Correspondence Log — CleanPowerSF Sfpuc Commission, April 14, 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
March 16, 2026 through April 6, 2026

Date
Received
From Subject
3/16/2026 Vanessa Tran Proposed renovation plan for Crocker Amazon Park
3/18/2026 Kyle Cianchetta RE: 3/10/26 Agenda Item 6: Consent Calendar, Item B (email + attachment)
3/18/2026 BAWSCA Notice of Special Meeting of the
BAWSCA Board of Directors on March
19, 2026 (email + attachments)
3/19/2026 Jill Bittner Opposition to Artificial Turf for Crocker Amazon Ball Field Renovation
3/19/2026 Office of the Controller Issued – SFPUC Must Strengthen Its Controls to Ensure Accurate Reporting of
Bond Expenditures
3/27/2026 Eileen Boken Written Submission for General Public Comment for SFPUC Commission
Meeting on April 14, 2026 (email +
attachment)
3/28/2026 Judith Smith I OPPOSE Artificial Turf and Tree Removal for Crocker Amazon Ball Field
Renovation
3/31/2026 David Dubinsky Request for a second opinion
4/1/2026 Manisha Kothari Reminder: Draft 2025 Urban Water Management Plan for the City and
County of San Francisco Available for
Public Review
4/2/2026 Ocean Beach Climate
Change Adaptation
Project Team
Ocean Beach - Community Update - April
2026
4/3/2026 Susan Mullaney Fwd: Celebrate Earth Month in SF! 4/3/2026 BAWSCA April 8, 2026 BAWSCA Board Policy
Committee Meeting Agenda
4/6/2026 Dave Warner The Design Drought's use in the UWMP risks Public Trust
4/6/2026 Peter Drekmeier YRA Letter re: UWMP and Design Drought (email + attachments)

1 From: Vanessa Tran <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 7:25 PM
To: [email protected]; Chen, Chyanne (BOS); Madland, Sarah (REC); [email protected]; John-Baptiste, Alicia (MYR); [email protected]; Herrera, David; Commission
Subject: Proposed renovation plan for Crocker Amazon Park This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Report Suspicious Hello,
I'm writing to urge you to revise and substantially improve the proposed renovation plan for Crocker Amazon Park.

Crocker Amazon is a city treasure, enjoyed by generations of San Franciscans.

Please do not allow the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department to cut down over 100 mature trees and convert natural grass meadows into a fenced-in, 20-acre artificial turf baseball complex. Artificial turf is petroleum- based, sheds microplastics, and has been associated with higher rates of ACL and Achilles injuries compared to well-maintained natural grass. Converting this shared, multi-generational and multi-ethnic public space into a specialized facility serving a narrow user group would fundamentally change the character of the park and limit access for many current users.

Organically managed natural grass fields do not carry the same environmental justice burdens as plastic turf. Rec & Park has already concentrated approximately 85% of its synthetic turf installations in neighborhoods with the highest asthma rates and a documented history of racial and environmental inequities. As currently proposed, this project would increase that concentration to roughly 90% of the City's total artificial turf acreage in historically disenfranchised communities.

We can and must do better. Investing in high-quality, organically managed natural grass fields, similar to the improvements made at West Sunset Playground, would preserve trees, avoid unnecessary plastic pollution, and maintain a welcoming, multi-use park for residents of all ages.

I ask that you prioritize a renovation plan that protects public health, advances environmental justice, preserves mature trees, and keeps Crocker Amazon a park for everyone, young and old.
2 Sincerely,
Vanessa Tran
1 From: Kyle Cianchetta <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 18, 2026 1:15 PM
To: Commission
Subject: RE: 3/10/26 Agenda Item 6: Consent Calendar, Item B Attachments: SMCIOC_Request For Reconsideration_02252026.pdf This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Report Suspicious Dear SFPUC Commission,
I previously sent the commission an email, with the same subject matter as below, on 3/10, but upon viewing the March 24 agenda’s correspondence log I noticed my email was not included. We understand the CAB conducted a bid protest determination in accordance with internal procedures, but wish to highlight a compliance concern regarding the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act.

We at Sierra Mountain Construction, Inc. followed the March 10 meeting closely. We appreciated the commission’s comments regarding compensable delay pricing and the large gap between bids.

However, one topic not discussed was the bid protest process. Given multiple CAB members were present, we believe transparency in future protests is prudent. During our HH-1022 bid protest, we discovered the apparent low bidder duplicated the “portion of work” for two of three subcontractors, violating PCC 4106. PCC 4106 is part of the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act, aimed at preventing bid shopping, peddling, and chiseling. This bid-time transparency statute states that if more than one subcontractor is listed for the same portion of work, the Prime must self-perform said portion, which indirectly frustrates LBE compliance. This is a deviation from compliance with statutes applicable to public bids. Only inconsequential deviations may be waived by an agency, deviations that cannot aƯect competition, etc.

The preamble to the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act, PCC 4104, states “The Legislature ﬁnds that the practices of bid shopping and bid peddling in connection with the construction, alteration, and repair of public improvements often result in poor quality of material and workmanship to the detriment of the public, deprive the public of the full beneﬁts of fair competition among prime contractors and subcontractors, and lead to insolvencies, loss of wages to employees, and other evils.” Thus, any subsequent violation of the statutes discussed are consequential and may not be waived.

We submitted a post-determination addendum, attached hereto, that was not aƯorded consideration by the CAB, either by its bidding instructions or the discretion contained therein.

Importantly, the catalog of bidding cases in CA courts states that post-bid submissions cannot cure bid- time deﬁciencies, and that makes sense—the aim of the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act is to prevent the potential, no matter how thorough the apparent post-bid submission rationalization may seem.

Respectfully,
Kyle Cianchetta
2 Contracts and Compliance Manager
Sierra Mountain Construction Inc.
19500 Nugget Blvd
Sonora, CA 95370
Cell: 209-768-8929
Fax: 800-507-5295
This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others, or forwarding without express permission, is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies including any attachments. Our company may monitor electronic communications sent or received by our networks to protect our business and verify compliance with our policies and relevant legal requirements. To help prevent email compromise schemes, please do not accept changes in payment arrangements or initiate wire transfers based on emails that purport to be from our company; always verify such arrangements and wire transfer information with our controller using the telephone number on our website.

This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, disclosure, reliance or distribution by others, or forwarding without express permission, is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies including any attachments. Our company may monitor electronic communications sent or received by our networks to protect our business and verify compliance with our policies and relevant legal requirements. To help prevent email compromise schemes, please do not accept changes in payment arrangements or initiate wire transfers based on emails that purport to be from our company; always verify such arrangements and wire transfer information with our controller using the telephone number on our website.
19500 Nugget Blvd · Sonora, CA 95370
Phone: (209) 988-2282- Fax: 800-507-5295
1 February 25, 2025
VIA EMAIL to: [email protected]
San Francisco Public Utility Commission
Contract Administration Bureau
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 8th Floor San
Francisco, CA 94102
RE: S
ubject: San Francisco Public Utility Commission
Project: Cherry Valley Dam Spillway Short-Term Improvement and Eleanor Dam Bridge Interim Repair
Project No.: HH-1022
SMCI/OC Request for Reconsideration post-SFPUC Determination Dear Ms. Liang:

Sierra Mountain Construction, Inc. / Obayashi Corporation, Joint Venture (“SMCI/OC”) submits this letter as a formal request for reconsideration and supplemental response to SFPUC’s Bid Protest Determination dated February 13, 2026 (the “Determination”) regarding the likely award to Njirich & Sons, Inc. (“Njirich”). SMCI/OC respectfully contends the Determination is incorrect in multiple material respects and that proceeding with award under the current record would undermine the integrity of the competitive bidding process and the rule of law.

SMCI/OC’s bid protest stated that Njirich’s bid contained the same “portion of work” for both its LBE subcontractors. The SFPUC’s determination did not acknowledge that Njirich’s bid violated the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act , a statute the SFPUC litigated in 2019. See Synergy Project Mgmt., Inc. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 33 Cal. App. 5th 21, 244 Cal. Rptr. 3d 653 (2019) (“If a prime contractor violates the Act, it ‘violates [its] contract,’ and the awarding authority has discretion to either cancel the contract or assess a penalty of up to “10 percent of the amount of the subcontract involved.”)
1) Njirich’s bid violated PCC §4104 (3)(b), triggering PCC §4106’s requirements. This results in Njirich and the SFPUC being in willful noncompliance with the SF Administrative Code’s Ch 14B LBE program.

