suggestions concerning the Preliminary Fiscal Year 2026-27 Work Plan and Results to be Achieved.

2. Feedback on presented results from January 15, 2026 Work Plan and Budget Planning Session.

3. Suggestions concerning presentation of the Preliminary Work Plan and Operating Budget to the Board of Directors in March.

Pg 59
Pg 61

C101232).

8. Report from Closed Session (Schutte)

9. Comments by Committee Members (Ragsdale)

10. Adjournment to the Next Meeting (Ragsdale)
April 8, 2026 at 1:30pm

1 From: Peter Drekmeier <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 9:05 AM
To: Commission; Lennear, Tiffany
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Smegal, Tom; SFPUC Citizens' Advisory Committee; Moncrease, Lexus
Subject: Letter Re: Budget, Demand & AWS Plan
Attachments: YRA Letter Regarding SFPUC Budget.pdf; 6g Water Enterprise and Finance Bureau Water Demand Projections.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Hi Tiffany, Could you please share the attached letter and attachment with the Commissioners and appropriate staff? Thank you. -Peter ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Hi Tiffany,
Could you please share the attached letter and attachment with the Commissioners and appropriate staff? Thank you.
-Peter
Pleas
e note my new email address.
-----------------------
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
Yosemite Rivers Alliance
(Formerly Tuolumne River Trust)
[email protected]

February 9, 2026

President Josh Arce and Commissioners
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC)
[email protected]

Re: SFPUC 2-Year Budget and 10-Year Capital Plan

Dear President Arce and Commissioners:

I’d like to draw your attention to the following two graphs. The first is from the staff budget presentation on your February 10 agenda. The second is from the Alternative Water Supply (AWS) Plan (February 2024) – figures from the SFPUC’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP).

You see that water sales projections for the Regional Water System (produced by the SFPUC Finance Bureau) are 182.1 mgd in 2036. In contrast, RWS demand projections (produced by the SFPUC Water Enterprise) are 229 mgd in 2035. The difference between the two figures is 47 mgd. That’s a huge difference (a quarter of total current demand).

The discrepancy between sales and demand projections was discussed during the 2022 budget hearing, and the Commission directed staff to produce a graph comparing the two sets of historic projections and actual demand.

Six months later, staff released a report comparing the projections.1 I’m attaching the report.

Both the Finance Bureau and Water Enterprise have historically over-projected demand/sales, but the Finance Bureau has been much closer to actuals. The Water Enterprise over-projected demand dramatically. The following graph was produced by Dave Warner using SFPUC data (the graphs in the report break out retail and wholesale demands and are so compressed that it’s difficult to register the extent of the differences).

1 Water Enterprise and Finance Bureau Water Demand Projections, July 5, 2022 – https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/sa628ebe9c31e4326b84ffa2976f9f9a3

What should be of great concern to the
Commission is that the AWS Plan is based on Water
Enterprise demand projections, not Finance Bureau
sales projections. The Plan suggests the need to
develop 92 mgd of AWS to meet “Demand” (on the
low end), and 122 mgd to meet “Obligations” (on
the high end). The cost of developing this much
AWS would range from $17 billion to $25 billion,
based on costs assumed in the AWS Plan.

Regarding the source of the numbers used in the
AWS Plan (Water Enterprise), the July 5, 2022
demand vs. sales report states:

“Second, the projections represent an outside bound of whatever demand will occur in the next 25 years.

The projections are legally required, but they are not expected to be the demands that will actually occur.

These demands will likely always be greater than actual demands because not all developments materialize, or they materialize slower than projected.”

In other words, the lowest figure included in the AWS Plan is the “outside envelope” (a descriptor used by Steve Ritchie at the July 16, 2021 SFPUC workshop on water demand and management).2

Recommendations

1) Put on hold all funding for AWS planning until it’s determined how much AWS (if any) might realistically be needed.
2) Direct staff to include a third scenario in the AWS Plan using Finance Bureau sales projections to represent demand. Given that the Finance Bureau also has a track record of over-projecting water sales, the new scenario should be considered the baseline and not a low demand scenario. 3) Follow up on your excellent questions during the October water supply planning discussion by scheduling a workshop to review the Design Drought. Much has changed since the Design Drought was conceived in the early 1990s (the SFPUC’s Water First Policy was implemented, demand has decreased significantly, and much more is known about climate change – Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment.) Yet the Design Drought has never been revisited.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director

2 SFPUC Water Demand and Management Workshop, July 16, 2021 – https://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/player/clip/38991?view_id=22&redirect=true

cc: BAWSCA Board of Directors
SFPUC Citizens Advisory Committee
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
July 5, 2022
TO: Commissioner Anson Moran, President
Commissioner Newsha Ajami, Vice President
Commissioner Sophie Maxwell
Commissioner Tim Paulson
THROUGH: Dennis J. Herrera, General Manager
FROM: Steven R. Ritchie, Assistant General Manager, Water RE: Water Enterprise and Finance Bureau Water Demand Projections This memo provides information regarding the demand projections performed by the Water Enterprise for the Urban Water Management Plan and by the Finance Bureau for rate-setting and financial projection purposes. The memo will describe the different purposes that each of these projections are used for and how by their very nature, they are different. It also includes what these projections have shown over the last several years for both Retail and Wholesale demands compared to actual demands.

For the purpose of long-term water supply planning pursuant to the Urban Water Management Planning Act, every five years we estimate the demand for water that we would experience if our service area was successful in meeting its development goals and mandates. The Act created an obligation for land use planning agencies and water agencies to coordinate to ascertain whether adequate supplies are available to support new development. It was not intended to establish the projected water demands that would be used for all operational and planning purposes. The water agency is not intended to act in a way that would frustrate or negate the objectives of the land use planning agencies or to substitute water agency judgment for that of planning agencies.

The results of the Urban Water Management Plan process are two-fold. First, it provides a set of projections to document how we would expect to fill the demand associated with development goals and mandates. However, they don’t account for droughts and changes in economic conditions such as the economic slowdowns in 2000, 2008, and 2020. Second, the projections represent an outside bound of whatever demand will occur in the next 25 years. The projections are legally required, but they are not expected to be the demands that will actually occur. These demands will likely always be greater than actual demands because not all developments materialize, or they materialize slower than projected. This is consistent with the approach we are taking in our Alternative Water Supply process of “planning for obligations but building for demands”.

By contrast, for the purpose of financial planning and for short term water system management, we estimate the demand that we are likely to experience. For budgeting and rate setting we use demand projections that are as close to actual as we can make them. These projections tend to be more conservative because if the projections are too high, we will have established rates that are too low and will have a revenue shortfall.

Similarly, we use projections that are as close to actual as possible for reservoir operations and drought restrictions and the acquisition of emergency supplies.

The two attached figures demonstrate these differences as well as other differences over time. Figure 1 displays Retail Demand Projections developed for the five Urban Water Management Plans prepared in 2000 through2020 and the 10-year Financial Plan Retail Sales Projections in 2015 and 2020, both compared to Actual Deliveries. The SFPUC did not publish 10-year Financial Plan Sales Projections before 2015.

The effects of drought and economic conditions can be seen in the demands. Similarly, the effects of changes in planning conditions for Urban Water Management Plans have changed in the most recent plans as the need for additional housing has become prominent, resulting in increasing projections of demand.

Figure 2 displays Wholesale Purchase Projections developed for the Urban Water Management Plans in 2015 and 2020 and the 10-year Financial Plan Wholesale Sales Projections in 2015 and 2020, both compared to Actual Deliveries. Again, the SFPUC did not publish 10-year Financial Plan Sales Projections before 2015.

The two figures document that the Urban Water Management Plan projections are consistently greater than the Sales Projections because of the different purposes for which they are created.

Attachments:

FIGURE 1: SFPUC Urban Water Management Plan Retail Demand Projections & 10- Year Financial Plan Retail Sales Projections
FIGURE 2: SFPUC Urban Water Management Plan Wholesale Purchase Projections & 10-Year Financial Plan Wholesale Sales Projections

FIGURE 1: SFPUC Urban Water Management Plan Retail Demand Projections & 10-Year Financial Plan Retail Sales Projections

Note: 2005 UWMP projections commenced beginning in 2000.

FIGURE 2: SFPUC Urban Water Management Plan Wholesale Purchase Projections & 10-Year Financial Plan Wholesale Sales Projections

1 From: Dave Warner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 2:27 PM
To: Lennear, Tiffany
Cc: Herrera, Dennis J; Ritchie, Steve; Hom, Nancy; Busch, Laura; Corvinova, Erin E Subject: BAWSCA’s Large Wholesale Rate Increases Linked to a Trend of Declining Demand Projections
Attachments: BAWSCA's Large Wholesale Rate Increases Linked to Lower Demand Projections 2026-02-09.pdf
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious
Hi Tiffany,
Thank you for all your support for all these budget and regular commission meetings! Would you provide the attached letter to commissioners, hopefully prior to Tuesday's meeting? I've cc'd here staff who were included on my cc list.

Best regards,
Dave

Page 1 of 3 ends

February 9, 2026

Re: BAWSCA’s Large Rate Increases Linked to a Trend of Declining Demand Projections

Dear Commissioners,
Thank you for your service!
As you know, the latest ﬁnancial plans project BAWSCA’s wholesale water rate to increase

7.6% in FY 2027 and 7.2% in FY 2028, up from last year’s projections of 1.0% and 1.2% for FY 2027 and 28 respectively.

The large increase was a surprise. BAWSCA agencies were not prepared for the jump.

As sta1g5$- has stated, these large increases are due to lower than forecasted water demand.

This is a direct result of over-estimating demand. The surprise could have been avoided either by forecasting lower demand or by providing scenario analyses showing how rates would vary under lower demand conditions.

Wholesale rate underestimates have been linked to declining demand projections. Figure 1 shows how the projected wholesale water rate has increased since 2023.

Figure 1: Since 2023 the projected wholesale rate for FY’27 has increased $0.93 or 17.5% $5.31
$5.86 $5.86
$6.24
$5.00
$5.20
$5.40
$5.60
$5.80
$6.00
$6.20
$6.40
FY 2027
Price per ccf
The Projected FY 2027 Wholesale Rate Increased 17.5%
Since 2023
May 2023 projection
May 2024 projection
May 2025 projection
Feb 2026 projection

Page 2 of 3 ends

Figure 2 shows how sales projections have declined in the last 2 years. Note how demand is still projected to be on an upward trend.

As noted in my letter dated January 5, 2026, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) board members receive information on rate sensitivity to demand (ﬁgure 3).

Figure 2: Finance department projections for BAWSCA demand declined signiﬁcantly, but still show an upward trend
138.3
136.2
125.4
110.0
115.0
120.0
125.0
130.0
135.0
140.0
145.0
FY
2024
FY
2025
FY
2026
FY
2027
FY
2028
FY
2029
FY
2030
FY
2031
FY
2032
FY
2033
FY
2034
MGD
BAWSCA Demand on the RWS has
declined in the last 2 years
May 2024 projection
May 2025 projection
February 2026 projection

Figure 3: Slide from MWD’s 10/14/2025 Board meeting showing rate sensitivity to demand.

Page 3 of 3 ends

Over forecasting water demand has multiple
unfortunate consequences including impacts on
rates and a1g5$-ordability. As ﬁnance sta1g5$- has been projecting ﬂat to growing water sales in today’s
environment of declining demand and negligible
population growth, there is a good chance of more
rate surprises in the future.

The San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA)
signiﬁcantly lowered its demand projections after its
2024 ﬁnancial di1g5$-iculties
1 that resulted from
overestimating demand (ﬁgure 4).

Recommendations:
1) Please pay close attention to underlying
demand projections and how they might
impact a1g5$-ordability. Flat demand projections, particularly over the longer term, have a good chance of being too high.
2) Please ask ﬁnance sta1g5$- to provide wholesale and retail rate sensitivity analyses against declining demand, as MWD has done. Had such analyses been provided last year, the jump in wholesale rates would not have been as surprising. Actions could have been explored to mitigate the risk of the rate increases.

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
BAWSCA Board of Directors

1 In ﬁscal 2024 the SDCWA saw its reserves drop as it hoped demand would rebound (which it didn’t). In June 2024 the Board tried to raise rates 18% but at the behest of San Diego’s mayor the rate increase was reduced to 14% causing a further use of limited reserves.

Figure 4: SDCWA’s demand projection
shortly after its 2024 ﬁnancial
challenges
217 223
182 193
334
254
150
200
250
300
350
2025 2030
MGD
2030 Demand Projection
Comparison
Water Enterprise
Finance Bureau
SDCWA
1 From: Kastama, Alison A
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 4:29 PM
To: Tom Smegal <[email protected]>
Cc: Herrera, Dennis J <[email protected]>; Ritchie, Steve <[email protected]>; Robinson, Stephen D <[email protected]>; Miller, Katie L <[email protected]>; Francis, Tom <[email protected]>; Schutte, Allison C <[email protected]>; Feitelberg, Brittany K <[email protected]>; BAWSCA Water Management Representatives <[email protected]>; Tom Williams <[email protected]>; Schutte, Allison C <[email protected]>
Subject: SFPUC Response to BAWSCA Comments on SFPUC's Draft 10-Year CIP for the Water Enterprise and Hetch Hetchy Enterprise
Dear Mr. Smegal –
Attached please find the SFPUC’s response to your January 23 rd letter providing BAWSCA’s comments on the SFPUC's Draft 10-Year CIP for the Water Enterprise and Hetch Hetchy Enterprise. We appreciate your review and comment on our 10-year CIP for both the Water Enterprise and the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise.

This response complies with requirements in Section 6.09.E of the 2025 Amended and Restated Water Supply Agreement (SFPUC Adoption of Regional Water System 10-Year Capital Improvement Program - BAWSCA and Wholesale Customer Notice and Review).

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Alison
Alison A. Kastama
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) and Wholesale Customer Liaison Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System | Water Enterprise | San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (415) 816-9810 cell
2 From: Tom Smegal [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2026 1:31 PM
To: Lennear, Tiffany [email protected]
Cc: Herrera, Dennis J [email protected]; Ritchie, Steve [email protected]; Robinson, Stephen D [email protected]; Miller, Katie L [email protected]; Kastama, Alison A [email protected]; Francis, Tom [email protected]; Schutte, Allison C [email protected]; Feitelberg, Brittany K [email protected] Subject: BAWSCA Comments on SFPUC's Draft 10-Year CIP for the Water Enterprise and Hetch Hetchy Enterprise Importance: High
Dear President Arce and Members of the Commissi on (c/o Tiffa ny Le nnear, Director of Commissi on Affairs), T his email transmits BAWSCA’s comments on the SFPUC’s Draft 10-Year Capital Improvement Plans for the W ater Enterprise and Hetch ZjQcmQR YFpfptBa nnerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQR YFpfptBa nner End
Dear President Arce and Members of the Commission (c/o TiƯany Lennear, Director of Commission AƯairs), 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 staƯ 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

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

February 9, 2026

Tom Smegal, CEO/ General Manager
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
155 Bovet Road, Suite 650
San Mateo, CA 94402
Via email to [email protected]

Dear Mr. Smegal,

Thank you for your January 28th letter regarding BAWSCA’s comments on the SFPUC’s proposed FY 2027-2036 Water Enterprise and Hetch Hetchy Enterprise 10-Year Capital Plans. We appreciate BAWSCA’s focus on our capital planning process, and we welcome the opportunity to respond to your questions and comments. Please see our responses below.

First, the SFPUC values BAWSCA’s support of our priorities and project drivers which have guided development of our 10-Year Capital Plan. BAWSCA’s recognition of the necessary balance between capital needs and financial constraints, most notably ratepayer affordability, confirms the SFPUC’s capital and financial planning approach.

Engagement and Coordination with the State of California Division of Safety of Dams
The SFPUC agrees with BAWSCA’s recognition that critical coordination with the Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD) is essential when planning work related to our regional water supply dams. The SFPUC has engaged in, and plans to continue, regular coordination with DSOD related to the 10-Year Capital Plan.

The current plan was developed following discussions with the Division in October 2025, and we expect to continue those discussions in 2026 as the Capital Plan moves through the approval process. Attached is a copy of the letter we recently sent to DSOD detailing our approach.

Regional Prioritization and Deferred Projects
The SFPUC again appreciates BAWSCA’s recognition of the challenge of proposing a balanced Capital Improvement Plan while maintaining the flexibility to respond to evolving needs. As with prior Plans, the SFPUC is poised to SFPUC Response to BAWSCA Ltr, Page 2 of 9

adjust our efforts if and when Regional Water System conditions require reprioritization.