Njirich listed two LBE subcontractors (JB and Mountain Methods) for the same “portion of work” description—“Partial General Engineering Construction (A)”—and differentiated them 19500 Nugget Blvd · Sonora, CA 95370
Phone: (209) 988-2282- Fax: 800-507-5295
2 only by dollar value. That approach does not identify what either subcontractor will do and does not allow SFPUC (or the public) to confirm what work is reserved to which listed subcontractor.

SFPUC’s conclusion that it can “ readily determine” each subcontractor’s work because dollar values are listed conflates price allocation with scope identification. A dollar amount is not a “portion of work.” This is especially true where the “portion” is stated as a license classification label ( “Partial General Engineering Construction (A) ”) rather than a work description (e.g., excavation, hauling, surveying, erosion control, etc.). Under SFPUC’s own bid language, if the City cannot identify the portion of work from the bid- time information, that work may be treated as unlisted. If the CAB performed a site visit and asked Njirich to point out what JB and Mountain Methods were performing that day, Njirich would certainly not say “Partial General Engineering Construction (A).”
Separately, SFPUC’s Determination states that JB and Mountain Methods were “the only subcontractors listed for this specified portion of work,” which underscores the fundamental defect: if it is one defined portion, then listing two subcontractors for that same portion is not compliant with the subcontractor listing framework’s one-sub-per-portion structure, regardless of whether each LBE subcontractor is assigned a fractional share of “ Partial General Engineering Construction (A)”.

The Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (“Act”) mandates that Njirich must self-perform JB Excavation and Mountain Methods portions of work. The Act states:

If a prime contractor fails to specify a subcontractor or if a prime contractor specifies more than one subcontractor for the same portion of work to be performed under the contract in excess of one-half of 1 percent of the prime contractor's total bid, the prime contractor agrees that he or she is fully qualified to perform that portion himself or herself, and that the prime contractor shall perform that portion himself or herself. (PCC § 4106.)
The effect of finding Njirich’s bid responsive is a statutory mandate that Njirich must self- perform JB Excavation and Mountain Methods portion of work or be subject to discretionary penalties and CLSB disciplinary action. See R.J. Land & Assocs. Const. Co. v. Kiewit -Shea, 69 Cal. App. 4th 416, 423, 81 Cal. Rptr. 2d 615, 619 (1999). 19500 Nugget Blvd · Sonora, CA 95370
Phone: (209) 988-2282- Fax: 800-507-5295
3 A further effect is both Njirich and the SFPUC become willfully noncompliant with the San Francisco Administrative Code, Chapter 14B: Local Business Enterprise Utilization And Non- Discrimination In Contracting Ordinance.

Ch. 14B.7(h) states “The Contractor’s compliance with Chapter 14B and Contractor’s duty to impose specified requirements in specified Subcontracts are material elements of the City’s agreement to enter into the Contract and failure to comply shall constitute a material breach of contract.” Njirich shall be liable for “liquidated damages for each Contract in an amount up to 25% of the total amount of the Contract… .”
The language of the Listing Law is clear. It deals with portions, more than one -half of 1 percent of the prime’s bid, described in the prime’s bid at bid time. The Act requires “only one subcontractor for each portion as is defined by the prime contractor in his or her bid.” However vague Njirich chose to define the portion, duplicating the subcontractors’ portion is a violation of PCC § 4104 and 4106 for which no additional measure, like ascribing dollars to portions, can untangle.
"A publ ic entity may waive inconsequential deviations from contract specifications in a public contract bid" but "to be considered inconsequential, a deviation must neither give the bidder an unfair competitive advantage nor otherwise defeat the goals of insuring economy and preventing corruption in the public contracting process ." Ghilotti Construction Co. v. City of Richmond, 45 Cal.App.4th 897 (1996). "Waiver of an irregularity in a bid should only be allowed if it would not give that bidder an unfair advantage by allowing the bidder to withdraw its bid without forfeiting its bid bond." Valley Crest Landscape, Inc. v. City Council, 41 Cal.App.4th 1432 (1996). The court emphasized that "there can be factors other than price which are material to the bid" and that material elements cannot be corrected by purporting to waive an irregularity. “[P]ublic works contracts are the subject of intensive statutory regulation and lack the freedom of modification present in private party contracts.” Amelco Electric v. City of Thousand Oaks (2002) 27 Cal.4th 228, 242, 115 Cal.Rptr.2d 900, 38 P.3d 1120.

T
he purpose of the Listing Law " is to protect the public and subcontractors from the evils of bid shopping and bid peddling ." (R.J. Land & Associates Const. Co. v. Kiewit -Shea (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 416, 419-20; By violating the Act, Njirich had the potential to bid peddle, shop, and chisel. This potential conferred a competitive and price advantage to Njirich not enjoyed by other bidders, creating a deviation which may not be waived by the awarding body. Konica Business Machines U.S.A., Inc. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 206 Ca1.App.3d 449, 454. To waive Njirich’s multiple violations of the Act would be to defeat the goals of the legislature 19500 Nugget Blvd · Sonora, CA 95370
Phone: (209) 988-2282- Fax: 800-507-5295
4 when it enacted the Act. California Civil Code § 3513 states “Any one may waive the advantage of a law intended solely for their benefit. But a law established for a public reason cannot be contravened by a private agreement.” If the SFPUC contracts with Njirich, contemplating that Njirich will absorb the risk of penalties by continuing to subcontract in violation of PCC § 4106, the contract then contravenes the Act. Njirich could have submitted that it made a clerical error or a bid mistake under PCC § 5103, meaning its mistake was “material.” Whether a state agency has discretion to waive a material deviation from the information for bids for a public contract bidder does not constitute a question of fact for which the agency is entitled to deference. DeSilva Gates Constr., LP v. Dep't of Transportation, 242 Cal. App. 4th 1409, 195 Cal. Rptr. 3d 891 (2015). 2 ) Valley Crest supports rescinding the SFPUC determination of responsiveness.

Valley Crest stands for the narrow proposition that the Act does not require a bidder to state a percentage of the work for each listed subcontractor. It does not stand for the proposition that a bidder may satisfy “portion of work” by using an opaque, generic label that prevents the agency from identifying the actual work to be performed.

The SFPUC quotes relevant language Valley Crest:

The intent [of the Act] is to prevent a prime contractor from using a subcontractor's bid to prepare its bid, and then shopping that bid to get a lower price. That is accomplished by stating the portion of work the subcontractor is to perform and the type of work. If a certain subcontractor is listed, for example, as performing the masonry work, the public entity can determine that particular subcontractor is performing the masonry work, not another subcontractor that was pressured to perform at a lower cost.

The SFPUC states that Njirich had the statutory grant to define its subcontractor’s portion of work so long as “SFPUC could determine that the listed subcontractor will be performing a specified work as opposed to another unlisted subcontractor.” “Partial General Engineering Construction (A)” is the opposite of specified work. To become specific, one must view Business and Professions Code 7056, which is where Njirich’s LBE subcontractors’ portions are found:
i
rrigation, drainage, water power, water supply, flood control, inland waterways, harbors, docks and wharves, shipyards and ports, dams and hydroelectric projects, levees, river control and reclamation works, railroads, highways, streets and roads, tunnels, airports and 19500 Nugget Blvd · Sonora, CA 95370
Phone: (209) 988-2282- Fax: 800-507-5295
5 airways, sewers and sewage disposal plants and systems, waste reduction plants, bridges, overpasses, underpasses and other similar works, pipelines and other systems for the transmission of petroleum and other liquid or gaseous substances, parks, playgrounds and other recreational works, refineries, chemical plants and similar industrial plants requiring specialized engineering knowledge and skill, powerhouses, power plants and other utility plants and installations, mines and metallurgical plants, land leveling and earthmoving projects, excavating, grading, trenching, paving and surfacing work and cement and concrete works in connection with the above mentioned fixed works.

That is the statutory definition of the phrase “Partial General Engineering Construction (A),” containing 60+ portions of work. Valley Crest required some specificity, as its masonry analogue contemplated. There is no specificity to be found in Njirich’s listing of its LBE subcontractors portion of work, and replacing “masonry” with “Partial General Engineering Construction (A)” in Valley Crest’s analogue proves that point. The key language from Valley Crest is “…not another subcontractor that was pressured to perform at a lower cost.” Because Njirich’s LBE subcontractors’ portion is an amorphous licensing categorization, neither the agency nor the public could determine at bid time whether another subcontractor was pressured to perform at a lower cost, thereby conferring a material competitive advantage.

The SFPUC’s Determination stated that Section 00 43 36 “only allows a single line to describe the portion of work. There is not sufficient room on the form to provide a detailed description of the portion of work, indicating the SFPUC’s in tent that a general description is sufficient.” When put to the test, both JB and Mountain Method’s post-bid submissions easily fit on the “portion” line, and these are not detailed descriptions either. (Exhibit B) Earlier in the Determination, th e SFPUC states “…as long as SFPUC could d etermine that the listed subcontractor will be performing a specified work as opposed to another unlisted subcontractor.” This analysis skips listed subcontractors and PCC § 4104 and 4106’s requirement of one subcontractor per portion and the prime may not subcontract work that it lists as a portion for multiple subcontractors.

Njirich is caught in a Catch-22. They violated PCC § 4106. If Njirich arg ues their LBE subcontractors’ “portions” were indeed different, they violated the Act's bid-time requirement. The SFPUC’s Determination cannot help them. By stating that Njirich properly defined its LBE “portions,” neither Njirich nor the SFPUC can unwind that conclusion. 19500 Nugget Blvd · Sonora, CA 95370
Phone: (209) 988-2282- Fax: 800-507-5295
6 3) CMD Form 6 cannot be used to “cure” a defective bid -time subcontractor listing or to permit post-bid scope shifting.

The Determination describes CMD Form 6 as a separate process and states that Njirich “did list” a more detailed LBE scope there. Even if true, that is not a legal cure for a defective bid- time listing.

Bid responsiveness is determined from the bid as opened, based on the bid forms required at bid time. Allowing a bidder to correct, clarify, or replace an unintelligible bid- time “portion of work” with a post-bid narrative invites exactly what the listing law and SFPUC’s bid instructions are designed to prevent: post-bid scope manipulation and bid shopping, peddling, and chiseling. 4) Requested relief
SMCI/OC respectfully requests that SFPUC:

1. Reconsider and rescind the Determination;

2. Find Njirich’s bid nonresponsive based on PCC § 4104;4106 and the consequential Ch. 14B violations;

3. Find that SMCI /OC is the apparent lowest responsive, responsible bidder; or

4. Refrain from award pending reconsideration and completion of the record.

SMCI/OC submits this request in good faith to ensure SFPUC’s procurement remains fair, transparent, and consistent with statutory and bid -document requirements. SMCI/OC expressly reserves all rights and remedies.

Sincerely,
D
oug Benton, President
Sierra Mountain Construction, Inc.
19500 Nugget Blvd, Sonora CA, 95370
(209) 988-2282
[email protected]

1. TYPE OF SUBCONTRACTOR:

First Tier; Lower Tier; Supplier; Service Contractor (e.g. Trucker)

2. SUBCONTRACTOR NAME

3. ADDRESS

4. PORTION OF WORK (SCOPE):

Full (one subcontractor); Partial (multiple subcontractors)

5. PHONE NO. 6. EMAIL 7. NOT USED

8. LICENSE NO. 9. SF BUSINESS TAX REG. NO. 10. AMOUNT OF SUB- CONTRACT WORK: $

11. CERTIFIED
LBE? Yes; No

12. IF LBE, CHECK

ALL THAT
APPLY:

MBE; WBE; OBE*
SF-LBE; PUC-LBE
Micro-LBE; Small-LBE;

SBA-LBE

13. DIR REGISTRATION NO.
* MBE = Minority Business Enterprise, WBE = Women Business Enterprise, OBE = Other Business Enterprise.

1. TYPE OF SUBCONTRACTOR:

First Tier; Lower Tier; Supplier; Service Contractor (e.g. Trucker)

2. SUBCONTRACTOR NAME

3. ADDRESS

4. PORTION OF WORK (SCOPE):

Full (one subcontractor); Partial (multiple subcontractors)

5. PHONE NO. 6. EMAIL 7. NOT USED

8. LICENSE NO. 9. SF BUSINESS TAX REG. NO. 10. AMOUNT OF SUB- CONTRACT WORK: $

11. CERTIFIED
LBE? Yes; No

12. IF LBE, CHECK

ALL THAT
APPLY:

MBE; WBE; OBE*
SF-LBE; PUC-LBE
Micro-LBE; Small-LBE;

SBA-LBE

13. DIR REGISTRATION NO.
* MBE = Minority Business Enterprise, WBE = Women Business Enterprise, OBE = Other Business Enterprise.

1. TYPE OF SUBCONTRACTOR:

First Tier; Lower Tier; Supplier; Service Contractor (e.g. Trucker)

2. SUBCONTRACTOR NAME

3. ADDRESS

4. PORTION OF WORK (SCOPE):

Full (one subcontractor); Partial (multiple subcontractors)

5. PHONE NO. 6. EMAIL 7. NOT USED

8. LICENSE NO. 9. SF BUSINESS TAX REG. NO. 10. AMOUNT OF SUB- CONTRACT WORK: $

11. CERTIFIED
LBE? Yes; No

12. IF LBE, CHECK

ALL THAT
APPLY:

MBE; WBE; OBE*
SF-LBE; PUC-LBE
Micro-LBE; Small-LBE;

SBA-LBE

13. DIR REGISTRATION NO.
* MBE = Minority Business Enterprise, WBE = Women Business Enterprise, OBE = Other Business Enterprise.

Copy this page as needed to provide a complete listing. Page _____ of _____ ;
73$&RQVWUXFWLRQ,QF
%RRWK5RDG5RVHYLOOH&$
3DUWLDO%ULGJH5HSDLUDQG2YHUOD\
;
WSDFRQVWUXFWLRQ#JPDLOFRP

;
;
0RXQWDLQ0HWKRGV,QF
6:DVKLQJWRQ6W6RQRUD&$
3DUWLDO*HQHUDO(QJLQHHULQJ&RQVWUXFWLRQ
$

;
HULF#PRXQWDLQPFRP

;
;
;
;

;
-%([FDYDWLRQ,QF
+DQL'U7XROXPQH&$
;
-%H[FDYDWLRQ#JDPLOFRP

;
;
;
;
3DUWLDO*HQHUDO(QJLQHHULQJ&RQVWUXFWLRQ
$

EXHIBIT A
Copyright 2025 City & County of San Francisco HH-1022
SFPUC v6.0.4 4-24-25 00 43 36 - 3 Proposed Subcontractors Form

1. TYPE OF SUBCONTRACTOR:

First Tier; Lower Tier; Supplier; Service Contractor (e.g. Trucker)

2. SUBCONTRACTOR NAME

3. ADDRESS

4. PORTION OF WORK (SCOPE):

Full (one subcontractor); Partial (multiple subcontractors)

5. PHONE NO. 6. EMAIL 7. NOT USED

8. LICENSE NO. 9. SF BUSINESS TAX REG. NO. 10. AMOUNT OF SUB- CONTRACT WORK: $

11. CERTIFIED
LBE? Yes; No

12. IF LBE, CHECK

ALL THAT
APPLY:

MBE; WBE; OBE*
SF-LBE; PUC-LBE
Micro-LBE; Small-LBE;

SBA-LBE

13. DIR REGISTRATION NO.
* MBE = Minority Business Enterprise, WBE = Women Business Enterprise, OBE = Other Business Enterprise.

1. TYPE OF SUBCONTRACTOR:

First Tier; Lower Tier; Supplier; Service Contractor (e.g. Trucker)

2. SUBCONTRACTOR NAME

3. ADDRESS

4. PORTION OF WORK (SCOPE):

Full (one subcontractor); Partial (multiple subcontractors)

5. PHONE NO. 6. EMAIL 7. NOT USED

8. LICENSE NO. 9. SF BUSINESS TAX REG. NO. 10. AMOUNT OF SUB- CONTRACT WORK: $

11. CERTIFIED
LBE? Yes; No

12. IF LBE, CHECK

ALL THAT
APPLY:

MBE; WBE; OBE*
SF-LBE; PUC-LBE
Micro-LBE; Small-LBE;

SBA-LBE

13. DIR REGISTRATION NO.
* MBE = Minority Business Enterprise, WBE = Women Business Enterprise, OBE = Other Business Enterprise.

1. TYPE OF SUBCONTRACTOR:

First Tier; Lower Tier; Supplier; Service Contractor (e.g. Trucker)

2. SUBCONTRACTOR NAME

3. ADDRESS

4. PORTION OF WORK (SCOPE):

Full (one subcontractor); Partial (multiple subcontractors)

5. PHONE NO. 6. EMAIL 7. NOT USED

8. LICENSE NO. 9. SF BUSINESS TAX REG. NO. 10. AMOUNT OF SUB- CONTRACT WORK: $

11. CERTIFIED
LBE? Yes; No

12. IF LBE, CHECK

ALL THAT
APPLY:

MBE; WBE; OBE*
SF-LBE; PUC-LBE
Micro-LBE; Small-LBE;

SBA-LBE

13. DIR REGISTRATION NO.
* MBE = Minority Business Enterprise, WBE = Women Business Enterprise, OBE = Other Business Enterprise.