Millbrae Operations Center Project
The SFPUC is committed to engaging with the City of Millbrae and BAWSCA to address their various questions related to the Millbrae Operations Center Project. As has been our practice, we will continue to ensure BAWSCA is provided all communications with the City of Millbrae.

As with all projects included in our 10 Year Capital Improvement Plan, the Millbrae Operations Center is the culmination of many years of analysis aimed at the most efficient, cost effective and prudent plan for improved facilities necessary to the Regional Water System. The utilization of existing SFPUC owned property, rehabilitation of existing buildings, and co-location of Regional Water System services and technical expertise provide a demonstrated and significant cost savings. The cost of this project has been constrained to address critical system needs; the search for and/or purchase or lease of alternative sites would add cost and duration to the project timeline which would additionally escalate construction costs. The SFPUC will provide BAWSCA the Rollins Road facility analysis, in addition to materials already provided during BAWSCA’s CIP review process and those related to the Construction Management/General Contractor (CM/GC) construction contract approved in March 2025. Finally, for clarity, the Wellness Center previously identified in early conceptual designs for the Millbrae Operations Center, is no longer part of the project design in order to save cost.

Hetch Hetchy Water CIP, including Moccasin Penstocks and Moccasin Facilities
The SFPUC is committed to continuing our practice of engaging BAWSCA as we advance planning for critical projects and infrastructure. We will continue to engage BAWSCA on the Moccasin Penstocks and Moccasin Facilities projects during and in addition to our quarterly meetings on the Water Enterprise and Hetch Hetchy Capital Improvement Programs.

Alternative Water Supply Projects
SFPUC appreciates BAWSCA acknowledgement of our previous public commitments to plan for Regional Water System obligations but build for System demands. Both Capital Improvement Plan development and regional demands have modified our Alternative Water Supply projects that contribute to new supplies, representing only $122M (4%) of the $3.1B Regional Water System costs in the 10-year Capital Plan. The $122M includes development of one project through design and additional funding for planning. We continue to SFPUC Response to BAWSCA Ltr, Page 3 of 9

monitor changes in demand and dry year water supply planning and will adjust as System needs require.

Responses to your questions regarding specific Project Datasheets have been included in Attachment A.

We appreciate your review and comment on the 10-year CIP for both the Water Enterprise and the Hetch Hetchy Enterprise. Thank you for acknowledging our robust plans and our consideration of affordability goals. We look forward to your participation in the upcoming Commission meeting on the 10-Year CIP.

Sincerely,

Steven R. Ritchie
Assistant General Manager, Water

cc:

Dennis Herrera, SFPUC, General Manager
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
Tom Williams, Millbrae City Manager

Encl.

Attachment A – Response to Questions Regarding Projects as Detailed on Project Data Sheets

Attachment B – Letter to DSOD

Attachment C – Rollins Road Seismic Evaluation

Attachment D – Millbrae Operations Center FAQ

SFPUC Response to BAWSCA Ltr, Page 4 of 9

Attachment A: Responses to BAWSCA Attachment 1

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.

SFPUC Response:

The project description has been updated to show this scope of work has been removed, and a new project has been created in the CIP.

Please see attached revised data sheet.

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.

SFPUC Response:

There are three separate R&R Dam-related projects in the Capital Plan; one under each of the Water, Power, and Joint authorities. The R&R Dams and Reservoirs Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation Project – Power (HHWP Activity Level Code: 15364; Project ID 100041003) appears on Page 81, and the R&R Dams and Reservoirs Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation Project - Joint (HHWP Activity Level Code: 15365; Project ID 14096) appears on page 104, of the Annual Report on Water Enterprise-Managed Capital Improvement Projects Fiscal Year 2024-2025. These projects were also reported in the FY23- 24 Report in this section. This response assumes the question is related to the Water project. There have been no actuals spent yet under the R&R Dam/Reservoir Condition Assessment & Rehabilitation Project - Water, therefore it has not yet been included in the Water Enterprise-Managed Capital Project Report. Previous appropriations for this project were re-prioritized. We expect expenditures and project reporting to occur in Fiscal Year 2026-2027 and appear in the Water Enterprise-Managed Capital Improvement Projects Fiscal Year 2026- 2027 Report.

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 SFPUC Response to BAWSCA Ltr, Page 5 of 9

new NAR/AAR specific to this facility once work on the Mountain Tunnel Improvement Project is completed.

SFPUC Response:

The first few years of the Mountain Tunnel South Fork Siphon Extension Project include planning and design phases, which will consider information gained during the Mountain Tunnel Improvement Project.

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.

SFPUC Response:

The proposed budget now includes a 10-year plan to replace high risk, large continuous pavement sections along Cherry Lake Road and Hetch Hetchy Road, which provide critical access to our upcountry assets. There is a total of 21 miles and 5 miles, respectively, where new asphalt overlay is planned. These roads have exceeded their expected useful life and are in need of replacement. This road work has been newly prioritized and not included in previous Capital Plans.

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.

SFPUC Response:

Asset lifecycle replacements and consolidation and upgrades to HHWPs SCADA systems have increased capital budget for R&R Communications Systems:
o Communication/radio site battery banks consist of “smart” charging systems with integral monitoring systems and batteries. These systems need to be replaced in 10-year intervals. The capital spending plan considers replacing approximately three battery systems per year.
o HHWP uses the Operations Technologies/SCADA asset to monitor and control water and power assets. The planned lifecycle is seven years and includes new firmware license acquisitions, hardware replacements, and commissioning. Software upgrades will be necessary every 2-3 years to maintain the system.

SFPUC Response to BAWSCA Ltr, Page 6 of 9

The Operations Technologies/SCADA rides on the digital
microwave radio system and fiber optic system. Combined, these two systems provide secure primary and backup communication super-highways. Fiber currently connects Kirkwood Powerhouse with Moccasin Control Center. The 10-year capital spending plan includes extending the existing fiber optic system from Moccasin to Warnerville Substation. The current digital microwave system is comprised of 20-year old equipment, resulting in maintenance and repair to be a risk to reliability. The 10-year capital spending plan includes the Microwave System Upgrade Project that will replace existing equipment and acquire spare parts and improve
maintenance and repair reliability.

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.

SFPUC Response:

As correctly indicated in the comment, the project completion date was extended to 2028 (specifically, January 2028). Construction is currently forecast to complete in July 2027, followed by a 6-month closeout process. The current appropriations for the project will fund the construction contract encumbrance and construction management in FY25/26, with additional funds requested in FY26/27 to complete the project. There should be sufficient remaining funds after FY26/27 to complete closeout activities in FY27/28.

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.

SFPUC Response:

The proposed budget assumes a base budget of $1.5M per year for various distribution life extension improvements (including project cost escalation), with increased budget requests in the first half of the CIP for specific projects. These planned projects include upgrading the Moccasin Administration Building’s connection to the distribution system, replacing various electric distribution transformers, and an assessment of potential renewable energy improvements.

SFPUC Response to BAWSCA Ltr, Page 7 of 9

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.

SFPUC Response:

The Rollins Road facility houses several Regional Water System services displaced in 1998 from the Millbrae Operations Center site due to lack of space. The SFPUC purchased the Rollins Road building after it was slated for sale during our lease tenancy.

The Rollins Road facility was analyzed for long-term SFPUC use after purchase and analysis indicated it was not adequate to withstand seismic loading, a critical facility limitation considering our Regional Water System operations housed there (notably the Water Quality sampling staff, fleet vehicles and sampling materials necessary for routine, regulatory, and emergency water quality sampling in the Regional Water System). Upgrades to the building to address this issue would have required vacation of the site and relocation of staff for the construction duration. The cost of this upgrade and relocation activity eliminated the site from further consideration. These analyses will be made available to BAWSCA staff for review. Further information regarding the Millbrae Operations Center Project is included in the attached FAQ document.

As mentioned, the Wellness Center depicted in early conceptual drawings has been removed from the scope and is no longer a component of the project.

SFPUC Response to BAWSCA Ltr, Page 8 of 9

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?

SFPUC Response:

The appropriation was adjusted downward as scope was moved to the Sunol Valley WTP Long Term Improvements Project. The contingency budget for unexpected repairs was also reduced to support other Water Enterprise projects.

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?

SFPUC Response:

The contingency budget for unexpected repairs in West Bay Field R&R was reduced to support other Water Enterprise projects. For any shortfalls, HTWTP R&R can be used as an alternative funding source.

This appropriation will be reevaluated during the next budget cycle.

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.

SFPUC Response:

The BDPL4 PCCP Project is only budgeted for planning at this time since alternatives being studied include abandoning the 1.3-mile segment up to full replacement of the segment. When the alternative is selected and moves forward to conceptual engineering, we will have a better estimate of the project costs.

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?

SFPUC Response to BAWSCA Ltr, Page 9 of 9

SFPUC Response:

The funding for this project is coming from the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department, hence the budget is left out of the SFPUC CIP budget. The work will move forward once the Sheriff’s Department secures funding.

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)?

SFPUC Response:

Sunol Valley Water Treatment Plant WQD Trailer was completed in 2022. There were no cost overruns on the project as it was completed under budget. Correction will be made to show surplus funds instead of a budget increase.

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?

SFPUC Response:

This Regional Conveyance Project was deferred and defunded, however, we continue to communicate with the CA Department of Water Resources about completing a cost estimate and South Bay Aqueduct condition assessment. Funds are available under Purified Water & Other Supplies to initiate this planning work should discussions progress.

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

February 2, 2026

Mr. Erik Malvik, Ph.D., P.E., G.E.,
Division Manager
Division of Safety of Dams
2720 Gateway Drive, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95833

Reference: Regional Dam Capital Improvement Program
Proposed Implementation Plan

Dear Mr. Malvik,

In a meeting with DSOD on October 9, 2025, we presented a proposed strategy and timeline for completion of long-term capital improvement projects at San Andreas Dam, James H. Turner Dam (Turner Dam), and Pilarcitos Dam. The key discussions from the meeting are included as an attachment to this letter. Based on the outcome of the meeting, we have modified the implementation schedule for these three dam projects and prioritized the schedule for the outlet works component. This letter presents our updated implementation strategy for the three Bay Area Regional dams.

Considering DSOD’s suggestions, we are initiating an Outlet Works Improvements Program focusing on improving the reliability of the existing outlet works at the three regional dams. Under this program, we propose to prioritize improvements at Pilarcitos Dam to facilitate reliable means to draw down the reservoir in an emergency, while simultaneously also planning to construct interim outlet works for San Andreas Dam. This Program aims to prioritize and complete the outlet work improvements for the regional dams in the near term as suggested by DSOD.

Construction for interim outlet works at San Andreas Dam is currently proposed to begin in 2029 followed by construction for retrofitted outlet works at Pilarcitos Dam in 2033. Evaluating performance of existing outlet works at Turner Dam under this program will continue with additional studies, including geotechnical investigations around the sloping intake structure for the outlet works. Table 1 below lays out the proposed timeline for the Outlet Works Improvement Program.

In addition to the Outlet Works Improvements Program, we will also continue to advance the planning of the long-term capital improvements of the three regional dams. Planning phase activities for all three dams will continue simultaneously with construction for San Andreas Dam prioritized to start in 2039, followed by Pilarcitos Dam in 2042 and lastly Turner Dam in 2052. Table 1 below presents the proposed timeline for the Long-Term Capital Improvement Projects.

Attachment B
Table 1: Bay Area Regional Dams - Proposed Implementation Strategy Facility/Project Name
Proposed Start Date
Planning Construction
Outlet Works
Improvements
Program
San Andreas Dam Interim Blow-
Off 7/1/2026 4/1/2029
Pilarcitos Dam Outlet Works
Retrofit Project 7/1/2026 5/1/2033
Turner Dam Outlet Works
Additional Studies 7/1/2026 TBD
Long-Term
Capital
Improvement
Projects
San Andreas Dam Facility
Improvements On-Going 3/1/2039
Pilarcitos Dam Facility
Improvements On-Going 10/1/2042
Turner Dam Facility Improvements On-Going 10/1/2052
We anticipate that the proposed strategy aligns with DSOD’s recommendations. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] should you have any additional questions or concerns. We can also discuss this during DSOD’s upcoming visit to the regional dams in March 2026.

Respectfully,
Steven R. Ritchie
Assistant General Manager, Water
Attachment: Regional Dam Implementation Strategy Discussion with DSOD, October 9, 2025
cc: Katie Miller, Infrastructure Division
Susan Hou, Infrastructure Division
Ryan Gabriel, Water Supply and Treatment Division
Tim Ramirez, Natural Resources and Lands Management Division p y
,

$6&(7LHU(YDOXDWLRQ
IRU
5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$

3UHSDUHGIRU

6DQ)UDQFLVFR3XEOLF8WLOLWLHV&RPPLVVLRQ
6DQ)UDQFLVFR&DOLIRUQLD

3UHSDUHG%\
6758&786,QF

6HSWHPEHU

Attachment C
$6&(7LHU(YDOXDWLRQIRU5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$

7DEOHRI&RQWHQWV

([HFXWLYH6XPPDU\««««««««««««««««««««««««««

6HFWLRQ$ 'HVFULSW LRQRIWKH7LHU6FUHHQLQJ««««««««««««$$

6HFWLRQ% 6XPPDU\RIWKH7 LHU6FUHHQLQJ«««««««««««««%%

6HFWLRQ& $6&( 7LHU(YDOXDWLRQ6WDWHPHQWV««««««««««&&

6HFWLRQ' 4XLFN& KHFN&DOFXODWLRQV««««««««««««««««'±'

5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQSHU$6&(7LHU3URFHGXUH

6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQRI 6758&786,QF
5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$

([HFXWLYH6XPPDU\

5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQSHU$6&(7LHU3URFHGXUH

6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQRI 6758&786,QF
5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
([HFXWLYH6XPPDU\

7KHH[LVWLQJ5ROOLQV5RDG%XLOGLQJLVHVVHQWLDOO\DQRQHVWRU\WLPEHUIUDPHGVWUXFWXUH H[FHSWIRUDSDUWLDOVHFRQGIORRUORFDWHGLQWKHPLGGOHRIEXLOGLQJ¶VZHVWVLGHZKLFKLV FRQVWUXFWHGRIFRQFUHWHVODEVVXSSRUWHGE\VWUXFWXUDOVWHHOIUDPLQJDQGFRQFUHWHZDOOV7KH

FRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKHVHFRQGIORRUZDOOVDVZHOODVWKHURRIRYHUWKHVHFRQGIORRUFRQVLVWRIOLJKW

WLPEHUIUDPLQJ

6)38&KDVUHTXHVWHGWKHEXLOGLQJEHHYDOXDWHGIRUVHLVPLFDGHTXDF\

5ROOLQV 5RDG LV FODVVLILHG DV D QRQHVVHQWLDO IDFLOLW\ ZLWK 5LVN &DWHJRU\ RI ,, DQG WKXV HYDOXDWHG WR WKH /LIH 6DIHW\ 6WUXFWXUDO 3HUIRUPDQFH /HYHO IRU D %6(( OHYHO HDUWKTXDNH SHU $6&(

DQDWLRQDOVWDQGDUGIRUVHLVPLFHYDOXDWLRQDQGUHWURILW
7DEOH

$ %6(( OHYHO HDUWKTXDNH LV GHILQHG DV RQH ZLWK D SUREDELOLW\ RI EHLQJ H[FHHGHG E\ D ODUJHUHDUWKTXDNHRYHUDSHULRGRI\HDUV

/LIH6DIHW\6WUXFWXUDO3HUIRUPDQFHLVGHILQHGE\$6&(DV

³6WUXFWXUDO3HUIRUPDQFH/HYHO6/LIH6DIHW\LVGHILQHGDVW KHSRVWHDUWKTXDNHGDPDJHVWDWH LQZKLFKDVWUXFWXUHKDVGDPDJHGFRPSRQHQWVEXWUHWDLQVDPDUJL QRIVDIHW\DJDLQVWWKHRQVHW RI SDUWLDO RU WRWDO FROODSVH $ VWUXFWXUH LQ FRPSOLDQFH ZLWK WKH DFFHSWDQFH FULWHULD VSHFLILHG LQ WKLVVWDQGDUGIRUWKLV6WUXFWXUDO3HUIRUPDQFH/HYHOLVH[SHFWHGWRDFKLHYHWKLVVWDWH´

6LQFHWKHUHLVQRUHFRUGGUDZLQJVDQGVHOHFWLYHGHPROLWLRQWRH[SRVHGVWUXFWXUDOIUDPLQJLVQRW DOORZHGFRQVHUYDWLYHDVVXPSWLRQVZLOOQHHGWREHPDGHIRUWKHH[LVWLQJVWUXFWXUHEDVHGRQ VWUXFWXUDOIUDPLQJSUDFWLFHVWKDWZHUHFRPPRQLQWKHVDQGVIRUVLPLODUW\SHRI

LQGXVWULDOEXLOGLQJV

7KHIROORZLQJLVDVXPPDU\RIDVVXPSWLRQVIRU$6&(7LHUVFUHHQLQJSURFHVV

5RRIVKHDWKLQJ±;VWUDLJKWVKHDWKLQJ
EDVHGRQSDUWLDOO\H [SRVHGDUHDVDQGIW

VSDFLQJRIURRIEHDPVVXSSRUWLQJSRSXSVKHDWKLQJ

([WHULRUZDOOVKHDWKLQJ±;VWUDLJKWVKHDWKLQJ
)ORRUVKHDWKLQJDWIUDPLQJRYHUFUDZOVSDFH±;VWUDLJKWVK HDWKLQJ

7KH H[LVWLQJ 5ROOLQV 5RDG %XLOGLQJ KDV VLJQLILFDQW GHILFLH QFLHV LQ LWV VHLVPLF UHVLVWLQJ V\VWHP1RWDEOHGHILFLHQFLHVLQFOXGHLQFRPSOHWHORDGSDWKVIRU VHLVPLFIRUFHVLQDGHTXDWHURRI GLDSKUDJPVDQGLQDGHTXDWHVKHDUZDOOVLQVKHDUUHVLVWDQFHDQGLQRYHUWXUQLQJ«HWF

7KHH[LVWLQJEXLOGLQJLVGHHPHGLQFDSDEOHRIPHHWLQJ/LIH6DIHW \3HUIRUPDQFH*RDOIRU%6( OHYHOHDUWKTXDNHIRUFHVDQGWKHUHIRUHVKRXOGEHVHLVPLFDOO\UHW URILWWHGWRHQVXUHOLIHVDIHW\RILWV

RFFXSDQWV

5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQSHU$6&(7LHU3URFHGXUH

6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQRI $ 6758&786,QF
5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
6HFWLRQ$

'HVFULSWLRQRIWKH7LHU6FUHHQLQJ

5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQSHU$6&(7LHU3URFHGXUH

6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQRI $ 6758&786,QF
5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
7LHU6FUHHQLQJ3URFHGXUH

6)38&
6DQ )UDQFLVFR 3XEOLF 8WLOLWLHV &RPPLVVLRQ
KDV GLUHFWHGWKDW WKH H[LVWLQJ EXLOGLQJ DW
5ROOLQV5RDGUHFHLYHVD7LHUVFUHHQLQJ

7LHUVFUHHQLQJLQYROYHVUHYLHZRIH[LVWLQJGUDZLQJVDQGFRPSO HWLRQRIFKHFNOLVWVRIHYDOXDWLRQ VWDWHPHQWVWKDWLGHQWLI\SRWHQWLDOVHLVPLFIRUFHUHVLVWLQJGHIL FLHQFLHVLQDEXLOGLQJEDVHGRQDQG

RQWKHSHUIRUPDQFHRIVLPLODUEXLOGLQJVLQSDVWHDUWKTXDNHV

7R WKLV HQG DV WKHUH LV QR DYDLODEOH UHFRUG VWUXFWXUDO GUDZLQJ V IRU UHYLHZ 6758&786 SHUVRQQHOUHYLHZHGGUDZLQJVGHULYHGIURPD5HYLWPRGHOSURYLGHG E\6)38&PDGHDVLWHYLVLW WR REVHUYH WKH FXUUHQW FRQGLWLRQV DQG SHUIRUPHG 4XLFN &KHFN DQ DO\VHV SHU $6&( SURFHGXUH IRU 5ROOLQV 5RDG EDVHG RQ WKH DVVXPSWLRQ WKDW WKH H[LVWLQJ ZDOO DQG URRI

VKHDWKLQJFRQVLVWRIVWUDLJKWVKHDWKLQJ

5ROOLQV 5RDG LV FODVVLILHG DV D QRQHVVHQWLDO IDFLOLW\ ZLWK 5LVN &DWHJRU\ RI ,, DQG WKXV HYDOXDWHG WR WKH /LIH 6DIHW\ 6WUXFWXUDO 3HUIRUPDQFH /HYHO IRU D %6(( OHYHO HDUWKTXDNH SHU $6&(7DEOH

$ %6(( OHYHO HDUWKTXDNH LV RQH ZLWK D SUREDELOLW\ RI EHLQ J H[FHHGHG E\ D ODUJHU HDUWKTXDNHRYHUDSHULRGRI\HDUV

/LIH6DIHW\6WUXFWXUDO3HUIRUPDQFHLVGHILQHGE\$6&(DV

5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQSHU$6&(7LHU3URFHGXUH

6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQRI % 6758&786,QF
5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
6HFWLRQ%

6XPPDU\RIWKH7LHU6FUHHQLQJ5HVXOWV

5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQSHU$6&(7LHU3URFHGXUH

6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQRI % 6758&786,QF
5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$

3ODQ9LHZ
5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$

%ULHI'HVFULSWLRQRI6WUXFWXUH

*HQHUDO

5ROOLQV5RDGLVORFDWHGVRXWKZHVWRI5ROOLQV5RDGLQ%XUOLQJDPH&$5ROOLQV5RDGUXQV VRXWKHDVWWRQRUWKZHVW)RUHDVHRIUHIHUHQFHWKHVLGHRIWKHEXLOGLQJIDFLQJ5ROOLQV5RDGLV

DVVXPHGWREHWKHQRUWKVLGH

FRQVWUXFWLRQRIWKHVHFRQGIORRUZDOOVDVZHOODVWKHURRIRYHUWKHVHFRQGIORRUFRQVLVWRIOLJKW

WLPEHUIUDPLQJ

8QGHUWKHORZHUPDLQURRIRIWKHVRXWKZLQJDQGVRXWKRIWKHSDUWLDOVHFRQGIORRUWKHUHLVDOVR

DFRQFUHWHYDXOWZLWKFRQFUHWHZDOOVRQIRXUVLGHV

7KHDJHRIWKHVWUXFWXUHLVXQNQRZQ%DVHGRQWKHDSSHDUDQFHDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQLWDSSHDUVWR EHFRQVWUXFWHGDURXQGVRUV7KHIDoDGHDSSHDUVWRKDYHEHHQPRGLILHGDIWHUWKH

RULJLQDOFRQVWUXFWLRQ

5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQSHU$6&(7LHU3URFHGXUH

6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQRI % 6758&786,QF
5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
7KHEXLOGLQJLVLUUHJXODUUHVHPEOLQJWKHOHWWHU³3´LQSODQZLWKRYHUDOOGLPHQVLRQVRI¶;¶

H[FOXGLQJWKHVLQJOHVWRU\JDUDJHVWUXFWXUHDWWKHQRUWKZHVWFRUQHU 7KHUHLVDFRXUW\DUG
ORFDWHGZLWKLQWKH3VKDSHGIRRWSULQWIODQNHGE\VLQJOHVWRU\ZLQJVRQWKUHHVLGHVDQGWKHWZR VWRU\ZLQJGHVFULEHGDERYH

7KHURRIVDUHHVVHQWLDOO\IODW,QWKHPLGGOHRIWKHVLQJOHVWRU\ZLQJVDWWKHQRUWKDQGDWWKH VRXWKWKHUHDUHSRSXSURRIVVOLJKWO\KLJKHUWKDQWKHORZHUPDLQURRIV7KHSRSXSURRIVDUH VXSSRUWHGE\IUDPLQJEHDPVDWDSSUR[LPDWHO\IWRQFHQWHUDQGUHVWLQJRQWRSRIFXUEVRIWKH ORZHUPDLQURRI&XUEVDUHH[SHFWHGWRSURYLGHURRIIODVKLQJDJDLQVWUDLQUXQRII

-XGJLQJIURPWKHSUHVHQFHRIVSULQNOHUKHDGVXQGHUDOWHUQDWLQJEHDPVWKHIUDPLQJEHDPV FRXOGEHFRQVLVWHGRIWZR;VDZQOXPEHURUPLFURODPVVLVWHUHGWRJHWKHUZLWKVSDFHUVWR SURYLGHDVSDFHIRUKRUL]RQWDOVSULQNHUUXQV

7KHPDLQORZURRIWRIORRUKHLJKWLVDSSUR[LPDWHO\IWZKLOHWKHSRSXSURRIVDUH DSSUR[LPDWHO\IWKLJKDERYHILQLVKHGIORRU7KHSDUWLDOVHFRQGIORRUDQGWKHKLJKURRI RYHU
WKHWZRVWRU\ZLQJ
DUHDSSUR[LPDWHO\IWDQGIWUHVSHFWLYHO\DERYHWKHILQLVKIORRU

([FHSWIRUWKHVLQJOHVWRU\ZLQJLQWKHHDVWVLGHZKHUHWKHPDLQHQWUDQFHRIILFHVDQGWKH

FRQIHUHQFHURRPDUHORFDWHG

ZKLFKKDVWLPEHUIUDPLQJRYHUFUDZOVSDFHV

WKHJURXQGIORRULV
W\SLFDOO\FRQVWUXFWHGRIVODEVRQJUDGH

7KHILQLVKHGJUDGHVDWWKHQRUWKHDVWDQGZHVWVLGHVRIWKHEXLOGLQJDUHDSSUR[LPDWHO\IW ORZHUWKDQWKHILQLVKHGIORRUOHYHO7KHVRXWKVLGHSRUWLRQVRIWKHJUDGHVDUHVORSHGIRUD

FRQFUHWHUDPSOHDGLQJWRWKHPDLQHQWUDQFH

9HUWLFDO/RDG&DUU\LQJ6\VWHP

7KH VWUXFWXUDO IUDPLQJ RI 5ROOLQV 5RDG LV QRW H[SRVHG WR Y LHZ H[FHSW DW YHU\ OLPLWHG ORFDWLRQV%DVHGRQWKHOLPLWHGH[SRVHGDUHDVREVHUYHGWKHW\ SLFDOVWUXFWXUDOIUDPLQJV\VWHP FRQVLVWV RI VDZQ OXPEHU MRLVWV EHDPV DQG SRVWV DQG VWXGV H[FHSW IRUWKH FRQFUHWH YDXOW DQG

WKH VWUXFWXUDO VWHHO JLUGHUV VXSSRUWLQJ WKH SRSXS URRI DW WKHVRXWK ZLQJ DQG VWUXFWXUDO VWHHO IUDPLQJ XQGHU WKH SDUWLDO VHFRQG IORRU¶V FRQFUHWH VODEV %DVHG RQ WKH OLPLWHG REVHUYDWLRQ DERYHWKHDFRXVWLFFHLOLQJWLOHVWKHLQWHULRUZDOOVIRUVLQJOH VWRU\ZLQJVW\SLFDOO\GRQRWH[WHQGWR WKHURRIVDQGDUHW\SLFDOO\QRQEHDULQJDQGRQO\WKHH[WHULRUZDOOVDUHEHDULQJZDOOV

)RXQGDWLRQ V\VWHP LV PRVW OLNHO\ FRQVLVWLQJ RI VKDOORZ FRQFUHWH VSUHDG IRRWLQJV FRQWLQXRXV IRRWLQJVIRUH[WHULRUEHDULQJZDOOVDQGXQGHUFRQFUHWHEHDULQJZDOOVIRUWKHSDUWLDOWZRVWRU\ZLQJ

DQGWKHYDXOWDQGLVRODWHG

GLVFUHWH

IRRWLQJVXQGHULQWHULRUEHDULQJSRVWVFROXPQV

/DWHUDO)RUFH5HVLVWLQJ6\VWHP

6LQFHWKHUHLVQRUHFRUGGUDZLQJVDQGVHOHFWLYHGHPROLWLRQWRH[SRVHGVWUXFWXUDOIUDPLQJLVQRW DOORZHGFRQVHUYDWLYHDVVXPSWLRQVZLOOQHHGWREHPDGHIRUWKHH[LVWLQJVWUXFWXUHEDVHGRQ

5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQSHU$6&(7LHU3URFHGXUH

6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQRI % 6758&786,QF
5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
VWUXFWXUDOIUDPLQJSUDFWLFHVWKDWZHUHFRPPRQLQWKHVDQGVIRUVLPLODUW\SHRI

LQGXVWULDOEXLOGLQJV
7KHIROORZLQJLVDVXPPDU\RIDVVXPSWLRQVIRU7LHUVFUHHQLQJSURFHVV

5RRIVKHDWKLQJ±;VWUDLJKWVKHDWKLQJ
EDVHGRQSDUWLDOO\H [SRVHGDUHDVDQGIW

VSDFLQJRIURRIEHDPVVXSSRUWLQJSRSXSVKHDWKLQJ

([WHULRUZDOOVKHDWKLQJ±;VWUDLJKWVKHDWKLQJ
)ORRUVKHDWKLQJDWIUDPLQJRYHUFUDZOVSDFH±;VWUDLJKWVK HDWKLQJ

7KHSHULPHWHUZDOOVURRIDQGIORRUGLDSKUDJPVDUHVXEMHFWHGWRLQSODQHVHLVPLFIRUFHVDQGDUH WKHSULPDU\FRPSRQHQWVRIWKHODWHUDOIRUFHUHVLVWDQFHV\VWHPDJDLQVWZLQGRUVHLVPLFIRUFHV

(QWUDQFHYLHZ5ROOLQV5RDG

5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQSHU$6&(7LHU3URFHGXUH

6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQRI % 6758&786,QF
5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$

,QVLGH5ROOLQV5RDG

6XPPDU\RI6FUHHQLQJ5HVXOWV

7KH VWUXFWXUH GRHV QRW FRQWDLQ D FRPSOHWH ORDG SDWK WR WUDQVIHU ODWHUDO IRUFHV IURP WKH

SRSXSURRIVWRWKHORZHUPDLQURRIVDWWKHQRUWKDQGWKHVRXWKZLQJV 7KHUHLVDVLJQLILFDQWJHRPHWULFDOLUUHJXODULW\GXHWRDFKD QJHRIKRUL]RQWDOGLPHQVLRQRI

RYHULQWKHPDLQORZURRIGLDSKUDJP
$W WKH SDUWLDO VHFRQG IORRU WKHUH LV D WRUVLRQDO LUUHJXODUL W\ GXH WR HVWLPDWHG GLVWDQFH EHWZHHQ WKH FHQWHU RI PDVV DQG WKH VWRU\ FHQWHU RI ULJLGLW\ H[F HHGLQJ RI WKH

FRQFUHWHIORRUVODEZLGWK
5RRIGLDSKUDJPVGRQRWPHHWW KH7LHUUHTXLUHPHQWIRUGLDSK UDJPFRQWLQXLW\DVWKHUH

DUHVSOLWOHYHOURRIV
%DVHGRQWKHDVVXPSWLRQWKDWWKHUHLVRQO\VWUDLJKWVKHDWKLQ JDWWKHURRIVWKHEXLOGLQJ GRHVQRWPHHW7LHUUHTXLUHPHQWIRUGLDSKUDJPDVSHFWUDWLRRIWR
%DVHGRQWKHDVVXPSWLRQWKDWWKHUHLVRQO\VWUDLJKWVKHDWKLQ JDWWKHURRIVWKHEXLOGLQJ GRHVQRWPHHW7LHUUHTXLUHPHQWIRUGLDSKUDJPPD[LPXPVSDQRIIW
(YHQ LI GLDJRQDO VKHDWKLQJ LV S URYLGHG DW URRI GLDSKUDJPV W KH\ GR QRW PHHW WKH UHTXLUHPHQWV IRU IW PD[LPXP VSDQ DQG DVSHFW UDWLR RI WR RU OHVV 7KH QRUWK

ZLQJORZURRIKDVDVSDQRIIWDQGDVSHFWUDWLRODUJHUWKDQ
7KH EXLOGLQJ LV GHILFLHQW IRU VKHDU VWUHVV FKHFN DV HDFK ZLQ J LV GHILFLHQW IRU 4XLFN &KHFNV7KHGHILFLHQFLHVDUHVLJQLILFDQWIRUPRVWRIWKHVKHDU ZDOOV7KH'&5 GHPDQG
WRFDSDFLW\UDWLR