Copy this page as needed
to provide a complete listing. Page _____ of _____
Clear and Grub, Temp. Rock Berm, Excavation

JB EXCAVATION

MOUNTAIN METHODS
water supply & improve access roads, staging prep, embankment construction, bedding rip rap, drain pipe

EXHIBIT B
Code: Select Code Section: 1 or 2 or 1001 Search
DIVISION 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS [1100 - 22355] ( Division 2 enacted by Stats. 1981, Ch. 306. ) PART 1. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS [1100 - 9204] ( Heading of Part 1 added by Stats. 1982, Ch. 1120, Sec. 2. ) 4104.

Up^ << Previous Next >> cross-reference chaptered bills PDF | Add To My Favorites Search Phrase: Highlight

PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE - PCC

CHAPTER 4. Subletting and Subcontracting [4100 - 4114] ( Chapter 4 added by Stats. 1986, Ch. 195, Sec. 42.1. ) Any officer, department, board, or commission taking bids for the construction of any public work or improvement shall provide in the specifications prepared for the work or improvement or in the general conditions under which bids will be received for the doing of the work incident to the public work or improvement that any person making a bid or offer to perform the work, shall, in his or her bid or offer, set forth:
(a) (1) The name, the location of the place of business, the California contractor license number, and public works contractor registration number issued pursuant to Section 1725.5 of the Labor Code of each subcontractor who will perform work or labor or render service to the prime contractor in or about the construction of the work or improvement, or a subcontractor licensed by the State of California who, under subcontract to the prime contractor, specially fabricates and installs a portion of the work or improvement according to detailed drawings contained in the plans and specifications, in an amount in excess of one-half of 1 percent of the prime contractor’s total bid or, in the case of bids or offers for the construction of streets or highways, including bridges, in excess of one-half of 1 percent of the prime contractor’s total bid or ten thousand dollars ($10,000), whichever is greater. (2) An inadvertent error in listing the California contractor license number or public works contractor registration number provided pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not be grounds for filing a bid protest or grounds for considering the bid nonresponsive if the corrected contractor’s license number is submitted to the public entity by the prime contractor within 24 hours after the bid opening and provided the corrected contractor’s license number corresponds to the submitted name and location for that subcontractor. (3) (A) Subject to subparagraph (B), any information requested by the officer, department, board, or commission concerning any subcontractor who the prime contractor is required to list under this subdivision, other than the subcontractor’s name, location of business, the California contractor license number, and the public works contractor registration number, may be submitted by the prime contractor up to 24 hours after the deadline established by the officer, department, board, or commission for receipt of bids by prime contractors. (B) A state or local agency may implement subparagraph (A) at its option. (b) The portion of the work that will be done by each subcontractor under this act. The prime contractor shall list only one subcontractor for each portion as is defined by the prime contractor in his or her bid. (Amended by Stats. 2017, Ch. 28, Sec. 90. (SB 96) Effective June 27, 2017.) Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites 2/24/26, 5:10 PM California Code, PCC 4104
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PCC&sectionNum=4104 1/1

EXHIBIT C
Code: Select Code Section: 1 or 2 or 1001 Search
DIVISION 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS [1100 - 22355] ( Division 2 enacted by Stats. 1981, Ch. 306. ) PART 1. ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS [1100 - 9204] ( Heading of Part 1 added by Stats. 1982, Ch. 1120, Sec. 2. ) 4106.

Up^ << Previous Next >> cross-reference chaptered bills PDF | Add To My Favorites Search Phrase: Highlight

PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE - PCC

CHAPTER 4. Subletting and Subcontracting [4100 - 4114] ( Chapter 4 added by Stats. 1986, Ch. 195, Sec. 42.1. ) If a prime contractor fails to specify a subcontractor or if a prime contractor specifies more than one subcontractor for the same portion of work to be performed under the contract in excess of one-half of 1 percent of the prime contractor’s total bid, the prime contractor agrees that he or she is fully qualified to perform that portion himself or herself, and that the prime contractor shall perform that portion himself or herself.

If after award of contract, the prime contractor subcontracts, except as provided for in Sections 4107 or 4109, any such portion of the work, the prime contractor shall be subject to the penalties named in Section 4111. (Added by Stats. 1986, Ch. 195, Sec. 42.1.)
Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites 2/24/26, 5:10 PM California Code, PCC 4106.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=4106.&nodeTreePath=3.1.9&lawCode=PCC 1/1

EXHIBIT C, CONT'D

155 Bovet Road, Suite 302, ⚫ San Mateo, CA 94402 ⚫ ph 650 349 3000 ⚫ fx 650349 8395 ⚫ www.bawsca.org

NOTICE OF

SPECIAL MEETING
of the

BAWSCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

on March 19th, 2026 at 6:30PM
at Burlingame Community Center
850 Burlingame Ave.,
Burlingame CA 94010

A second teleconference location is added on the agenda.

Teleconference locations shall be:
• 2-15-1 Hon-Machi, Kanazawa-Shi, Kanazawa, 920-0853, Japan • 2035 Dumbarton Ave. East Palo Alto, CA 94303

If you have any questions, please call the
BAWSCA office at (650) 349-3000.

See next page for Agenda

2190242.1

SPECIAL MEETING
of the

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Thursday, March 19, 2026
6:30pm

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

CLICK HERE TO VIEW LIVESTREAM

(Two Members of the Board will participate in this meeting by Teleconference. Locations shall be:
2-15-1 Hon-Machi, Kanazawa-Shi, Kanazawa, 920-0853, Japan, and 2035 Dumbarton Ave.

East Palo Alto, CA 94303. When any member of the board participates by teleconference, all votes taken at this meeting will be by roll call vote.)

AGENDA
Agenda Item Presenter Page

1. Call to Order/Roll Call/Salute to Flag (Vella)

2. Comments by the Chair (Vella)

3. Board Policy Committee Report (Attachment) (Ragsdale) Pg 3

4. Public Comments (Vella)
Members of the public may address the Board on any issues not listed on the agenda that are within the purview of the Agency. Comments on matters that are listed on the agenda may be made at the time the Board is considering each item. Each speaker is allowed a maximum of two (2) minutes.

5. SFPUC Report (Ritchie)

6. Consent Calendar (Attachments) (Vella)
A. Approve Minutes of the January 15, 2026 Meeting
B. Receive and File Budget Status Report – As of January 31, 2026 C. Receive and File Investment Report – As of January 31, 2026 D. Receive and File Bond Surcharge Collection, Account Balance and Payment Report – As of December 31, 2025

Pg 15
Pg 21
Pg 23
Pg 25

7. Action Calendar
A. Consider Resolution #2026-01 Concurring in Nomination of John H. (Smegal) Weed of Alameda County Water District to the California Water Insurance Fund Board of the Association of California Water Agencies Joint Powers Insurance Authority (ACWA/JPIA) Captive Insurance Company (Attachment) This item was not considered by the Committee at its February 11th meeting because the formal request from ACWD was received after the BPC meeting.

Pg 27

2190242.1

8. Public Hearing (Vella)
A. Public Hearing and Status of BAWSCA’s Employee Vacancies and Recruitment and Retention Efforts as Required by Assembly Bill 2561 (Government Code Section 3502.3) (Attachment)

Pg 33

9. Reports and Discussions
A. Preliminary Fiscal Year 2026-27 Work Plan, Results to be Achieved (Smegal) and Operating Budget (Attachment)
B. Wholesale Water Rate Setting in Accordance with the Water Supply (Tang) Agreement (WSA) (Attachment)
C. BAWSCA’s Long-Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy 2050 First Year (Ashoori) Year Accomplishments and Affordability Program Update (Attachment)

Pg 37

Pg 71

Pg 75

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

Pg 83
Pg 91

11. 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).

12. Report from Closed Session (Schutte)

13. Additional Time for Public Comments (Time Permitting) (Vella) Members of the public may address the Board on any issues that are within the purview of the Agency.

14. Directors’ Discussion: Comments, Questions and Agenda Requests (Vella)

15. Date, Time and Location of Future Meetings (Vella) (See attached schedule of meetings)

16. Adjourn to next meeting scheduled for May 21, 2026 at 6:30pm (Vella)

Pg 93

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: Jill Bittner <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 4:11 AM
To: [email protected]; Chen, Chyanne (BOS); Madland, Sarah (REC); [email protected]; John-Baptiste, Alicia (MYR); [email protected]; Herrera, David; Commission
Subject: Opposition to 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 Shame on you for even considering your current proposal.

I'm writing to tell you to revise and substantially improve the proposed renovation plan for Crocker Amazon Park.

Crocker Amazon is a city treasure, enjoyed by generations of San Franciscans. Please do not allow the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department to cut down over 100 mature trees and convert natural grass meadows into a fenced-in, 20-acre artificial turf baseball complex. Artificial turf is petroleum-based, sheds microplastics, and has been associated with higher rates of ACL and Achilles injuries compared to well-maintained natural grass. Converting this shared, multi- generational and multi-ethnic public space into a specialized facility serving a narrow user group would fundamentally change the character of the park and limit access for many current users.

I strongly support renovating Crocker Amazon Park, but doing so the right way:
- Yes to meaningful community input.- Yes to natural grass fields and open green space. - Yes to preserving mature trees and the park's character. - Yes to space for seniors, families, cricket players, dog walkers, and youth sports alike. - No to expanding toxic artificial turf.
- No to increased traffic, noise, and late-nightly bright field lighting. - No to privatization and fencing that limits access.
- No to cutting down ANY existing trees.

Please stand with neighborhood residents and protect this city treasure. Invest in improvements that enhance public health, environmental justice, and shared access, not in plastic infrastructure that narrows and intensifies use.
2 I demand you prioritize a renovation plan that protects public health, advances environmental justice, preserves mature trees, and keeps Crocker Amazon a park for everyone, young and old. 1 From: San Francisco Controller's Office Reports <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 12:00 PM
To: Commission
Subject: Issued – SFPUC Must Strengthen Its Controls to Ensure Accurate Reporting of Bond Expenditures
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Report Suspicious The Office of the Controller’s City Services Auditor (CSA) today issued a report on its audit of how the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) spends revenue bond funds.

The audit had as its objectives to determine whether revenue bond funds were spent in accordance with the stated purposes and permissible use of such bonds. The audit found that SFPUC did not accurately assign $106.5 million in expenditures related to wastewater revenue bonds and did not accurately report some bond expenditures.

View the full report
2 This is a send-only email address.

For questions about the report, please contact Director of Audits Mark de la Rosa at [email protected] or (628) 652-9924.

For media queries, please contact Communications Manager Alyssa Sewlal at [email protected] or (415) 694-3261.

Manage your preferences | Opt Out using TrueRemove™
Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails.

View this email online.
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place | San Francisco, CA 94102 US

This email was sent to [email protected].

To continue receiving our emails, add us to your address book.

Search all Controller's Office reports
Sign up to receive news and updates
1 From: aeboken <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2026 10:47 PM
To: Commission
Subject: Written Submission for General Public Comment for SFPUC Commission Meeting on April 14, 2026
Attachments: AWSS Expansion Resolution.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Report Suspicious TO: SFPUC Commission
FR: Eileen Boken,
State and Federal Legislative Liaison
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods
RE: Written Submission for General Public Comment for SFPUC Commission Meeting on April 14, 2026 Attached is a resolution passed by the Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods on January 20, 2026 advocating for the expansion of the dedicated Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) to all unprotected neighborhoods.
###
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

January 20, 2026

Mayor Daniel Lurie
Paul Yep, Chief for Public Safety
Han Zou, Communication Director
Dean Crispen, Chief of Fire Deptartment
Garreth Miller, Assistant Deputy Chief, ESER Project Manager Carla Short, Director of Deptartment of Public Works
Scott Anderson, Deputy Director for Project Delivery
Stephen Robinson, Assistant General Manager for Infrastructure Carmen Chu, City Administrator
Brian Strong, Director for Office of Resilience and Capital Planning

Resolution to Expand AWSS to All SF Neighborhoods

WHEREAS, The standalone, high pressure, high volume Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) has a proven track record in San Francisco for over one hundred years.

WHEREAS, AWSS was the gold standard in 2010 when then-Mayor Newsom transferred AWSS from the SF Fire Department to the SF Public Utilities Commission.

WHEREAS, AWSS has stood the test of time and is still the gold standard in 2026.

WHEREAS, All neighborhoods should have the same standalone, high pressure, high volume AWSS coverage as a matter of geographic equity.

WHEREAS, If many neighborhoods are destroyed by another earthquake and ensuring fires, the City's tax base would also be destroyed.

WHEREAS, If the City's tax base was destroyed, this would preclude the payment of City pensions until the City was rebuilt which could take many years.

WHEREAS, If many neighborhoods of the City were destroyed by post- earthquake fires, there would be no need for the current number of City employees with many City jobs being eliminated for many years.

THEREFORE, Be it resolved, in order to avoid these multiple disasters, CSFN is insisting that all SF neighborhoods be protected by the standalone, high pressure, high volume Auxiliary Water Supply System (AWSS) as it is the only system with a proven track record.

Deborah Murphy
President CSFN
[email protected]
[email protected]

1 From: Judith Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2026 4:41 PM
To: [email protected]; Chen, Chyanne (BOS); Madland, Sarah (REC); [email protected]; John-Baptiste, Alicia (MYR); [email protected]; Herrera, David; Commission
Subject: I OPPOSE Artificial Turf and Tree Removal 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,
PLEASE PROTECT Crocker Amazon Park from a proposed renovation that would replace its natural open space with a fenced-in artificial turf sports complex.

This plan proposed by the San Francisco Recreation and Park Department in partnership with the San Francisco Giants and team owner/Trump donor Charles B. Johnson is being framed as a "gift." However, many neighbors did not ask for this project and do not support paving over meadows, cutting down mature trees, and fencing off large portions of a beloved community park.

Artificial turf also raises serious concerns. Synthetic fields are associated with higher surface temperatures, increased injury rates compared to well- maintained natural grass, and exposure to toxins like PFAS and microplastics.

It's particularly troubling that the majority of artificial turf installations have been clustered in neighborhoods already burdened by asthma and environmental justice challenges.

I strongly support renovating Crocker Amazon Park, but doing so the right way:
- Yes to meaningful community input.
- Yes to natural grass fields and open green space.
- Yes to preserving mature trees and the park's character. - Yes to space for seniors, families, cricket players, dog walkers, and youth sports alike.
- No to expanding toxic artificial turf.
- No to increased traffic, noise, and late-nightly bright field lighting. 2 - No to privatization and fencing that limits access. - No to cutting down the majority of existing trees.

Sincerely,
Judith Smith
1 From: David Dubinsky <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2026 9:11 AM
To: Commission
Cc: Scott E. Miller; Jillian Flannery; Michelle Arzimanoglou Subject: Request for a second opinion
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Report Suspicious Good morning. I am the CEO of the Pomeroy Center, a San Francisco nonprofit organization that operates a day and after school program for children and adults with moderate to severe intellectual disabilities. We currently serve more than 2,000 San Francisco residents each week at our main facility in the Outer Sunset district as well as at our two residential homes in the Richmond district.

Our program consists of a day program that operates 5 days a week for adults with disabilities, an after-school program and weekend program for 85+ children with disabilities supporting the SFUSD, and we operate and maintain a therapeutic, warm water aquatics program for seniors as well as teach children’s swim lessons to the outside community. We currently are in year 9 of a 50-year lease with SFPUC, located at 207 Skyline Blvd, with the entry located on Zoo Road.

For some time, we have been researching an expansion of our current services to include a preschool for children ages 2-5 because we see a significant need in our neighborhood for additional childcare for this age group. The Pomeroy Center was founded in 1952 as a recreational program for young children with disabilities and operated out of a small building at the long closed Fleishhacker Pool.

As part of our due diligence in assessing the feasibility of developing a preschool program, we explored potential funding sources and reviewed best practices from successful preschools already operating in the city. One existing program we visited is the "Slippery Fish" preschool program operating on nearby Brotherhood Way. During our visit, we learned that Slippery Fish may be forced to relocate or close, as their landlord needs to expand and can no longer lease the space to them. At the same time, we identified an organization with offices in San Francisco that is willing to provide significant funding to support programs like Pomeroy in constructing, developing, or expanding preschool services. The proposed preschool would be inclusive, serving a combination of children with disabilities, children from low-income and underserved communities, and private-pay families.

Following several discussions with both groups, we developed a preliminary plan to build a new preschool structure on our leased site and submitted an “in-city” consent request to our landlord, SFPUC. After multiple rounds of questions and responses, the SF Water team indicated they would support the addition of a preschool only if it were housed within our existing developed space. They did not approve the construction of any new buildings or expansion of space, even within our current footprint.
2 SF Water cited two primary reasons for this decision: the City’s priority to preserve the undeveloped “green space” on the property, and the presence of an existing culvert that carries rainwater from Zoo Road to Skyline Boulevard, which runs directly beneath the proposed site for the new preschool building. We countered with a proposal that we would, as part of the proposed construction, investigate the feasibility of installing a new culvert (which would also serve as the wastewater disposal for the proposed new building) and that we would ensure the area around the proposed new building would include landscaping to minimize the "green space" loss.