UDQJHVIURPWRPRUHWKDQ
'XHWRWKHODFNRIUHFRUGGUDZLQJVPDQ\HYDOXDWLRQVWDWHPHQ WVFRXOGQRWEHFRPSOHWHG +RZHYHUEDVHGRQRXUNQRZOHGJHRIEXLOGLQJVRIVLPLODUDJHW\ SHDQGFRQVWUXFWLRQLWLV UHDVRQDEOH WR H[SHFW WKDW QRQFRPSOLDQFH LWHPV FRXOG LQFOXGH ODFN RI EUDFHG FULSSOH ZDOOV
DWLQWHULRUEHDULQJZDOOVLIDQ\

SRVLWLYHFRQQHFWLRQV RIZRRGSRVWVWRIRXQGDWLRQ

HVSHFLDOO\LQWHULRUSRVWV

DQGSRVLWLYHJLUGHUFROXPQFRQQHFWLRQV
7KHFRQFUHWHVODEDWWKHSDUWLDOVHFRQGIORRUKDVDODUJHV WDLURSHQLQJ LQH[FHVVRI

RIWKHVKHDUZDOOOHQJWK
LPPHGLDWHO\DGMDFHQWWRWKHVKHDUZDOOV

5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQSHU$6&(7LHU3URFHGXUH

6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQRI % 6758&786,QF
5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
7KHUHLVDODFNRIGLDSKUDJPFRQWLQXLW\GXHWRDYHUWLFDORIIVHWEHWZHHQWKHIORRUVODEDQG

WKHYDXOWURRIVODE
7KHUHLVDODFNRIUHGXQGDQF\IRUVKHDUZDOOVLQWKH16GL UHFWLRQXQGHUWKHVHFRQGIORRU VODEDVWKHUHLVQR16VKHDUZDOOV0RUHWKDQOLQHVRIZDOOVUHTXLUHG %DVHG RQ WKH VWDWHG DVVXPSWLRQV DQG WKH DERYH OLVWHG ILQGLQ JV RI VLJQLILFDQW 7LHU GHILFLHQFLHV7LHULVXQOLNHO\WRVKRZWKDWWKHEXLOGLQJLVDGHTXDWHIRUVHLVPLFGHPDQGV

DQGVHLVPLFUHWURILWLVUHTXLUHG

5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQSHU$6&(7LHU3URFHGXUH

6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQRI & 6758&786,QF
5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
6HFWLRQ&

$6&(7LHU(YDOXDWLRQ6WDWHPHQWV

5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQSHU$6&(7LHU3URFHGXUH

6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQRI & 6758&786,QF
5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
6HFWLRQ&

$6&(7LHU(YDOXDWLRQ6WDWHPHQWV

Table 17-1. Very Low Seismicity Checklist
Status Evaluation Statement
Tier 2
Reference
Commentary
Reference
Structural Components
C NC N/A U LOAD PATH: The structure contains a complete, well-de ﬁned load path, including structural elements and connections, that serves to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation.

5.4.1.1 A.2.1.1
C NC N/A U WALL ANCHORAGE: Exterior concrete or masonry walls that are dependent on the diaphragm for lateral support are anchored for out-of-plane forces at each diaphragm level with steel anchors, reinforcing dowels, or straps that are developed into the diaphragm. Connections have adequate strength to resist the connection force calculated in the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.7.

5.7.1.1 A.5.1.1
Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown.

Table 17-2. Collapse Prevention Basic Con ﬁguration Checklist Status Evaluation Statement
Tier 2
Reference
Commentary
Reference
Low Seismicity
Building System —General
C NC N/A U LOAD PATH: The structure contains a complete, well-de ﬁned load path, including structural elements and connections, that serves to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation.

5.4.1.1 A.2.1.1
C NC N/A U ADJACENT BUILDINGS: The clear distance between the building being evaluated and any adjacent building is greater than 0.25% of the height of the shorter building in low seismicity, 0.5% in moderate seismicity, and 1.5% in high seismicity.

5.4.1.2 A.2.1.2
C NC N/A U MEZZANINES: Interior mezzanine levels are braced independently from the main structure or are anchored to the seismic-force-resisting elements of the main structure.

5.4.1.3 A.2.1.3
Building System —Building Con ﬁguration
C NC N/A U WEAK STORY: The sum of the shear strengths of the seismic-force-resisting system in any story in each direction is not less than 80% of the strength in the adjacent story above.

5.4.2.1 A.2.2.2
C NC N/A U SOFT STORY: The stiffness of the seismic-force-resisting system in any story is not less than 70% of the seismic-force-resisting system stiffness in an adjacent story above or less than 80% of the average seismic-force-resisting system stiffness of the three stories above.

5.4.2.2 A.2.2.3
C NC N/A U VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES: All vertical elements in the seismic-force- resisting system are continuous to the foundation.

5.4.2.3 A.2.2.4
C NC N/A U GEOMETRY: There are no changes in the net horizontal dimension of the seismic-force-resisting system of more than 30% in a story relative to adjacent stories, excluding one-story penthouses and mezzanines.

5.4.2.4 A.2.2.5
C NC N/A U MASS: There is no change in effective mass of more than 50% from one story to the next. Light roofs, penthouses, and mezzanines need not be considered.

5.4.2.5 A.2.2.6
C NC N/A U TORSION: The estimated distance between the story center of mass and the story center of rigidity is less than 20% of the building width in either plan dimension.

5.4.2.6 A.2.2.7
continues
268 STANDARD ASCE/SEI 41-17C-2
Table 17-2 (Continued). Collapse Prevention Basic Con ﬁguration Checklist Status Evaluation Statement
Tier 2
Reference
Commentary
Reference
Moderate Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low Seismicity) Geologic Site Hazards
C NC N/A U LIQUEFACTION: Liquefaction-susceptible, saturated, loose granular soils that could jeopardize the building ’s seismic performance do not exist in the foundation soils at depths within 50 ft (15.2 m) under the building.

5.4.3.1 A.6.1.1
C NC N/A U SLOPE FAILURE: The building site is located away from potential earthquake- induced slope failures or rockfalls so that it is unaffected by such failures or is capable of accommodating any predicted movements without failure.

5.4.3.1 A.6.1.2
C NC N/A U SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE: Surface fault rupture and surface displacement at the building site are not anticipated.

5.4.3.1 A.6.1.3
High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Moderate Seismicity) Foundation Con ﬁguration
C NC N/A U OVERTURNING: The ratio of the least horizontal dimension of the seismic-force- resisting system at the foundation level to the building height (base/height) is greater than 0.6 S
a.

5.4.3.3 A.6.2.1
C NC N/A U TIES BETWEEN FOUNDATION ELEMENTS: The foundation has ties adequate to resist seismic forces where footings, piles, and piers are not restrained by beams, slabs, or soils classi ﬁed as Site Class A, B, or C.

5.4.3.4 A.6.2.2
Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown.

Table 17-3. Immediate Occupancy Basic Con ﬁguration Checklist Status Evaluation Statement
Tier 2
Reference
Commentary
Reference
Very Low Seismicity
Building System —General
C NC N/A U LOAD PATH: The structure contains a complete, well-de ﬁned load path, including structural elements and connections, that serves to transfer the inertial forces associated with the mass of all elements of the building to the foundation.

5.4.1.1 A.2.1.1
C NC N/A U ADJACENT BUILDINGS: The clear distance between the building being evaluated and any adjacent building is greater than 0.5% of the height of the shorter building in low seismicity, 1.0% in moderate seismicity, and 3.0% in high seismicity.

5.4.1.2 A.2.1.2
C NC N/A U MEZZANINES: Interior mezzanine levels are braced independently from the main structure or are anchored to the seismic-force-resisting elements of the main structure.

5.4.2.2 A.2.2.3
C NC N/A U VERTICAL IRREGULARITIES: All vertical elements in the seismic- force-resisting system are continuous to the foundation.

5.4.2.4 A.2.2.5
C NC N/A U MASS: There is no change in effective mass of more than 50% from one story to the next. Light roofs, penthouses, and mezzanines need not be considered.

5.4.2.5 A.2.2.6
continues
Seismic Evaluation and Retro ﬁt of Existing Structures 269C-3 Table 17-3 (Continued). Immediate Occupancy Basic Con ﬁguration Checklist Status Evaluation Statement
Tier 2
Reference
Commentary
Reference
C NC N/A U TORSION: The estimated distance between the story center of mass and the story center of rigidity is less than 20% of the building width in either plan dimension.

5.4.2.6 A.2.2.7
Low Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Very Low Seismicity) Geologic Site Hazards
C NC N/A U LIQUEFACTION: Liquefaction-susceptible, saturated, loose granular soils that could jeopardize the building ’s seismic performance do not exist in the foundation soils at depths within 50 ft (15.2 m) under the building.

5.4.3.1 A.6.1.2
C NC N/A U SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE: Surface fault rupture and surface displacement at the building site are not anticipated.

5.4.3.1 A.6.1.3
Moderate and High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low Seismicity) Foundation Con ﬁguration
C NC N/A U OVERTURNING: The ratio of the least horizontal dimension of the seismic- force-resisting system at the foundation level to the building height (base/height) is greater than 0.6 S
a.

5.4.3.4 A.6.2.2
Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown.

Table 17-4. Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types W1 and W1a Status Evaluation Statement
Tier 2
Reference
Commentary
Reference
Low and Moderate Seismicity
Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C NC N/A U REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2.

5.5.1.1 A.3.2.1.1
C NC N/A U SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the following values:

Structural panel sheathing 1,000 lb/ft (14.6 kN/m)
Diagonal sheathing 700 lb/ft (10.2 kN/m)
Straight sheathing 100 lb/ft (1.5 kN/m)
All other conditions 100 lb/ft (1.5 kN/m)

5.5.3.1.1 A.3.2.7.1
C NC N/A U STUCCO (EXTERIOR PLASTER) SHEAR WALLS: Multi-story buildings do not rely on exterior stucco walls as the primary seismic-force-resisting system.

5.5.3.6.1 A.3.2.7.2
C NC N/A U GYPSUM WALLBOARD OR PLASTER SHEAR WALLS: Interior plaster or gypsum wallboard is not used for shear walls on buildings more than one story high with the exception of the uppermost level of a multi-story building.

5.5.3.6.1 A.3.2.7.3
C NC N/A U NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS: Narrow wood shear walls with an aspect ratio greater than 2-to-1 are not used to resist seismic forces.

5.5.3.6.1 A.3.2.7.4
C NC N/A U WALLS CONNECTED THROUGH FLOORS: Shear walls have an interconnection between stories to transfer overturning and shear forces through the ﬂoor.

5.5.3.6.2 A.3.2.7.5
C NC N/A U HILLSIDE SITE: For structures that are taller on at least one side by more than one-half story because of a sloping site, all shear walls on the downhill slope have an aspect ratio less than 1-to-1.

5.5.3.6.3 A.3.2.7.6
continues
270 STANDARD ASCE/SEI 41-17C-4
Table 17-6. Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Type W2 Status Evaluation Statement
Tier 2
Reference
Commentary
Reference
Low and Moderate Seismicity
Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C NC N/A U REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2.

5.5.1.1 A.3.2.1.1
C NC N/A U SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the following values:

Structural panel sheathing 1,000 lb/ft
Diagonal sheathing 700 lb/ft
Straight sheathing 100 lb/ft
All other conditions 100 lb/ft

5.5.3.1.1 A.3.2.7.1
C NC N/A U STUCCO (EXTERIOR PLASTER) SHEAR WALLS: Multi-story buildings do not rely on exterior stucco walls as the primary seismic-force-resisting system.

5.5.3.6.1 A.3.2.7.3
C NC N/A U NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS: Narrow wood shear walls with an aspect ratio greater than 2-to-1 are not used to resist seismic forces.

5.5.3.6.1 A.3.2.7.4
C NC N/A U WALLS CONNECTED THROUGH FLOORS: Shear walls have an interconnection between stories to transfer overturning and shear forces through the ﬂoor.

5.5.3.6.3 A.3.2.7.6
C NC N/A U CRIPPLE WALLS: Cripple walls below ﬁrst-ﬂoor-level shear walls are braced to the foundation with wood structural panels.

5.5.3.6.4 A.3.2.7.7
C NC N/A U OPENINGS: Walls with openings greater than 80% of the length are braced with wood structural panel shear walls with aspect ratios of not more than 1.5-to-1 or are supported by adjacent construction through positive ties capable of transferring the seismic forces.

5.5.3.6.5 A.3.2.7.8
Connections
C NC N/A U WOOD POSTS: There is a positive connection of wood posts to the foundation. 5.7.3.3 A.5.3.3 C NC N/A U WOOD SILLS: All wood sills are bolted to the foundation. 5.7.3.3 A.5.3.4 C NC N/A U GIRDER–COLUMN CONNECTION: There is a positive connection using plates, connection hardware, or straps between the girder and the column support.

5.7.4.1 A.5.4.1
High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low and Moderate Seismicity) Connections
C NC N/A U WOOD SILL BOLTS: Sill bolts are spaced at 6 ft (1.8 m) or less with acceptable edge and end distance provided for wood and concrete.

5.7.3.3 A.5.3.7
Diaphragms
C NC N/A U DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed of split-level ﬂoors and do not have expansion joints.

5.6.1.1 A.4.1.1
C NC N/A U ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: All chord elements are continuous, regardless of changes in roof elevation.

5.6.1.1 A.4.1.3
C NC N/A U DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEMENT AT OPENINGS: There is reinforcing around all diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the building width in either major plan dimension.

5.6.1.5 A.4.1.8
C NC N/A U STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios less than 2-to-1 in the direction being considered.

5.6.2 A.4.2.1
C NC N/A U SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 24 ft (7.3 m) consist of wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing.

5.6.2 A.4.2.2
continues
Seismic Evaluation and Retro ﬁt of Existing Structures 273C-5 Table 17-6 (Continued). Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Type W2 Status Evaluation Statement
Tier 2
Reference
Commentary
Reference
C NC N/A U DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal spans less than 40 ft (12.2 m) and have aspect ratios less than or equal to 4-to-1.

5.6.2 A.4.2.3
C NC N/A U OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: The diaphragms do not consist of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing.

5.6.5 A.4.7.1
Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown.

Table 17-7. Immediate Occupancy Checklist for Building Type W2 Status Evaluation Statement
Tier 2
Reference
Commentary
Reference
Very Low Seismicity
Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C NC N/A U REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2.

5.5.1.1 A.3.2.1.1
C NC N/A U SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the following values:

Structural panel sheathing 1,000 lb/ft (14.6 kN/m)
Diagonal sheathing 700 lb/ft (10.2 kN/m)
Straight sheathing 100 lb/ft (1.5 kN/m)
All other conditions 100 lb/ft (1.5 kN/m)

5.5.3.1.1 A.3.2.7.1
C NC N/A U STUCCO (EXTERIOR PLASTER) SHEAR WALLS: Multi-story buildings do not rely on exterior stucco walls as the primary seismic-force-resisting system.

5.5.3.6.1 A.3.2.7.3
C NC N/A U NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS: Narrow wood shear walls with an aspect ratio greater than 2-to-1 are not used to resist seismic forces.

5.5.3.6.1 A.3.2.7.4
C NC N/A U WALLS CONNECTED THROUGH FLOORS: Shear walls have an interconnection between stories to transfer overturning and shear forces through the ﬂoor.

5.5.3.6.3 A.3.2.7.6
C NC N/A U CRIPPLE WALLS: Cripple walls below ﬁrst-ﬂoor-level shear walls are braced to the foundation with wood structural panels.

5.5.3.6.5 A.3.2.7.8
C NC N/A U HOLD-DOWN ANCHORS: All shear walls have hold-down anchors attached to the end studs constructed in accordance with acceptable construction practices.

5.5.3.6.6 A.3.2.7.9
Connections
C NC N/A U WOOD POSTS: There is a positive connection of wood posts to the foundation. 5.7.3.3 A.5.3.3 C NC N/A U WOOD SILLS: All wood sills are bolted to the foundation. 5.7.3.3 A.5.3.4 C NC N/A U GIRDER–COLUMN CONNECTION: There is a positive connection using plates, connection hardware, or straps between the girder and the column support.

5.7.4.1 A.5.4.1
continues
274 STANDARD ASCE/SEI 41-17C-6
professional to require further investigation shall be categorized as Noncompliant or Unknown. For evaluation statements classi ﬁed as Noncompliant or Unknown, the design professional is permitted to choose to conduct further investigation using the corresponding Tier 2 evaluation procedure listed next to each evaluation statement.