In addition, we explored every possible scenario for utilizing our existing space. Each option would require closing or relocating one of our current programs. However, Community Care Licensing has advised that, because adults are currently served in our existing buildings, it is highly unlikely we would be approved for a preschool program unless the program is housed in a separate, isolated wing or a wholly separate building.

As a result, we do not have a viable path to establish a preschool while complying with the restrictions imposed by SF Water.

We are requesting the SFPUC Commission review of the decision we received from Division of Real Estate as we believe our request is reasonable, aligns with the current priorities of the Mayor’s Office, and reflects the urgent need for preschool services among families living and working in San Francisco. While we recognize there are still obstacles to address, including securing additional funding and the potential relocation of the culvert, confirmation that these challenges can be overcome would allow us to continue our research and development and move forward in advancing our long-term goal of expanding services for the families we serve.

We would be pleased to provide additional information, including proposed building plans, our MOU with Slippery Fish, references from those we serve, and any other materials that may assist in your reconsideration of our proposal.

While we maintain an excellent working relationship with SF Water and the staff that we interface with related to our lease, we also believe that sometimes, a second opinion by those more removed from the situation may be a wise use of everyone's time and effort. Please feel free to reach out to me at any time.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

David

David Dubinsky
CEO, Pomeroy Center

To help protect y our privacy,
Microsoft Office prevented
automatic download of this
picture from the Internet.

David Dubinsky (He, Him)
Chief Executive Officer
Pomeroy Recreation & Rehabilitation Center
www.prrcsf.org

(O) 415.213.8564
(C) 925-406-9691
3 linkedin.com/in/daviddubinsky
davd120.bsky.social

1 From: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2026 10:00 AM
To: Commission
Subject: Reminder: Draft 2025 Urban Water Management Plan for the City and County of San Francisco Available for Public Review
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Dear Customers, Community Members, and Interested Parties, The City and County of San Francisco has prepared a Draft 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP) which are available for public review on our website at www.sfpuc.gov/uwmp or at the San Francisco Main Library (5th floor).

The Draft 2025 UWMP and WSCP became available on March 16 and remains available for public review and comment through April 20, 2026.

Notice of Public Hearing
On Tuesday, April 14, 2026, at the regular San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (Commission) meeting that begins at 1:30PM, the Commission will hold a public hearing on the Draft 2025 UWMP and WSCP in San Francisco City Hall, Room 400, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, California, 94102.

Interested members of the public are invited to attend the public hearing and may provide public comment. The public hearing can also be accessed virtually using the following information:

Remote Public Comment Call-in: 1 (415) 655-0001 / Access Code: 2661 529 2962 Submission of Comments
Watch Meeting on April 14
2 Any interested parties may also submit written comments to the City during the public comment period in the following ways:

1. Written comments may be emailed to [email protected].

2. Written comments may be mailed to the address below. To ensure that comments can be reviewed and incorporated, any mailed comments must be post-marked by April 16, 2026.

Steve Ritchie, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
The final 2025 UWMP and WSCP will be adopted by the Commission in June 2026. If you have any questions about the UWMP or WSCP, please contact Jennifer Lee at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Manisha Kothari
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: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 9:30 AM
To: Commission
Subject: Ocean Beach - Community Update - April 2026
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
April 2026
Dear Ocean Beach Community Member,
This email is to provide updates on the ongoing development and implementation of the Ocean Beach Climate Change Adaptation Project.

Ocean Beach Climate Change Adaptation Project
In coordination with the Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission, the project team continues working on design changes intended to enhance resiliency by creating as much space as possible for sea level rise adaptation, minimizing hardscape, and maximizing public access to the coast. Once we have agreement with the California Coastal Commission on design changes, the project team will continue to advance detailed design needed for construction contracting. These include access and circulation improvements to the SF Zoo parking lot.

As part of our ongoing condition assessment program, we are evaluating the benefits of including additional sewer system upgrades in the area to reduce construction impacts to the Ocean Beach community and adhere to the San Francisco's "Dig Once" policy. Due to the need for additional planning, design and coordination with the California Coastal Commission, the construction start date for the Ocean Beach Climate Change Adaptation Project may experience additional delay. We will continue to share updates as our work progresses.

Dune Restoration Project Completed in 2026
2 Crews recently completed tree removal, contouring, and are finishing planting for the dune restoration to help satisfy San Francisco's dune habitat mitigation requirements for the Ocean Beach Climate Change Adaptation Project, as well as the project's CEQA bank swallow foraging habitat mitigation. The completed restoration will provide blufftop foraging habitat near the existing bank swallow nesting area at Philip Burton Memorial Beach. Check out the newly restored dune space the next time you are enjoying some fresh air in the Fort Funston area, but please tread lightly over the new plants!
3 Upgrades Completed:
 Removed non-native species (ice plant, acacia stands, a tea tree thicket) from the site.  Plant native dune grass and other native species, sourced from the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy's Presidio Nursery
o All vegetation planted is historically native to San Francisco and consist of herbaceous dune and shrub species.

Sincerely,

Ocean Beach Climate Change Adaptation Project Team
[email protected]
888-581-7473

4 [email protected]

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: Susan Mullaney <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2026 7:28 PM
To: [email protected]; John-Baptiste, Alicia (MYR) Cc: Commission, Recpark (REC); Madland, Sarah (REC); Commission; Herrera, David; MelgarStaff (BOS); Melgar, Myrna (BOS)
Subject: Fwd: Celebrate Earth Month in SF! 🌎🌉
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 Mayor Lurie and City decision-makers,
The latest newsletter of the SF Environment Department lists the goals, advice and achievements toward realizing SF's Climate Action Plan. The Recreation and Parks Department is undermining these goals and going against the advice.

I'm reading the SF Environment (SFE) newsletter and seeing many ways RPD needs to do better.

SFE newsletter: We have worked alongside community partners to transform our City into a global climate leader, reducing pollution, protecting public health, and building a greener future for all RPD increases pollution: The City is not a global climate leader in pollution reduction while we continue to install artificial turf in schools and playgrounds. Artificial turf increases pollution throughout its long lifecycle:
* from fracking through distillation, plastic creation, plastic grass manufacture * off-gassing VOCs, SVOCs, PFAS and microplastics into the air and leaching them into the water, continuing to do so for the hundreds or thousands of years that it sits in landfill * polluting the air with diesel exhaust from 25 truckloads of used Kimball Field artificial turf driven to landfill in Oregon in 2025 and 32 truckloads in 2023 from the Crocker Amazon soccer fields (receipts:
http://keepcrockerreal.com/files)
* polluting the air with container ship exhaust for the 8,500 mile journey of 27,000 pounds of Franklin Square artificial turf to Malaysia in February 2017 and the 8,500 journey of 17,000 pounds of artificial turf shipped to Malaysia in May 2017 (receipts: http://keepcrockerreal.com/files) RPD risks public health: The health hazards of artificial turf have been well-known for decades.

RPD staff and the Rec Park Commission need to stop pretending that the harms are not proven.
* All of the test results that we have received from public records requests show that RPD's artificial turf athletic fields that have been tested for shock absorption have FAILED, risking concussion, broken bones and torn ligaments for all athletes. (receipts:
http://keepcrockerreal.com/docs/GMax_tests_SFRPD_artificial_turf.zip) 2 * All artificial turf contains PFAS chemicals, despite FieldTurf saying that they have not intentionally added any; the plastic grass blades cannot be manufactured without PFAS. * The California Department of Toxic Substance Control is considering declaring miscroplastic and nanoplastic "Chemicals of Concern." Their publications list the hazard traits of micro and nanoplastic, stating that the "extent and quality of information available substantiates the existence of potential adverse impacts and exposures of microplastics." Each field is tens of thousands of pounds microplastic continuously being released when the fields are in use and for years into the future. (documentation: http://keepcrockerreal.com/docs/CA_DTSC_Candidate_Chemical_microplastic.zip) * PUC tests of rainwater runoff from Beach Chalet, Minnie & Lovie Ward, Garfield Square and South Sunset fields found heavy metals and carcinogens. These fields were not closed to the public for remediation; there was no remediation. Chemicals in artificial turf rub off onto the skin, are inhaled and ingested by anyone using the fields. Rainwater carries these chemicals through the sewer system and out into the bay and ocean. (receipts: http://keepcrockerreal.com/files)

RPD degrades a greener future for all: Assuming "greener" means the natural world, RPD is deconstructing the natural world with its ongoing use of artificial turf. * artificial turf fields require surrounding trees to be removed since the roots will be damaged by the excavation required for the elaborate drainage systems and the layers of gravel and plastic.