17.4 STRUCTURAL CHECKLISTS FOR BUILDING
TYPES S1: STEEL MOMENT FRAMES WITH
STIFF DIAPHRAGMS AND S1A: STEEL MOMENT

FRAMES WITH FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS
For building systems and con ﬁgurations that comply with the S1 or S1a building type description in Table 3-1, the Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist in Table 17-8 shall be completed where required by Table 4-6 for Collapse Prevention Structural Performance, and the Immediate Occupancy Structural Checklist in Table 17-9 shall be completed where required by Table 4-6 for Immediate Occupancy Structural Performance. Tier 1 screening shall include on-site investigation and condition assessment as required by Section 4.2.1.

Where applicable, each of the evaluation statements listed in this checklist shall be marked Compliant (C), Noncompliant (NC), Not Applicable (N/A), or Unknown (U) for a Tier 1 screening. Items that are deemed acceptable to the design professional in accordance with the evaluation statement shall be categorized as Compliant, whereas items that are determined by the design professional to require further investigation shall be categorized as Noncompliant or Unknown. For evaluation state- ments classi ﬁed as Noncompliant or Unknown, the design professional is permitted to choose to conduct further investiga- tion using the corresponding Tier 2 evaluation procedure listed next to each evaluation statement.

17.5 STRUCTURAL CHECKLIST FOR BUILDING
TYPES S2: STEEL BRACED FRAMES WITH
STIFF DIAPHRAGMS AND S2A: STEEL BRACED

FRAMES WITH FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS
For building systems and con ﬁgurations that comply with the S2 or S2a building type description in Table 3-1, the Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist in Table 17-10 shall be comple- ted where required by Table 4-6 for Collapse Prevention Struc- tural Performance, and the Immediate Occupancy Structural Checklist in Table 17-11 shall be completed where required by Table 4-6 for Immediate Occupancy Structural Performance.

Table 17-7 (Continued). Immediate Occupancy Checklist for Building Type W2 Status Evaluation Statement
Tier 2
Reference
Commentary
Reference
Foundation System
C NC N/A U DEEP FOUNDATIONS: Piles and piers are capable of transferring the lateral forces between the structure and the soil.

A.6.2.3
C NC N/A U SLOPING SITES: The difference in foundation embedment depth from one side of the building to another does not exceed one story high.

A.6.2.4
Low, Moderate, and High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Very Low Seismicity)
Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C NC N/A U NARROW WOOD SHEAR WALLS: Narrow wood shear walls with an aspect ratio greater than 1.5-to-1 are not used to resist seismic forces.

5.5.3.6.1 A.3.2.7.4
Diaphragms
C NC N/A U DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed of split-level ﬂoors and do not have expansion joints.

5.6.1.1 A.4.1.1
C NC N/A U ROOF CHORD CONTINUITY: All chord elements are continuous, regardless of changes in roof elevation.

5.6.1.1 A.4.1.3
C NC N/A U DIAPHRAGM REINFORCEMENT AT OPENINGS: There is reinforcing around all diaphragm openings larger than 50% of the building width in either major plan dimension.

5.6.1.5 A.4.1.8
C NC N/A U STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios less than 1-to-1 in the direction being considered.

5.6.2 A.4.2.1
C NC N/A U SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 12 ft (3.6 m) consist of wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing.

5.6.2 A.4.2.2
C NC N/A U DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal spans less than 30 ft (9.2 m) and have aspect ratios less than or equal to 3-to-1.

5.6.2 A.4.2.3
C NC N/A U OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: The diaphragms do not consist of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing.

5.6.5 A.4.7.1
Connections
C NC N/A U WOOD SILL BOLTS: Sill bolts are spaced at 4 ft or less with acceptable edge and end distance provided for wood and concrete.

5.7.3.3 A.5.3.7
Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown.

Seismic Evaluation and Retro ﬁt of Existing Structures 275C-7 Table 17-24. Collapse Prevention Structural Checklist for Building Types C2 and C2a Status Evaluation Statement
Tier 2
Reference
Commentary
Reference
Low and Moderate Seismicity
Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C NC N/A U COMPLETE FRAMES: Steel or concrete frames classi ﬁed as secondary components form a complete vertical-load-carrying system.

5.5.2.5.1 A.3.1.6.1
C NC N/A U REDUNDANCY: The number of lines of shear walls in each principal direction is greater than or equal to 2.

5.5.1.1 A.3.2.1.1
C NC N/A U SHEAR STRESS CHECK: The shear stress in the concrete shear walls, calculated using the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.3, is less than the greater of 100 lb/in.
2 (0.69 MPa) or 2
ﬃﬃﬃﬃ ﬃ
f 0c
p
.

5.5.3.1.1 A.3.2.2.1
C NC N/A U REINFORCING STEEL: The ratio of reinforcing steel area to gross concrete area is not less than 0.0012 in the vertical direction and 0.0020 in the horizontal direction.

5.5.3.1.3 A.3.2.2.2
Connections
C NC N/A U WALL ANCHORAGE AT FLEXIBLE DIAPHRAGMS: Exterior concrete or masonry walls that are dependent on ﬂexible diaphragms for lateral support are anchored for out-of-plane forces at each diaphragm level with steel anchors, reinforcing dowels, or straps that are developed into the diaphragm.

Connections have strength to resist the connection force calculated in the Quick Check procedure of Section 4.4.3.7.

5.7.1.1 A.5.1.1
C NC N/A U TRANSFER TO SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragms are connected for transfer of seismic forces to the shear walls.

5.7.2 A.5.2.1
C NC N/A U FOUNDATION DOWELS: Wall reinforcement is doweled into the foundation with vertical bars equal in size and spacing to the vertical wall reinforcing directly above the foundation.

5.7.3.4 A.5.3.5
High Seismicity (Complete the Following Items in Addition to the Items for Low and Moderate Seismicity) Seismic-Force-Resisting System
C NC N/A U DEFLECTION COMPATIBILITY: Secondary components have the shear capacity to develop the ﬂexural strength of the components.

5.5.2.5.2 A.3.1.6.2
C NC N/A U FLAT SLABS: Flat slabs or plates not part of the seismic-force-resisting system have continuous bottom steel through the column joints.

5.5.2.5.3 A.3.1.6.3
C NC N/A U COUPLING BEAMS: The ends of both walls to which the coupling beam is attached are supported at each end to resist vertical loads caused by overturning.

5.5.3.2.1 A.3.2.2.3
Diaphragms (Stiff or Flexible)
C NC N/A U DIAPHRAGM CONTINUITY: The diaphragms are not composed of split-level ﬂoors and do not have expansion joints.

5.6.1.1 A.4.1.1
C NC N/A U OPENINGS AT SHEAR WALLS: Diaphragm openings immediately adjacent to the shear walls are less than 25% of the wall length.

5.6.1.3 A.4.1.4
Flexible Diaphragms
C NC N/A U CROSS TIES: There are continuous cross ties between diaphragm chords. 5.6.1.2 A.4.1.2 C NC N/A U STRAIGHT SHEATHING: All straight-sheathed diaphragms have aspect ratios less than 2-to-1 in the direction being considered.

5.6.2 A.4.2.1
C NC N/A U SPANS: All wood diaphragms with spans greater than 24 ft (7.3 m) consist of wood structural panels or diagonal sheathing.

5.6.2 A.4.2.2
C NC N/A U DIAGONALLY SHEATHED AND UNBLOCKED DIAPHRAGMS: All diagonally sheathed or unblocked wood structural panel diaphragms have horizontal spans less than 40 ft (12.2 m) and aspect ratios less than or equal to 4-to-1.

5.6.2 A.4.2.3
C NC N/A U OTHER DIAPHRAGMS: Diaphragms do not consist of a system other than wood, metal deck, concrete, or horizontal bracing.

5.6.5 A.4.7.1
Connections
C NC N/A U UPLIFT AT PILE CAPS: Pile caps have top reinforcement, and piles are anchored to the pile caps.

5.7.3.5 A.5.3.8
Note: C = Compliant, NC = Noncompliant, N/A = Not Applicable, and U = Unknown.

Seismic Evaluation and Retro ﬁt of Existing Structures 299C-8

5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQSHU$6&(7LHU3URFHGXUH

6HLVPLF(YDOXDWLRQRI ' 6758&786,QF
5ROOLQV5RDG%XUOLQJDPH&$
6HFWLRQ'

4XLFN&KHFN&DOFXODWLRQV

3URMHFW 5ROOLQV5G,PSURYHPHQW -RE1R
6XEMHFW %XLOGLQJ(YDOXDWLRQ7LHU 'DWH 6HSW
(QJHQHHU %6 &KHFNHU +& 6KHHW
%XLOGLQJ7\SH : &RPHUFLDODQG,QGXVWULDO:RRG)UDPH
1XPEHURIVWRU\
$W=RQH$%') *

3VHXGR/DWHUDO)RUFH
7 &
WKQβ = V ZKHUH KQ IW β
&W
IRUDOORWKHUIUDPLQJV\VWHP

6LWH&ODVV (
6' ) Y6 J ZKHUH 6 J
%6(($56'DPSLQJ

)Y 7DEOH$6&(
6'V ) D6V J ZKHUH 6V J
%6(($56'DPSLQJ

)D 7DEOH$6&(
6D 6'7 J EXW6D6'V
9 &6D: : ZKHUH & 6HH7DEOH$6&(

)RXQGDWLRQGHSWK IW I W
9 :
*RYHUQ
9IRUEXLOGLQJLQZKLFKWKHERWWRIWKHI RXQG
LVOHVVWKDQIHHWEHORZH[WHULRUJUDGH
7DEOH$6&(9DOXHRI)Y
0DSSHG6SHFWUDO$FFHOHUDWLRQDW2QH6HFRQG3HULRG
6LWH 6 6 6 6 6 !
$
%
&
'
(
)

7DEOH$6&(9DOXHRI)
D
0DSSHG6SHFWUDO$FFHOHUDWLRQDW6KRUW3HULRG
6LWH 6V 6 V 6 V 6 V 6 V!
$
%
&
'
(
)

7DEOH$6&(0RGLILFDWLRQ)DFWRU&
1XPEHURIVWRULHV
%XLOGLQJJ7\SH !

::D:&)6
66&3&D
66&&3&D
3&50850D6&)6

6D6D6D&D&D
3&50
1RWH
([LVWLQJVWUXFWXUDOGUDZLQJVLVQRWDYDLODEOHDVVXPHGVWUXFWXUDOV\VWHPDVZRRGVKHDUZDOODQGZLWKVWUDLJKWVKHDWKLQJDQGZRRG GLDSKUDJPZLWKVWUDLJKWVKHDWKLQJH[FHSWDWVHFRQGIORRURISHQWKRXVHDVFRQFUHWHVODE 7KLV7LHUTXLFNFDOFXODWLRQVZLOOEHFKHFNHGSHU]RQHVDVVKRZQEHORZ D - 2
3URMHFW 5ROOLQV5G,PSURYHPHQW -RE1R
6XEMHFW %XLOGLQJ(YDOXDWLRQ7LHU 'DWH 6HSW
(QJHQHHU %6 &KHFNHU +& 6KHHW
.H\3ODQ 61
:
(
/2:522)3/$1

+,*+522)3/$1
D - 3
3URMHFW 5ROOLQV5G,PSURYHPHQW -RE1R
6XEMHFW %XLOGLQJ(YDOXDWLRQ7LHU 'DWH 6HSW
(QJHQHHU %6 &KHFNHU +& 6KHHW
=RQH$%

67)/2256+($5:$//3/$1

522))5$0,1*3/$1
5RRI
5RRILQJ
EXLOWXS7DU JUDYHO
3VI
6KHDWLQJ[GLDJ 3VI
-RLVW[ 3VI
%HDP[

3VI
&HLOLQJ 0( 3VI
,QVPLVF 3VI
Z 3VI
$UHD$
IWA
: Z$ /EV
5RRI
5RRILQJ
EXLOWXS7DU JUDYHO
3VI
6KHDWLQJ[GLDJ 3VI
-RLVW[ 3VI
%HDPV 3VI
&HLOLQJ 0( 3VI
,QVPLVF 3VI
Z 3VI
$UHD$

$ IWA
: Z$ /EV
ϮϬΖ
ϭϰϱΖ
ϳΖǆϵϬΖ
D - 4
3URMHFW 5ROOLQV5G,PSURYHPHQW -RE1R
6XEMHFW %XLOGLQJ(YDOXDWLRQ7LHU 'DWH 6HSW
(QJHQHHU %6 &KHFNHU +& 6KHHW
([WHULRUZDOOZW

DYJLQFOGRRUZLQGRZ
Z 3VI
K IW
([W:DOOZW

K
Z : /EV
: ::: /EV
16:RRG6KHDUZDOO
3VHXGR/DWHUDO)RUFH9(: : /EV
9M 9 /EV
:DOOOHQJWK/

IW
:DOODVSHFWUDWLROHVVWKDQ WR

0V 7DEOH$6&(IRU&3
6KHDUZDOOIRUFHYM
0V

9M/
3OI ! 3O IIRU 6WUDLJKWVKHDWKLQJ
«1*
7DEOH$6&(

(::RRG6KHDUZDOO
3VHXGR/DWHUDO)RUFH9(: : /EV
9M 9 /EV
:DOOOHQJWK/

IW
:DOODVSHFWUDWLROHVVWKD QWR

0V 7DEOH$6&(IRU&3
6KHDUZDOOIRUFHYM
0V

9M/
3OI ! 3O IIRU 6WUDLJKWVKHDWKLQJ
«1*
7DEOH$6&(

D - 5
(E ) Diaphragm shear, at line G, v = 20.5*25 = 513 plf > 100 Plf. (NG) 3URMHFW 5ROOLQV5G,PSURYHPHQW -RE1R
6XEMHFW %XLOGLQJ(YDOXDWLRQ7LHU 'DWH 6HSW
(QJHQHHU %6 &KHFNHU +& 6KHHW
=RQH&
%XLOGLQJ7\SH : &RPHUFLDODQG,QGXVWULDO:RRG)UDPH
1XPEHURIVWRU\
$W=RQH&

3VHXGR/DWHUDO)RUFH
7 &
WKQβ = V ZKHUH KQ IW β
&W
IRUDOORWKHUIUDPLQJV\VWHP

6LWH&ODVV (
6' ) Y6 J ZKHUH 6 J
%6(($56'DPSLQJ

)Y 7DEOH$6&(
6'V ) D6V J ZKHUH 6V J
%6(($56'DPSLQJ

)D 7DEOH$6&(
6D 6'7 J EXW6D6'V
9 &6D: : ZKHUH & 6HH7DEOH$6&(

)RXQGDWLRQGHSWK IW I W
9 :
*RYHUQ
9IRUEXLOGLQJLQZKLFKWKHERWWRIWKHI RXQG
LVOHVVWKDQIHHWEHORZH[WHULRUJUDGH
5RRI $ $ $

[/L
QG

67)/2256+($5:$//3/$1 1')/2256+($5:$//3/$1
5RRI
5RRILQJ
EXLOWXS7DU JUDYHO
3VI
6KHDWLQJ[GLDJ 3VI
-RLVW[ 3VI
%HDPV 3VI
&HLOLQJ 0( 3VI 3HQW KRXVH
,QVPLVF 3VI
Z 3VI
$UHD$
IWA
: Z$ /EV
522)3/$1
([WHULRUZDOOZW

DYJLQFOZLQGRZ
Z 3VI
K IW
: :

K /EV
:URRI :: /EV
D - 6
3URMHFW 5ROOLQV5G,PSURYHPHQW -RE1R
6XEMHFW %XLOGLQJ(YDOXDWLRQ7LHU 'DWH 6HSW
(QJHQHHU %6 &KHFNHU +& 6KHHW

QG)ORRU
&RQFVODE 3VI
6WOEHDPV 3VI
3DUWLWLRQFXUEVSDGHWF 3VI
&HLOLQJ 0( 3VI
,QVPLVF 3VI
Z 3VI
: Z

/
Z

/
/EV ZKHUH / IW
: Z

/
Z

/
/EV / IW
: Z

/
Z

/
/EV / IW
::: /EV
:RRG6:ZW Z 3VI
K IW
: :

Z
K /EV
:QG)ORRU :::: /EV
6WRU\6KHDU)RUFHV'LVWULEXWLRQ
7 VHF
N 9 : /EV
/HYHO KHLJKW :HLJKW :
[K[
N
&Y[ :[K[
N
)[ 9
:[K[
N
9M Σ)[
K[
IW
: [
N

NIW
Σ:LKL
N Σ:LKL
N
5RRI

QG)ORRU
Σ
:
522)
16:RRG6KHDUZDOO
3VHXGR/DWHUDO)RUFH9 9M 9 /EV
:DOOOHQJWK/

IW
:DOODVSHFWUDWLROHVVWKDQWR

0 V 7DEOH$6&(IRU&3
6KHDUZDOOIRUFHYM
0V

9M/
3OI ! 3OIIRU 6WUDLJKWVKHDWKLQJ
«1*
7DEOH$6&(

(::RRG6KHDUZDOO
9M 9 /EV
:DOOOHQJWK/

IW
:DOODVSHFWUDWLROHVVWKDQWR

0V 7DEOH$6&(IRU&3
6KHDUZDOOIRUFHYM
0V

9M/
3OI ! 3OIIRU 6WUDLJKWVKHDWKLQJ
«1*
7DEOH$6&(

1')/225
16:RRG6KHDUZDOO
3VHXGR/DWHUDO)RUFH9 9M 9 /EV
:DOOOHQJWK/

IW
:DOODVSHFWUDWLROHVVWKDQWR

0 V 7DEOH$6&(IRU&3
6KHDUZDOOIRUFHYM
0V

9M/
3OI ! 3OIIRU 6WUDLJKWV KHDWKLQJ
«1*
7DEOH$6&(

D - 7
3URMHFW 5ROOLQV5G,PSURYHPHQW -RE1R
6XEMHFW %XLOGLQJ(YDOXDWLRQ7LHU 'DWH 6HSW
(QJHQHHU %6 &KHFNHU +& 6KHHW
(::RRG6KHDUZDOO
3VHXGR/DWHUDO)RUFH9 9M 9 /EV
:DOOOHQJWK/

IW
:DOODVSHFWUDWLROHVVWKDQ WR

0V 7DEOH$6&(IRU&3
6KHDUZDOOIRUFHYM
0V

9M/
3OI ! 3OIIRU 6WUDLJKWV KHDWKLQJ
«1*
7DEOH$6&(

16&RQFUHWH6KHDUZDOOXQGHUZRRGZDOO
9[

9MQG(: /EV

:RRG6:

&RQF6:
9VZ :VZ

/EV
3VHXGR/DWHUDO)RUFH9 9M 9[9VZ /EV
:DOOOHQJWK/

IW
:DOODVSHFWUDWLROHVVWKDQ WR

&RQF6:DUHD$Z /

LQA
0V 7DEOH$6&(IRU&3
6KHDUZDOOIRUFHYM
0V

9M$Z
3VL 3VLIRU &RQF 6KHDU:DOO
«1*
7DEOH$6&(

1RWH1RFRQF6:LQ(:GLUHFWLRQ
D - 8
3URMHFW 5ROOLQV5G,PSURYHPHQW -RE1R
6XEMHFW %XLOGLQJ(YDOXDWLRQ7LHU 'DWH 6HSW
(QJHQHHU %6 &KHFNHU +& 6KHHW
=RQH'
5RRI
5RRI
6:
67)/2256+($5:$//3/$1=21(% (/(9$7,21
6HLVPLF:HLJKW
5RRI
5RRILQJ
EXLOWXS7DU JUDYHO
3VI
6KHDWLQJ[GLDJ 3VI
-RLVW[ 3VI
%HDPV 3VI
&HLOLQJ 0( 3VI
,QVPLVF 3VI
Z 3VI
$UHD$ IWA
: Z$ /EV
([WHULRUZDOOZW

DYJLQFOGRRUZLQGRZ
Z 3VI
K IW
([WZDOOZW

DWSHULPHWHUZDOO
:

K
Z /EV
: :: /EV
3VHXGR/DWHUDO)RUFH9 : /EV
16:RRG6KHDUZDOO
9M 9 /EV
:DOOOHQJWK /

IW
:DOODVSHFWUDWLROHVVWKDQ WR

0 V 7DEOH$6&(IRU&3
6KHDUZDOOIRUFHYM
0V

9M/
3OI ! 3O IIRU 6WUDLJKWVKHDWKLQJ
«1*
7DEOH$6&(

(::RRG6KHDUZDOO
9M 9 /EV
:DOOOHQJWK/

IW
:DOODVSHFWUDWLRO HVVWKDQWR

0V 7DEOH$6&(IRU&3
6KHDUZDOOIRUFHYM
0V

9M/
3OI ! 3O IIRU 6WUDLJKWVKHDWKLQJ
«1*
7DEOH$6&(

D - 9
3URMHFW 5ROOLQV5G,PSURYHPHQW -RE1R
6XEMHFW %XLOGLQJ(YDOXDWLRQ7LHU 'DWH 6HSW
(QJHQHHU %6 &KHFNHU +& 6KHHW
=RQH)*

BBBBBB &RQF9DXO WBBBBBBBBBB BBBBBB

$
5RRI3ODQ
5RRI

5RRI
/Z

W\SXRQ

K
$ 6:

BBBB BBBB BBBB BBBB BB

67)/2256+($5:$//3/$1=21($ (/(9$7,21
5RRI
5RRILQJ
EXLOWXS7DU JUDYHO
3VI
6KHDWLQJ[GLDJ 3VI
-RLVW[ 3VI
%HDP[

3VI
6WHHO*LUGHU:[
3VI
&HLOLQJ 0( 3VI
,QVPLVF 3VI
Z 3VI
$UHD$
IWA
: Z$ /EV
5RRI
5RRILQJ
EXLOWXS7DU JUDYHO
3VI
6KHDWLQJ[GLDJ 3VI
-RLVW[ 3VI
%HDPV

3VI
&HLOLQJ 0( 3VI
,QVPLVF 3VI
Z 3VI
$UHD$
$ IWA
: Z$ /EV
% '

D - 10
3URMHFW 5ROOLQV5G,PSURYHPHQW -RE1R
6XEMHFW %XLOGLQJ(YDOXDWLRQ7LHU 'DWH 6HSW
(QJHQHHU %6 &KHFNHU +& 6KHHW
,QWHULRUZDOO

SDUWLWLRQ

DUHDERXW
KW

,QWHULRUZDOOVHLVPLFZWLVLJQRUHGDW/RZ5RRI

([WHULRUZDOOZW

DYJLQFOGRRUZLQGRZ
Z 3VI
K IW
([WZDOOZW

Z
K : /EV
: ::: /EV
3VHXGR/DWHUDO)RUFH9 : /EV
16:RRG6KHDUZDOO
OLQH

9M /EV
:DOOOHQJWKOLQH

IW
:DOODVSHFWUDWLRO HVVWKDQWR

:DOOOHQJWKOLQH [
IW
/ IW
0V 7DEOH$6&(IRU&3
6KHDUZDOOIRUFHYM
0V

9M/
3OI ! 3O IIRU 6WUDLJKWVKHDWKLQJ
«1*
7DEOH$6&(

(::RRG6KHDUZDOO
OLQHV%'

9M 9 /EV
:DOOOHQJWK/ [
IW
:DOODVSHFWUDWLROHVVWKDQ WR

0V 7DEOH$6&(IRU&3
6KHDUZDOOIRUFHYM
0V

9M/
3OI ! 3O IIRU 6WUDLJKWVKHDWKLQJ
«1*
7DEOH$6&(

D - 11

Page 1 of 6 ends

Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System

Millbrae Operations Center Improvements
Proposed Plan
and Frequently Asked Questions
Attachment D

Page 2 of 6 ends

The Millbrae Operations Center is one of 4 Operations Centers for the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System. Operations, maintenance and emergency response for all of the system’s water deliveries in the Bay Area are based in Millbrae, as they have been for the past decades. The Millbrae Operations Center has existed in its current location since prior to 1906.

Current Regional Water System Activities at Millbrae Operations Center:

Millbrae is the largest of the 4 Operations Centers in the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System.

These centers manage 24 hour-per-day operation of the Regional Water System. The Millbrae Operations Center houses these operations/activities:
• Dispatch, Radio Communications
• Regional Water System Engineering
• System Operations
• Administration
• Plumbing
• Carpentry
• Materials Warehouse
• Paint shop
• Fleet Automotive Shop
• Materials and Fleet Storage, including
emergency mobile water quality and
operations center, and water tanker
vehicles.
• Regional Water Quality Laboratory

Current Regional Water System Activities Displaced from the Millbrae Operations Center in 1998 due to Space Constraints (Operating out of Rollins Road facility 1.6 miles away in Burlingame):
• Water Quality:
o Testing Staff
o Testing Supplies/Warehouse
o Fleet Vehicles
o Complaint Response
o Management, Administration,
Finance
• Regional Water System:
o Surveying
o Right of Way Management
• Natural Resources and Lands
Management Administration, Fleet
Vehicles

Frequently Asked Questions

How many employees will operate out of the Millbrae Operations Center? The Millbrae Operations Center serves as the base of operations for 3 divisions of the SFPUC’s Water Enterprise: Water Supply and Treatment, Water Quality, and Natural Resources and Lands Management which total about 500 staff. After improvements, the Millbrae Operations Center will be the work location for 390 of these staff, as shown by building in the Proposed Plan above.

Why are you relocating staff from the Rollins Rd location to the Millbrae Operations Center? Can’t you simply use any locally available office space? Our Rollins Road staff were originally housed at Millbrae, but water quality laboratory space, staffing and other growth dictated the need for additional space, primarily for the Water Quality Division, and also for some Water Supply and Treatment, and Natural Resources staff. This relocation of staff to Rollins Road in Burlingame took place in 1998 and has separated Water Quality management, records, ﬁnancial, regulatory reporting, sample monitoring and material storage, as well as Water Quality staff who respond to ﬁres and emergencies from the Water Quality laboratory and water operations teams. It has further separated our surveying, Right of Way and regional Natural Resources staff from the teams they work with.

Page 3 of 6 ends

Water Enterprise staff were originally in leased space at Rollins Road, but the SFPUC acquired the property in 2017. When the Rollins Road site was evaluated for long-term use it was found to be incapable of handling seismic loads. When looking into the long-term needs of the Regional Water System, it was clear that the need for inter-divisional coordination, collaboration, and efficiencies was essential.

The Water Quality Division staff at Rollins Road are responsible for sampling throughout the Regional Water System. All of those samples are transported to the Millbrae Operations Center laboratory for analysis. Having the sampling staff and materials housed at Millbrae will reduce the amount of daily traffic trips between Rollins Road and Millbrae. In addition to the sampling staff, other staff at Rollins Road are responders to water quality complaints, concerns, and incidents along the Regional Water System pipelines, which require their frequent travel to the Millbrae Operations Center. All ﬂeet vehicles housed at the Rollins Road site are serviced and fueled at the Millbrae Operations Center. The ﬁnal Millbrae Operations Center buildout will transfer 40 City vehicles and the need for associated parking spaces. Parking is also needed for relocated employees’ personal vehicles.

The need for staff coordination, collaboration and efficiencies combined with the need for City ﬂeet and equipment space is the rationale for the selection of the Millbrae Operations Center as the most appropriate location. The option of complete relocation of the Millbrae Operations Center to one or more other locations was not considered since there are very few, if any, locations with adequate space, and complete relocation would add considerable cost and disruption over consolidating services at the existing Millbrae location.

Once the Improvements Project is completed, the SFPUC anticipates selling the Rollins Road property.

Why not use space at the Harry Tracy Water Treatment Plant (WTP) on Crystal Springs Road and Highway 280?
The Harry Tracy WTP is a critical regional water system facility that ensures water from the Crystal Springs and San Andreas Reservoirs can be accessed, treated and distributed to regional water system customers San Mateo and San Francisco Counties. This facility and the various pipelines that serve the system, fully occupy the facility parcels. There is not sufficient space for other Regional Water System needs at the Harry Tracy W T P.

Page 4 of 6 ends

Why is so much parking needed?
All of the staff based at Millbrae and Rollins Road have duties that take them throughout the Bay Area segments of the water system. SFPUC vehicles (both sedans as well as larger operating equipment) are needed to carry out their duties, as well as parking spaces for staff to work at Millbrae. These operations can occur during regular work hours and during 24/7 operations and emergencies. The Proposed Plan (above) shows with two different colors the amount of employee parking as well as the City Fleet parking.

Why not build a parking garage?
A parking garage has been considered but is not included in the current plan. If there is future growth in staffing, an additional building may be constructed, and a parking garage will become necessary. In addition, the need for clearance space to accommodate internal traffic and for large vehicles to safely turn requires additional space that appears to be needed for parking.

How many ‘Shops’ and trades are there, and how many staff work in the ‘Shops’? Regional Water System operations require plumbers, electricians, electrical maintenance technicians, carpenters, painters, and automotive mechanics. Additionally, we have surveyors, biologists, and water sampling technicians and their associated materials. Each of these work groups require their own shop space and equipment storage. The number of staff occupying the Shops in the Proposed Plan is 124.

Currently, our system plumbers, electricians, electrical maintenance technicians, carpenters, and painters are compressed into the existing North Shops building. This building is inadequate to ﬁt all these trades, equipment and staff. The building was previously modiﬁed with mezzanines that are not adequate nor appropriate for the staff and work.

An existing building previously served as additional shop space, however that building is not safe and is no longer used. Further, some staff and services are located at Rollins Road 1.6 miles away.

To improve efficiency and effective use of publicly owned land, the Proposed Plan will consolidate these services. The new South Shops will relieve overcrowding in the North Shops building and allow space to bring dislocated services together on one site.

Why is so much materials storage space needed?
The Regional Water System consists of large-scale pipelines and appurtenances. The pipelines average 36 to 60 inches (3 to 5 feet) in diameter and are constructed of steel with cement mortar linings. Work on the system requires the use of large equipment (excavators, backhoes, etc.), the means to transport both equipment and materials, and materials to safely access, trench, backﬁll, and temporarily pave road surfaces. The materials and equipment laydown and storage area just north of the proposed South Shops building will consolidate current storage that is scattered around the existing site, particularly where the new laboratory and administration building will be located.

Page 5 of 6 ends

What long-term traffic impacts are expected?
The long-term traffic impacts should be negligible. There will be fewer trips between Rollins Road and Millbrae, and the additional traffic due to the Rollins Road staff moving will be similar to or less than the existing OSH retail and employee traffic.

What will be the lost revenue from the elimination of the OSH lease? OSH lease annual base rent is now $233,284.20. The anticipated sale of the Rollins Road site will offset this lost revenue to the SFPUC to a degree. The amount of sales tax generated at the OSH site for Millbrae is unknown, but the transfer of 100 additional staff from Burlingame to Millbrae will likely have a positive impact on local Millbrae businesses and sales tax revenues.

What beneﬁts will Millbrae gain from the Project?
There will be continued and increased local retail beneﬁts from the 100 additional employees relocating to Millbrae.

What commitments has SFPUC made to Millbrae related to the Project? • Financial support of Millbrae’s proposed Downtown and El Camino Real Community Beneﬁt District.
• Commitment that San Francisco’s 2% for Art obligation for the project would be fulﬁlled in Millbrae, not in San Francisco.
• Millbrae representative on the Advisory Committee to advise public art elements. • Coordination through a designated Millbrae staff person as the point of contact for Project details, particularly in how the future facilities will ﬁt into and enhance the frontage on El Camino Real.
• Extension of the OSH lease to October 2027.

When did Project planning begin?
Planning for upgrades to Regional Water System operation centers has been ongoing since the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) was initiated in 2004. Due to ﬁnancial and prioritization constraints, improvements to the Millbrae Operations Center were not included in the WSIP . Funding for planning work was thus ﬁrst proposed in our 2010 Capital Improvement Plans. Focused Millbrae Operations Center planning began in 2019, assuming no expansion, but recognized it was a possibility. In 2019 the Orchard Supply Hardware stores were closed. We understood OSH’s importance, so we issued an RFP in 2020 for a 5-year lease to keep our Millbrae Operations Center options open. Outdoor Supply Hardware signed a 5-year lease in October 2020. We have extended this lease twice, now extended through October 2027.