According to documents submitted to the Planning Department, RPD plans to excavate 7.5 feet below grade at Crocker Amazon Park, disposing of 2,700 cubic yards of living soil offsite (receipt:
http://keepcrockerreal.com/docs/ComplCert-Letter_SMED_2093.pdf) * The 2021 arborist report identified 128 trees that would need to be removed to accommodate the artificial turf baseball complex at Crocker Amazon Park. Since then the footprint of the artificial turf has increased. (receipts: http://keepcrockerreal.com/docs/DRAFT 12.16.2021 Crocker Amazon Arborist Rpt.pdf and http://keepcrockerreal.com/docs/2021-2025_plastic_footprint.png) * dozens of species of birds, mammals, bats, insects and pollinators will be evicted from Crocker Amazon Park to be replaced with plastic, concrete, parking, a paved operations yard and batting cages.

RPD excludes the community: RPD started working on the Crocker Amazon renovation plan in 2021. It was fully designed by Verde Design, there was an arborist report and the Cultural Landscape Report before the first community meeting in 2025.

SFE newsletter: "San Francisco’s Climate Action Plan outlines what the City will do to cut the emissions driving climate change" and the City's goal is to reach "net-zero emissions by 2040"

RPD is guilty of tremendous emissions:
* as listed above, artificial turf emits climate gases throughout its lifecycle * unlike natural grass, artificial turf is shipped hundreds of miles on land and sometimes thousands of miles on sea
* the only alternative to eventual landfill for artificial turf is incineration, which is incredibly polluting * The City cannot reach net-zero unless and until RPD cancels future plans to install artificial turf and restores existing artificial turf athletic fields to natural grass. It can be done.

SFE newsletter: "You can help create a cleaner, greener future by using public transit, biking, switching to electric appliances, and more."

3 RPD: Everything the public does to create a cleaner, greener future is negated by the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department.

SFE newsletter: By shopping at local Green Businesses, "You can protect the planet, reduce waste, conserve resources, prevent pollution, and grow a greener economy."

Again, everything the public does is negated by City government: RPD, with its artificial turf, is harming the planet's air, water, marine life and human life; is producing tremendous waste; is wasting resources; is polluting; and is growing the opposite of a greener economy.

SFE newsletter: Tyrone Jue and special guest Becca Prowda will be restoring habitat and protecting biodiversity in the Excelsior while, also in the Excelsior, RPD will be destroying both habitat and biodiversity.

SFE newsletter: Volunteer for Climate Action in SF / make an impact / care for local green spaces

RPD's actions say: "Yes, we will make a climate impact -- a harmful one! And we'll have 20 fewer acres of green space to manage when we convert it to plastic."

SFE newsletter: Care for parks with SF Rec and Park. Volunteer in San Francisco’s beautiful parks! Plant seeds, monitor wildlife habitat, propagate plants, and more.

Personally I do volunteer in SF's green spaces, including Golden Gate Park, the Pier 94 tidal marsh, Sunset Boulevard and miscellaneous other sites. I even plant seeds and propagate plants in RPD's nursery!

RPD has neglected Crocker Amazon Park and uses that as an excuse to demolish it. RPD needs to hire more gardening staff and change its culture.

SFE newsletter: support urban agriculture

The La Grande Community Garden at Crocker Amazon Park will suffer the air and airborne particulate pollution from the 20 acres of plastic RPD plans to install adjacent to it.

SFE newsletter: refers to the recent historic heatwave.

RPD's artificial turf fields: We measured the temperature at artificial turf fields in San Francisco and found them to be 30-40 degrees hotter than natural grass fields. Plastic releases more volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds when heated, making artificial turf even more dangerous to field users.

SFE newsletter: mentions environmental justice. The burden felt in SF's environmental justice communities is exacerbated by artificial turf fields. 10 of 12 of RPD's artificial turf fields are in environmental justice communities.

SFE newsletter: invites youth to "Discover innovative projects, connect with local changemakers" at the Youth Summit.

4 Hello, RPD: An innovative project could be a state-of-the-art natural grass field designed to drain quickly after rain and require less management using organic methods. (These grass fields have been around for decades, but RPD management says grass is too difficult to maintain, so it must be revolutionary to them.) We have changemakers in the Recreation and Parks Department, but they are making change for the worse. Poured-in-place plastic surfaces and artificial turf in children's playgrounds is a decision that should be reversed.

It's time for an immediate ban on artificial turf in San Francisco.

It's time to change the culture at the Recreation and Parks Department.

It's time for the Recreation and Parks Department to value their gardeners and hire more of them rather than pursuing overpriced capital projects.

Thank you,
Susan Mullaney
Inner Sunset

View as Webpage

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

San Francisco Environment logo, celebrating 30 years of climate action.

The latest

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

A perso n stands next to a biodiversity spinning wheel at a garden in San Francisco.

30 years of climate action in San Francisco

This year marks 30 years of bold climate action in San Francisco. In 1995, San Francisco residents voted for the creation of San Francisco Environment Department.

For the past 30 years, we have worked alongside community partners to transform our City into a global climate leader, reducing pollution, protecting public health, and building a greener future for all. As we celebrate Earth Month, we’d like to thank you for your support in making this milestone possible.

Although climate protections are being rolled back on a federal level, we’re ready to continue implementing San Francisco’s climate goals and build a future together!

5 Explore SF's climate milestones

“San Francisco does not lead because the conditions are perfect.

San Francisco leads when we choose, together, to keep going.” -Tyrone Jue, Director, SF Environment Department

Read a letter from SFE Director

Programs and perks
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

San Francisco City Hall lit up green for Earth Month

San Francisco’s updated Climate Action Plan drops this April!

San Francisco’s Climate Action Plan outlines what the City will do to cut the emissions driving climate change, and build a safer, healthier, more equitable future for all San Franciscans. Since 1990, the City has already reduced emissions by 48%, with goals to cut emissions by 61% by 2030 and reach net-zero emissions by 2040. You can help create a cleaner, greener future by using public transit, biking, switching to electric appliances, and more. Stay tuned for the updated plan and what’s next for climate action in SF!
Learn more here

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

SF Environment mascot, Phoebe the Phoenix, holds a reusable cup at Dolores Park.

Reuse is brewing in San Francisco

Did you know that you can receive a discount at select SF cafes when you bring a reusable cup? San Francisco is partnering with local businesses to make it easier for you to enjoy your coffee or boba in a reusable cup, helping you save money while cutting single-use waste. Find a participating spot near you on our map of 50+ local cafes and bring your own cup (BYOC) next time you order!

6 BYOC to a cafe near you

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Two people smiling, standing proudly before the storefront of â€œShipyard K9 Suppliesâ€ . As a certified green business, they are dedicated to protecting the planet while offering eco-friendly pet supplies

Shop local, make a difference
Support San Francisco Green Businesses this Earth Month! With 450+ local options offering products and services across categories, such as restaurants, cafes, clothing, entertainment, wellness, jewelry, eco-friendly pet supplies, and much more! You can protect the planet, reduce waste, conserve resources, prevent pollution, and grow a greener economy.

Find a green business near you

To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Not sure what goes where?

Spring cleaning can raise a lot of sorting questions, especially when it comes to tricky items. Check out SFRecycles.org for FREE tools like recycling site maps, expanded lists of resources, and a search tool to help you find the right way to dispose of battery-embedded devices, old furniture, light bulbs, and more!

Explore ways to sort unwanted items

Volunteer opportunities

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. "Take action, SF" text and SF Environment logo. Green and blue gradient in the background

Support biodiversity with A Living Library
Get your hands dirty to restore habitat and support biodiversity in the Excelsior, SF.

Hear from SFE Director, Tyrone Jue, and special guest, Becca Prowda, the First Lady of SF.

RSVP today

7 Volunteer for Climate Action in SF

Want to make an impact this Earth Month? Help SF Environment care for local green spaces and bring Earth Month celebrations throughout the City.

Explore opportunities near you

Care for parks with SF Rec and Park

Volunteer in San Francisco’s beautiful parks! Plant seeds, monitor wildlife habitat, propagate plants, and more. Opportunities are available across the City.

Browse the volunteer calendar

Clean SF streets with SF Government

Join a community cleanup or support urban agriculture in your favorite SF neighborhood. Enjoy hands-on opportunities with provided support from local experts.

Explore programs near you

Steward National Parks with the Parks Conservancy

Restore habitat, help maintain park trails, and clean up beaches like Lands End or Muir Beach. No experience needed.