Page 6 of 6 ends

What is the Project schedule?
• Clark Construction was selected as a Construction Manager/General Contractor for the project in March 2025
• March 2026 – 35% design complete
• Summer 2026 – CEQA documents released
• Early 2027 – 100% design complete
• Early 2027 – Commission approval of construction
• November 2027 – Start of Construction: First of three phases

1. Adaptive Reuse of OSH Building

2. Construction of New Laboratory/Office Building

3. Adaptive Reuse of Existing Administration Building
• Late 2031 – Construction complete
1 From: Denise Louie <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 12:56 PM
To: Commission; Mark Shahinian
Cc: Daniel Lurie; Villarreal, Fernando (MYR); Mandelman, Rafael (BOS); MelgarStaff (BOS); MandelmanStaff (BOS); [email protected]
Subject: Comment for February 10th meeting
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious
Hi President Arce and Commissioners,
I urge you to expand the EFWS with great speed to protect neighbors near the Glen Canyon Park eucalyptus plantation along O'Shaughnessy Blvd. below Del Vale. Driving along O'Shaughnessy at 35 mph, it's easy to miss the dead/dying/dangerous standing eucalyptus on PW parcels and the lack of nearby fire hydrants. My neighborhood lacks hydrants, cisterns and EFWS pipelines.

To date, PW and RPD have not removed a single tree anywhere in the City to mitigate wildfire risk.

They have failed to address public safety with respect to the City's 2008 Hazard Mitigation Plan's recommendation to reduce vegetative fuel. They have ignored the Board of Supervisors' expressions of increasing wildfire risk during their 2019 Wildfire Prevention hearing. They have ignored the National Weather Service's 2024 red llag wildfire warnings. My neighborhood specifically deserves EFWS pipelines.

Please ask staff to present explanatory reports on expansion of the EFWS. The commission and the public deserve to know what's been happening since the Board in 2019 declared a "state of urgency" to expand the EFWS to all unprotected neighborhoods by 2034. The concern at the time was a post- earthquake conflagration. Now the USGS predicts a major quake within the next six years. We want to understand why the map of proposed expansion at
https://sfgov.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=44ef33b414a940b0abaa286856ac f044 shows no furture expansion to the areas around Twin Peaks, Mt. Davidson and Glen Canyon Park and why it shows much less coverage of the west side of the City than what was recommended*. And we want to understand why coverage has been further reduced for the June ballot.

Further, staff should explain why only $308 m of Earthquake Safety and Emergency Response (ESER) G.O. bonds have been issued as of 2020--and what portions were dedicated to the EFWS.

The PUC been slow to expand the EFWS, with only $130 m for EFWS expansion in the proposed June 2026 bond. I urge you to step up the expansion plan with greater speed.

Please feel free to have staff respond to my email directly. I would particularly appreciate Mark Shahinian's response to my previous email.

Thank you,
Denise Louie
4 1
From: Robert Hall <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 9, 2026 7:01 PM
To: Commission; Paez, Tim
Subject: Hazardous Chemicals in SF Artificial Turf Concealed from the Public Attachments: SF Artificial Turf Chem Tests.zip
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Commissioners, I am submitting this comment regarding toxic chemicals identifi ed in runoff and environme ntal testing associated with multiple artificial turf fie lds in San Fra ncis co. Thes e findi ngs come fr om tests conducted by the San Fra ncis co ZjQcmQR YFpfptBa nnerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQR YFpfptBa nner End
Commissioners,
I am submitting this comment regarding toxic chemicals identified in runoff and environmental testing associated with multiple artificial turf fields in San Francisco.

These findings come from tests conducted by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, with supporting records obtained through Sunshine Act disclosures. See attached documents. San Francisco Recreation and Park is telling the public and reporters that everything is perfectly fine, concealing information that’s critical to the community’s understanding of the state of our artificial turf play fields.

The results show concerning levels of metals and organic contaminants at several sites:


 Beach Chalet: Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel, Zinc



 Minnie & Lovie: Antimony, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel,  Zinc



 South Sunset: Dissolved Copper, Dissolved Iron, Manganese,  and Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP)


2 
 Garfield Square: Dissolved Copper and Dissolved Iron

These are not benign substances. Many of these metals are toxic to aquatic life at very low concentrations and can accumulate in sediments and organisms. Lead and chromium pose well-documented human health risks. Antimony is a suspected carcinogen and can leach from synthetic materials. Copper is especially toxic to fish and aquatic invertebrates, impairing their sense of smell, navigation, and survival even at trace levels.

Particularly alarming is the detection of Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP) at South Sunset. The U.S. EPA has classified DEHP as a probable human carcinogen and it is widely recognized as an endocrine disruptor. The European Union has banned its use in children’s toys due to risks to developing bodies. Its presence in stormwater associated with recreational fields used by children raises serious red flags.

An independent engineer reviewing the data highlighted additional technical concerns that suggest the risk may be understated, not overstated:


 The evaluation tables focus largely on human health criteria,  but ecological criteria are equally important. Many metals and organic compounds are more toxic to aquatic organisms than to humans, meaning harmful impacts to creeks, wetlands, and the Bay could occur at lower levels than those emphasized in summaries.



 Only copper appears to have been consistently evaluated for  ecological toxicity, even though other detected heavy metals and constituents can have lower ecological toxicity thresholds.



 Approximately 23 semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs)  appear to have results exceeding human health screening criteria when compared against California MCLs, DTSC screening levels, and U.S. EPA screening benchmarks, as recommended under the California Toxicity Criteria Rule. Yet these do not appear to be clearly
 flagged in summary tables.

3 

 In addition, about 18 SVOCs have reporting limits higher  than health-based criteria. In those cases, results are listed as “non-detect,” but the detection limits are too high to confirm the chemicals are actually below levels of concern. This creates a false sense of safety and likely underrepresents true exceedances
 in the dataset.

Taken together, this information indicates that artificial turf fields are acting as ongoing sources of metals and hazardous organic chemicals to the stormwater system. That runoff ultimately reaches local waterways and San Francisco Bay, ecosystems that are already stressed and protected under multiple state and federal water quality mandates.

I urge the Commission to:

1. 2.

3. Require comprehensive ecological as well as human health

4. risk evaluation for all detected constituents.

5. 6.

7. 8. Improve analytical methods and reporting limits so that non-detects

9. are meaningful relative to health-based criteria.

10. 11.

12. 13. Increase transparency in summary reporting, clearly identifying

14. all exceedances and data gaps.

15. 16.

17. 18. Reconsider the continued installation and replacement of

19. plastic-based artificial turf systems that contribute to chemical loading in the watershed. These datasets show that Rec/Park has done enough damage and doesn’t deserve to expand its artificial turf footprint.

20. 4
San Francisco has strong environmental values and regulatory commitments. Allowing fields that shed heavy metals, plastic additives, and probable carcinogens into our shared waters is inconsistent with those goals.

It’s time for SFPUC to step in and end these many years of harm or else become complicit.

Bob Hall
KeepCrockerReal.com
1 From: MYR Comm Affairs Staff <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 2:35 PM
Subject: [INVITATION] City Hall Lunar New Year Celebration 2026 Attachments: DL-LNY-2026-PUBLIC.png
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious
On behalf of Mayor Daniel Lurie, I am pleased to invite you to join us for celebration in honor of Lunar New Year at San Francisco City Hall on February 23, 2026, at 5:30 PM.

Please note that seating is unassigned and will be offered on a first come, first served basis.

1 From: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2026 6:36 PM
To: Commission <[email protected]>
Subject: Notice of Preparation of the City and County of San Francisco’s 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and Water Shortage Contingency Plan
Dear Customers, Community Members, and Interested Parties, The Urban Water Management Planning Act (California Water Code §10610-10657) requires urban water suppliers to update and adopt their Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) every five years. The City and County of San 2 Francisco is currently reviewing its UWMP and WSCP and will be preparing updates to these documents. The 2025 UWMP and WSCP are due to the California Department of Water Resources by July 1, 2026.

The 2025 UWMP will provide an overview of our water deliveries and uses, water supply sources, and water conservation programs. It will also include discussions on supply and demand projections over a 25-year planning horizon (from 2025 to 2050), available water supplies to meet existing and future demands under a range of water supply conditions, and our water demand management measures to reduce long-term water demand.

Proposed revisions to the UWMP and WSCP will be available for public review and comment. Information on the date and time of the public hearing, the procedure to submit comments, and where to access the Draft 2025 UWMP and WSCP will be provided in a later notification, prior to the start of the public review period. The City and County of San Francisco invites your agency to participate in this process.

In the meantime, if you have any questions about the UWMP or WSCP, please contact Jennifer Lee at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Julie Ortiz
Acting Director of Water Resources
Manage your preferences | Opt Out using TrueRemove™
Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails.

View this email online.
525 Golden Gate Ave | San Francisco, CA 94102 US
This email was sent to [email protected].

To continue receiving our emails, add us to your address book. 1 From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 11:05 PM
To: Commission
Subject: I Oppose Artificial Turf for Crocker Amazon Ball Field Renovation This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious
Dear Commissioners,
I, a lifelong Crocker Amazon Neighborhood Resident who lives a block from Crocker Amazon Park, VOTE in EVERY election. I condemn and oppose the plan to install plastic baseball diamond turf and cut down historic trees in Crocker Amazon Park.

San Francisco deserves environmental justice—real green space that welcomes families for gatherings, play, and cultural events. We should be investing in modern natural grass fields, not suffocating a beloved park under plastic.

Crocker Amazon is one of the city's great community parks. Don't turn it into a toxic, lifeless field. Keep it real, keep it grass.

Sincerely,
Valerie Howard
1 From: Helene Whitson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 4:07 AM
To: Commission
Subject: I oppose Artificial Turf for Crocker Amazon Ball Field Renovation This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious
Dear Commissioners,
I, a partial owner of a Crocker Amazon Neighborhood home a block from Crocker Amazon Park, was born and reared in that house, my family home. Happy are the times my family went to the park to enjoy its playground and natural resources. The park has been a part of my family’s life since 1938, and a wonderful resource for the neighborhood. I VOTE in EVERY election. I condemn and oppose the plan to install plastic baseball diamond turf and cut down historic trees in Crocker Amazon Park.

As someone who treasures San Francisco's city parks, I'm upset by plans to cover 75% of Crocker Amazon Park with artificial turf. This plastic carpet will pollute our water with microplastics and toxic "forever chemicals," destroy trees and habitat, fence off open space, and cost millions to replace every decade. I’m sure you have read the many articles about the health dangers of
artificial turf to humans and animal life. In addition, the breakdown of the plastic causes damage to the environment.

Crocker Amazon is one of the city's great community parks. Don't turn it into a toxic, lifeless field. Keep it real, keep it grass.

Sincerely,
Helene Whitson
1 From: [email protected]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2026 3:41 AM
To: Valerie Howard
Cc: Commission
Subject: Re: I Oppose Artificial Turf for Crocker Amazon Ball Field Renovation Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious
Dear Commissioners,
As a San Francisco Crocker Amazon Neighborhood resident and voter, I am alarmed, appalled and outraged at the Park and Recreation Department policies and actions regarding plastic artificial turf and other plastic infrastructure, including plastic playground equipment, in our community parks, leading me to conclude that elected officials, management and commissions who deal with this issue are woefully uninformed and unprepared. In order to be assured that those making decisions on behalf of the public in this area are qualified to fulfill their fiduciary duty to the best interests, including health, of the people of San Francisco, I DEMAND that ALL such elected officials (including the Mayor and all eleven Supervisors), Commissioners and Management be REQUIRED to read and pass a test on Judith Enck’s book, THE PROBLEM WITH PLASTIC: HOW WE CAN SAVE OURSELVES AND OUR PLANET BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE.

Sincerely,
Valerie Howard
1 From: John Bauters <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2026 9:28 AM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Stacy, Kate H; [email protected]; Commission
Cc: [email protected]; Sauter, Danny (BOS); Chan, Connie (BOS); Sherrill, Stephen (BOS); Mahmood, Bilal (BOS); Dorsey, Matt (BOS); Melgar, Myrna (BOS); Mandelman, Rafael (BOS); Fielder, Jackie (BOS); Walton, Shamann (BOS); Chen, Chyanne (BOS); Wong, Alan (BOS); John-Baptiste, Alicia (MYR); Herrera, Dennis J; Ritchie, Steve; Doug Jacuzzi; Miguel Miguel; [email protected]; Layne Fajeau; Sarah Ranney; Mary Ann Ruiz; Jenny Binstock
Subject:

Sierra Club Comment Letter: SFPUC 2025 Draft Urban Water Management Plan Demand Projections
Attachments:
2026.02.19 - Letter to SFPUC.pdf
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.

Report Suspicious
Dear SFPUC,
Attached, please find a comment letter on the SFPUC's 2025 Draft Urban Water Management Plan and its demand projections, jointly authored by the San Francisco and Loma Prieta Chapters of the Sierra Club and Sierra Club California.

We believe the SFPUC's current demand projections ignore the history of conservation within its wholesale and retail service territory and ask that you reconsider them.

Thank you in advance for your time and consideration in reviewing our club's comments and concerns.

We hope you will agree that this data presents us with the fortunate opportunity to protect both ratepayers and wildlife.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Our best,
John J. Bauters, Chair
San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club
Sue Chow, Chair
Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club
Miguel Miguel, Director
Sierra Club California
--
2 The strength of a nation is measured by the least of its people.

February 19, 2026 To: SFPUC Commissioners Joshua Arce, Stephen Leveroni, Avni Jamdar, Kate Stacy, Meghan Thurlow
cc: Mayor Daniel Lurie, Members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, Alicia John-Baptiste,

Dennis

Herrera,

Steve

Ritchie,

Doug

Jacuzzi
Subject: SFPUC water demand projections are unrealistically high and threaten Tuolumne River

ecosystem

and

ratepayer

affordability
Dear Commissioners, The Sierra Club, representing 5,500 members in San Francisco and 35,000 around the Bay Area,

has

concerns

about

the

SFPUC’s

water

demand

projections.

The

draft

2025

Urban

Water

Management

Plan

(UWMP)

demand

projections

paint

unrealistically

high

picture

future

water

demand.

The

projections

ignore

the

clear

track

record

conservation

SFPUC’s

wholesale

and

retail

service

territory.

The projections create an unaffordable future—one that, in some respects, is already here.

Inflated

demand

projections

justify

expensive

capital

projects

and

large

budgets.

When

that

demand

fails

materialize,

these

increased

costs

must

then

spread

over

lower

volumes

sold,

driving

rates.

Indeed,

the

SFPUC

has

proposed

raising

its

wholesale

water

rates

for

the

two

years

per

year—up

from

the

previously

proposed

1%.

This

hike

will

affect

customers

San

Francisco

the

same

way

will

affect

suburban

wholesale

customers.

In addition, the SFPUC is using these same demand projections to argue vociferously against the

Bay

Delta

Plan,

starving

the

Tuolumne

River

ecosystem

the

water

needs

for

fish

and

wildlife

populations

recover

from

the

declines

suffered

partly

because

the

SFPUC’s

operations

its

Hetch

Hetchy

system.

are

the

welcome

position

where

the

interests

protecting

the

environment

and

lowering

costs

for

ratepayers

align.

This memo outlines our concerns and presents opportunities for collaboration.

1. SFPUC’s demand projections have consistently overestimated future water demand
The SFPUC has, for decades, modeled water demand for its wholesale and retail customers, partly

meet

regulatory

requirements

for

UWMPs

and

partly

for

its

own

planning

purposes.

However, the projections have historically been very inaccurate, overestimating water demand by

45 to

50%

15-year

horizon

when

examined

retrospectively.

This

overprojection

has

barely

improved

over

time—the

2020

UWMP

projection

overestimated

2025

water

use

13%

just

four

years

after

its

issuance

2021.

The

graphic

below

illustrates

the

trend.

The draft 2025 UWMP demand projections we have reviewed from the SFPUC appear to suffer from

the

same

issue,

projecting

ever-increasing

demand

despite

long-term

historical

trends

decreasing

demand.

Because the overprojections are so consistent, we are concerned that the problem is not a technical

one,

but

one

orientation

the

part

the

SFPUC

and

BAWSCA.

The

SFPUC

appears

have

general

posture

overprojecting

needs—its

8.5 year

design

drought

some

accounts

2.5 years

longer,

72%

severe

and

19 times

less

likely

than

the

six

year

design

drought

used

peer

agencies

EBMUD

and

Valley

Water.

the

same

time,

has

underweighted

the

30%

demand

reduction

San

Franciscans

have

worked

hard

achieve

over

the

past

25 years.

fact,

SFPUC

leadership

has

stated

that

they

view

UWMP

demand

projections

asking

the

question

“how

much

water

would

you

need

accommodate

what

2 the [San Francisco Planning Department] planning projects” and that the UWMP projections represent

the

“outside

the

envelope”

projections.

That SFPUC’s demand projection posture does not appear in line with guidance from the California

Department

Water

Resources,

which

states

its

guidebook

UWMP

demand

projections:

A thorough characterization and analysis should provide a realistic prediction of future

water

use

based

upon

Supplier’s

past

and

current

water

use,

combined

with

considerations

anticipated

growth,

new

regulations,

changing

climate

conditions,

and

trends

customer

water

use

behaviors.

[
Emphasis

added.]
The SFPUC takes BAWSCA’s projections and incorporates them into its own projections. Since the

BAWSCA

agencies

represent

two-thirds

Regional

Water

System

(RWS)

demand,

and

the

SFPUC

uses

the

BAWSCA

numbers

its

UWMP,

there

tension

present:

The

utility

owned

San

Franciscans—the

SFPUC—ends

paying

for

additional

infrastructure

and

doing

causing

additional

harm

the

environment

because

has

incorporated

overprojected

demand

numbers

from

source

does

not

control.

Without access to the model inputs, it is hard to understand what, as a technical matter, is driving

the

overprojections.

our

brief

conversation

with

the

consulting

team

building

the

BAWSCA

model,

appears

that

they

are

assuming

their

model

that

many

the

coefficients

they

derive

from

past

correlations

carry

into

the

future

unchanged.

These

coefficients

govern,

for

example,

calculations

water

use

per

measure

economic

activity

baseline

water

use

per

multi-family

unit.

They

also

appear

incorrectly

interpreting

what

happens

water

use

hotter,

drier

future

climate.

For

example,

they

have

not

yet

taken

droughts

into

account,

and

our

understanding

their

work

around

droughts

that

has

not

substantially

changed

the

outcome

their

modeling.

2. The Drought-Demand Model: A statistical model based on the Standardized Evapotranspiration-Precipitation

Index

(SPEI)

drought

index

better

predictor

water

demand.

The standard water agency approach to modeling droughts is to assume that hotter, drier weather

increases

water

use.

This

what

BAWSCA

and

the

SFPUC

appear

their

climate

modeling.

However, this approach is not supported by the historical record. In fact, the behavioral and policy

changes

due

droughts

and

hotter,

drier

climate

the

past

20 years

have

actually

served

suppress

water

demand

among

the

SFPUC’s

customers.

Every

drought

has

resulted

large

demand

reductions,

and

post-drought

demand

has

not

rebounded

levels.

Droughts

have

long-term

impact

demand

causing

both

behavioral

changes

(e.g.

replacing

lawns)

and

policy

changes

(e.g.

the

ban

watering

ornamental

turf

with

potable

water).

See

figure

below

for

timeline

droughts

and

consumption.

3 Using this insight, we have built a curve-fitting model.This Drought-Demand Model uses a common

drought

measure

predict

future

water

use.

This

drought

measure,

the

Standardized

Precipitation

and

Evapotranspiration

Index

(SPEI),

coupled

with

population

data

and

historical

water

use

from

the

year

1976

2024,

shows

high

predictive

value

when

tested

against

out-of-sample

test

data.

Essentially,

created

water-use

curve

that

responds

drought

index

and

then

tests

against

the

years

2015

2024

that

withheld

from

model

calibration.

The

model’s

in-sample

Mean

Absolute

Percentage

Error

(MAPE)

4.0%,

and

its

out-of-sample

MAPE

4.3%.

other

words,

our

Drought-Demand

Model

has

expected

4.3%

forecast

error,

compared

the

45-50%

historical

forecast

error

the

SFPUC’s

projections.

This

comparison

not

intended

denigrate

the

SFPUC’s

work,

but

show

that

our

results

are

well

within–and

substantially

better

than–the

range

historically

considered

accurate.

are

available

discuss

our

model

detail.

To make clear an important technical distinction around correlation vs causation: Although the drought

index

highly

correlated

with

these

changes

behavior

and

demand

and

gives

tight

curve

fit,

the

index

itself

does

not

cause

changes.

other

words,

certain

policies

and

behaviors

promoting

conservation

tend

result

from

droughts,

but

droughts

and

the

drought

index

not

cause

change

demand

their

own.

The key to our model, of course, is the assumptions around future droughts. We pulled drought (SPEI)

predictions

for

San

Mateo

County

from

the

world’s

leading

climate

models,

and

settled

the

HadGEM2-ES365

(Historical

+rcp45)

our

baseline

model.

This

model

used

CalAdapt

test

against

future

droughts

and

runs

slightly

warmer

and

drier

than

other

models.

For

our

population

inputs,

used

the

California

Department

Finance

population

projections

for

San

Francisco

and

San

Mateo

County,

which

project

0.08%

and

0.12%

annual

population

4 growth to 2050, respectively. Below is a chart that shows the SPEI historical and future drought projection

used

for

baseline.

Negative

numbers

are

drier

and/or

hotter

than

normal

and

positive

numbers

are

wetter

and/or

cooler

than

normal.

3. The Drought-Demand Model shows a decline in water demand of about 45 MGD over

the

25 years,

indicating

the

SFPUC

projections

are

overestimating

demand

about

50%

over

the

25 years
The chart below shows the results of our baseline Drought-Demand Model.

5 The blue lines are historical water use, including retail, wholesale and total. 1 The red lines are
the

Drought-Demand

modeled

historical

and

future

use.

We find in our base case that 2050 retail + wholesale demand for potable water will be about 147

MGD.

This

indicates

the

221

MGD

predicted

the

BAWSCA

and

SFPUC

projections

roughly

50%

increase

from

our

drought-driven

projection.

Various scenarios we ran show a range of 2050 potable and recycled demand from 132 MGD in an

extreme

drought

scenario

using

the

very

hot/dry

model

IPSL-CM5A-MR

(Historical

+rcp45),

175

MGD

(slightly

down

from

today)

using

both

the

somewhat

wetter

CanESM2

(Historical

+rcp45)

and

population

growth

rate

higher

than

the

DOF

numbers.

The

table

below

shows

these

scenarios.

Scenario
2050 demand (MGD) Climate model + Pop growth (annual) Baseline 145 HADGEM2-ES 4.5 + 0.12% BAWSCA .08% SF Severe Drought 132 IPSL-CM5A-MR 4.5 + 0.12% BAWSCA .08% SF Wetter + High population 175 CanESM2 4.5 + 0.48% BAWSCA .31% SF A word about population projections: both BAWSCA and the SFPUC use relatively aggressive population

growth

numbers

based

projections

planning

departments

the

Association

Bay

Area

Governments.

For

example,

the

growth

rate

chosen

BAWSCA

for

its

projections

has

not

been

attained

decade-long

basis

for

the

past

30 years.

The

rate

the

SFPUC

chooses

for

its

retail

customers

similarly

high

and

far

exceeds

historical

population

growth

rates.

The

Department

Finance

projections

use

have

generally

been

accurate

within

10-year

basis,

with

errors

tending

toward

overestimation

growth.

That

said,

even

use

population

growth

rates

four

times

higher

than

those

projected

DOF

along

with

our

baseline

HADGEM2-ES

climate

scenario,

project

2050

demand

160

MGD.

4. The consequences for the environment of over-estimation are severe The over-estimation of demand leads to an approach toward managing riverine ecosystems that is,

put

mildly,

bad

for

riverine

ecosystems.

It’s

approach

focused

the

control

nature

rather

than

adaptation.

The linchpin of environmental sustainability in the Tuolumne River ecosystem—the ecosystem that

supplies

SFPUC

customers

with

most

their

water—is

the

Bay

Delta

Plan.

The

Bay

Delta

Plan

assures

enough

water

for

continued

recovery

salmon

and

other

species

and

for

1 The SFPUC has slightly different figures for retail demand vs retail demand served by the RWS (i.e., not including

recycled

water

groundwater).

For

comprehensiveness

and

consistency

here

endeavor

use

total

San

Francisco

retail

and

SFPUC-supplied

wholesale

demand

numbers,

opposed

RWS-only

demand

numbers.

6 improved health of the ecosystem. As the State Water Resources Board stated, “Fish habitat quantity

and

quality

the

Tuolumne

River

primarily

controlled

flows.”
Historical overprojections put the SFPUC and BAWSCA on a wholly unnecessary path opposing the

Bay

Delta

Plan.

Instead

seizing

the

future

declining

demand,

the

SFPUC,

BAWSCA

and

BAWSCA’s

members

have

used

ever-increasing

demand

projections

argue

that

the

Bay

Delta

Plan

would

deprive

their

customers

the

water

they

need.

The SFPUC has said that the Bay Delta Plan would result in a water supply shortfall of between 92 and

122

MGD.

However,

both

the

California

State

Water

Resources

Conservation

Board

and

the

Yosemite

Rivers

Alliance

have

found

significantly

smaller

shortfalls

their

modeling.

The

Yosemite

Rivers

Alliance

has

found

that

the

Bay

Delta

Plan

were

implemented,

the

SFPUC

would

not

need

any

make-up

water

supplies

nor

would

need

any

rationing

navigate

the

six

year

drought

record

that

other

peer

agencies

use

test

for

resiliency.

Future

drops

demand

would

only

enhance

the

case

for

working

within

the

constraints

the

Bay

Delta

Plan.

Indeed, in BAWSCA Executive Director Tom Smegal’s November 7, 2025 letter to the State Water

Resources

Control

Board

about

the

Scientific

Basis

Report

the

Bay

Delta

Plan,

Mr.

Smegal

cited

the

UWMP

projections

the

reason

was

concerned

about

water

availability

during

drought.

wrote

this

despite

knowing

that

the

2020

BAWSCA

demand

model

had

overprojected

2025

water

use

18%

just

five

years

into

the

future.

The Bay Delta Plan is a stand-in for the proposition that people and ecosystems can co-exist, and

for

the

idea

that

people

not

have

remove

every

drop

life

from

ecosystem.

It’s

stand-in

for

the

environmental

values

that

Californians

hold

their

core.

Each

and

every

year

this

unnecessary

battle

means

poorer

ecosystems

and

poorer

people.

Inevitably, SFPUC staff members point to the supposed issue of “demand hardening” as a reason

they

will

find

future

reductions

demand

difficult

achieve.

This

red

herring

that

has

been

dangled

the

SFPUC

for

decades.

has

not

proven

correct.

For

example,

2007,

the

SFPUC

stated

that

“demand

hardening

real.”

Since

then,

the

SFPUC’s

retail

and

wholesale

water

use

has

dropped

27%.

When

presented

with

the

incentives

and

policies

that

come

out

droughts,

water

users

have

always

saved

water,

and

expect

that

trend

continue

for

long

California

has

droughts.

Overprojections of demand leads to overprojections of supply needs. The SFPUC’s Alternative Water

Supply

(AWS)

Plan

example

this.

New

supply

comes

the

form

expanded

reservoirs

that

destroy

terrestrial

ecosystems

water-purification

schemes

that

explode

the

greenhouse

gas

budgets

and

wallets

our

communities.

It’s

choice

spend

billions

dollars

pouring

concrete.

urge

you

choose

different

and

reasonable

path,

supported

historical

data.

7 5. The affordability consequences for SFPUC ratepayers are likely also to be severe The SFPUC’s ratepayers are likely to pay more for their water during the next 25 years as a result

the

SFPUC’s

overly

high

demand

projections.

First, the high demand projections encourage capital spending. For example, the SFPUC—at the

same

time

fighting

the

Bay

Delta

Plan

“enormously

expensive”—is

totally

comfortable

building

two

expensive

new

buildings:

nearly

half-billion

dollar

RWS

campus

(the

Millbrae

Yard)

and

nearly

$400

million

dollar

SFPUC

Water

Division

Campus

2000

Marin

San

Francisco.

These

modern-day

water

temples

are

symbol

agency

spending

encouraged

and

justified

the

SFPUC’s

overprojections

demand

and

revenue.

The high demand projections have also led the SFPUC to put forward various capital projects to increase

supply

under

the

AWS

Plan.

These

projects,

they

forward,

will

raise

both

the

capital

and

operational

costs

BAWSCA

members

and

SFPUC

customers

will

pay

over

the

25 years.

Second, high demand projections lead to misleadingly low rate projections. Our chart below compares

the

SFPUC’s

current

wholesale

water

cost

projections

with

future

declining

demand.

Our

modeling

indicates

that

wholesale

rates

will

increase

160%

over

the

20 years

because

fixed

infrastructure

costs

will

spread

over

fewer

gallons

sold.

This rapid acceleration in rates, especially over the next five years, will be difficult for SFPUC customers

absorb.

Less

wealthy

customers

especially

will

struggle

pay

for

low-flow

8 plumbing, leak fixes, and drought-resistant landscaping. Wealthier homeowners and businesses will

able

adapt

but

will

upset

see

the

annual

increases

their

water

rates.

Overestimating demand has significant financial consequences, particularly in the SFPUC’s situation:

wholesale

water

rates

are

already

high

(doubling

since

2015),

its

RWS

fixed-cost

system

(costs

don’t

vary

with

volume),

and

the

SFPUC

heavily

laden

with

debt

took

fund

its

capital

projects

(such

that

roughly

50%

wholesale

water

rates

servicing

debt).

Should demand not materialize as forecasted, the SFPUC has no choice but to increase rates above

what

was

projected.

has

little

ability

reduce

costs

adapt

lower

demand

scenario.

addition,

higher

water

rates

cause

further

reductions

demand,

which

has

contributed

the

decline

per

capita

demand

experienced

during

the

past

20 years.

We are seeing these shifts now: In May of 2025, the SFPUC projected the FY 2027 wholesale rate

increase

1.0%

and

the

2028

increase

1.2%.

January

2026,

the

projected

increases

grew

7.6%

and

7.2%

for

2027

and

2028

respectively.

The

unplanned

increases

are

part

due

demand

not

growing

forecasted

and

part

due

large

increase

capital

spending.

The

SFPUC

projecting

rate

increases

for

its

retail

water

customers

than

6.5%

for

the

seven

years

starting

2027.

This

means

water

rates

will

least

70%

higher

eight

years

time.

Lower

costs

and

better

environmental

planning

are

one

the

same

this

case.

Based on the SFPUC’s own projections, combined water and sewer rates will become unaffordable

for

typical

San

Francisco

households

decade

from

now.

This

bodes

poorly

for

city

trying

attract

mix

residents,

including

teachers,

firefighters,

and

other

public

servants.

The San Diego County Water Authority is a good example of an agency that has experienced some

these

issues.

San

Diego’s

struggles

include

deteriorating

financial

situation

and

large

rate

increases

after

large

capital

program

was

implemented

address

demand

that

never

materialized.

Utilizing more realistic demand projections improves planning, reduces the need for rate increases,

reduces

the

need

for

alternative

water

supplies,

and

helps

address

affordability.
9 6. Summary and proposed actions In summary, SFPUC staff and commissioners have set themselves up for a choice: they can acknowledge

the

SFPUC’s

retail

and

wholesale

customers’

track

record

winning

water

use

efficiency—and

couple

that

with

water

flows

for

habitat

management—or

they

can

continue

overpredict

demand,

harming

the

environment

and

ratepayers.

We suggest concrete actions to move the discussion forward: A) Create a working group with SFPUC staff and interested parties to work to build a realistic

set

future

demand

scenarios

ensure

future

affordability

and

ecological

integrity.

This

working

group

should

than

the

two

three

Zoom

meetings

that

are

normally

part

the

UWMP

process,

and

the

commissioners

should

vote

the

working

group

recommendations.

This

new

group

should

operate

the

principle

full

data

and

model

transparency

and

should

take

various

drought

and

climate

scenarios

into

account.

should

report

the

SFPUC

Board

before

UWMPs

are

issued.

There

should

one

set

numbers

used

the

SFPUC,

whether

it’s

the

Financial

Services

Bureau

the

Water

Enterprise.

B) Set a board agenda item to reassess how supply and demand are conceived of in light of

affordability

and

ecological

concerns.

San

Francisco

and

San

Franciscans

have

done

tremendous

job

over

the

past

25 years

increasing

water

efficiency.

expect

that

will

continue.

Instead

planning

for

all

possible

demand,

the

SFPUC

should

plan

for

science-based

demand

target

that

allows

for

the

ecological

flows

the

Bay

Delta

Plan

and

the

vitality

our

urban

region.

trust

our

eco-conscious,

city-owned

utility

and

region

can

work

diligently

achieve

such

target.

Staff

and

interested

parties

should

both

invited

present

this

meeting.

C) Budget for work with interested parties in 2026 to fully examine SFPUC’s approach to the

Bay

Delta

Plan

light

changed

demand

projections.

Sincerely, John J. Bauters, Chair Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter Sue Chow, Chair Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Miguel Miguel, Director Sierra Club California 10

CleanPowerSF Sfpuc CommissionFebruary 24, 2026

CleanPowerSF Sfpuc Commission
February 24, 2026