Discover opportunities

In the news

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

Clean transportation in San Fracisco, the SF Bay Bridge and a palm tree in the background.

London, San Francisco and Beijing achieve ‘remarkable reductions’ in air pollution - The Guardian

8 Despite a historic heat wave in the Bay Area and across California, there is hope and it is led by cities like San Francisco! Based on a recent study by Breathe Cities, it was revealed that fine particle pollution in San Francisco has dropped by over 20% since 2010, thanks to clean transportation and climate action across the City.

Read to learn more

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

One of San Francisco's new curbside electric vehicle chargers.

San Francisco moves to expand curbside electric vehicle charging – KQED

San Francisco is taking steps to expand curbside electric vehicle (EV) charging, making it more accessible to SF residents, especially renters, to plug in close to home. A new proposal would create a clear permitting process to install chargers across the City, with a goal of 100 curbside chargers by 2030, supporting San Francisco’s path to net-zero emissions by 2040.

Read on

Community events

To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

A group of volunteers stand together at Yerba Buena Island in San Francisco. Upcoming events in San Francisco, all events are free and open to all unless otherwise

Upcoming events in San Francisco
All events are free and open to all unless otherwise stated.

Featured Earth Month events
Saturday, April 18: 2026 Earth Day Festival and Green Business Expo Kick off SF Climate Week as we celebrate our 30-year anniversary. Enjoy free, family-friendly activities, dance to live music, and support local green businesses.

Tuesday, April 21: Nature-based solutions in the fight against climate change Hear from a free panel of environmental experts about environmental justice, California’s partnerships with American Indian Tribes, and state climate and biodiversity goals.

Friday, April 24: Climate Action Youth Summit 2026
Discover innovative projects, connect with local changemakers, and explore green opportunities at one of San Francisco’s biggest free climate events of the year. 9 Join SF Environment this Earth Month
From outdoor activities and repair clinics to youth programs and webinars, there are free events happening all month long across San Francisco.

View all SF Environment events

More ways to get involved
Meet climate leaders and community members accelerating climate solutions across industries and around the world. Explore SF Climate Week from April 18 to 26, featuring 100+ events on environmental justice, art, culture, and more.

Explore SF Climate Week events

SFEnvironment.org
[email protected]

To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Instagram

To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Facebook

To help
protect your
privacy,
Micro so ft
Office
prevented
auto matic
download of
this picture
from the
Internet.

Youtube

Join our mailing list

San Francisco Environment advances climate protection and enhances quality of life for all San Franciscans.

SF Environment | 1455 Market Street Suite 13A | San Francisco, CA 94103 US

1 From: Lourdes Enriquez <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 2:15 PM
To: BAWSCA WMR
Cc: Smegal, Tom; Deborah Grimes; Christiane Barth; Sandra Johnson Subject: Notice of Special Meeting of the Board Policy Committee on April 8, 2026 Attachments: 26_BPC_April8_Notice of Special Meeting.pdf; 26_BPC_April8_Special Meeting Agenda_FINAL.pdf
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Report Suspicious Attached is a Notice of Special Meeting and a Special Meeting Agenda for the Board Policy Committee Meeting on April 8th, 2026.

Agenda items remain the same as previously posted. A second Teleconference Location was added. Posting a Notice of a Special Meeting and a Special Meeting Agenda satisﬁes the traditional Brown Act Teleconference Requirements that BAWSCA must follow.

The complete agenda packet is available on the BAWSCA website at https://bawsca.org/about/board/agendas Thank you
Lourdes Verzosa-Enriquez
Assistant to the CEO/General Manager
Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency
155 Bovet Rd., #650
San Mateo, CA 94402
www.bawsca.org

155 Bovet Road, Suite 302, ⚫ San Mateo, CA 94402 ⚫ ph 650 349 3000 ⚫ fx 650349 8395 ⚫ www.bawsca.org

NOTICE OF

SPECIAL MEETING
of the

BAWSCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

on April 8th , 2026 at 1:30PM
at Burlingame Community Center
850 Burlingame Ave.,
Burlingame CA 94010

A second teleconference location is added on the agenda.

Teleconference locations shall be:
• 1028 Eden Bower lane Redwood City, CA 94061;
• 16839 Gale Ave., City of Industry, CA 91745

If you have any questions, please call the
BAWSCA office at (650) 349-3000.

SPECIAL MEETING

BOARD POLICY COMMITTEE
April 8, 2026
1:30 p.m.

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

CLICK HERE TO VIEW LIVESTREAM
(Two members of the Committee will participate in this meeting by Teleconference. Locations shall be:
1028 Eden Bower Lane Redwood City, CA 94061 and 16839 Gale Ave., City of Industry, CA 91745. When any member of the Committee participates by teleconference, all votes taken at this meeting will be by roll call vote.)

AGENDA
Agenda Item Presenter Page#

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

Pg3

2. Comments by Chair (Ragsdale)

3. Consent Calendar (Ragsdale)
A. Approval of Minutes from the February 11, 2026 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. Action Item
A. Proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Work Plan, Results to be Achieved, and (Smegal) Operating Budget (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 Proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Work Plan, Results to be Achieved, and Operating Budget.

Committee Action Requested: That the Committee recommend Board approval of the:

1. Proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 Work Plan and Results to be Achieved;

2. Proposed Operating Budget of $5,340;828 and

3. Recommended Funding Plan Option of 1% Assessment increase.

Pg 19
B. Approval and Adoption of BAWSCA Pay Schedules for FY 2024-25 and (Smegal) FY 2026-27 (Attachment)
Issue: What is required of BAWSCA, as a participating agency in the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), to comply with California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 2 § 570.5? Information to Committee: Memorandum and oral report.

Pg 53

Committee Action Requested: That the Committee recommend Board approval of the proposed action.

C. Consultant Selection to Provide Human Resources Management Services (Smegal) (Attachment)
Issue: What resources are needed for BAWSCA to manage agency activities professionally and efficiently?
Information to Committee: Memorandum and oral report.

Committee Action Requested: That the Committee recommend Board approval of the proposed action.

Pg 59

6. Report and Discussion
A. FY 2024-25 BAWSCA Annual Survey (Ramey)
Issue: What are the highlights from the recently completed FY 24-25 Annual Survey?
Information to Committee: Memorandum and oral report.

Committee Action Requested: Comments and feedback.

Pg 63

7. CEO Report (Smegal)
A. SFPUC Millbrae Operations Center
B. CEO/General Manager’s Letter (Attachment)
C. Board Policy Committee Calendar (Attachment)
D. Correspondence Packet (Under Separate Cover)

Pg 67
Pg 69

8. 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.

C101232)

9. Report from Closed Session (Schutte)

10. Comments by Committee Members (Ragsdale)

11. Adjournment to the Next Meeting (Ragsdale)
June 10, 2026 at 1:30pm
Burlingame Community Center – Sequoia Room – 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame.

Page 1 of 4 ends

April 6, 2026

Re: The Design Drought’s Use in the UWMP Risks Public Trust

Dear Commissioners,
Thank you for your diligence. It is a lot.

Sta+g78ﬁ uses its design drought model as a basis for publishing rationing percentages in excess of 40% in its Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) for the scenario with the Bay Delta Plan in e+g78ﬁect. It shows 43% rationing to occur as soon as the second year of a drought. As two and three year droughts are fairly common, to expect 40%+ rationing in year two of any drought would alarm anyone.

You would likely acknowledge that scientiﬁc data exists suggesting that the design drought could have a chance of occurrence in the range of 0.013% to 0.001% (a return period between 8,000 and 70,000 years).
1 Or perhaps more simply, it is rarer than needed. I think you would also acknowledge that the SFPUC has refused to do its own risk analysis on the design drought, as most recently seen by the SFPUC’s response to BAWSCA Board member Stone’s request last year, where General Manager Herrera stated:
“There are no calculations on the return period of the design drought, as a return period has no relevance to the need to plan for a drought worse than any we have experienced.” 2
Yet here we are having to include these alarmist percentages that lack supporting risk data in UWMP’s that the SFPUC and BAWSCA agencies will publish.

Showing such high rationing percentages without providing a risk analysis for the SFPUC’s drought model erodes public trust. A modest reduction to the drought model would substantially lower the listed rationing percentages.

A popular hypothesis is that the primary reason that the SFPUC refuses to do a risk analysis on its design drought model is that its case against the Bay Delta Plan would be signiﬁcantly weaker with a lesser drought model. In reality, the SFPUC would not have signiﬁcant di+g78ﬁiculty supplying its customers during a drought with the Bay Delta Plan in e+g78ﬁect.

1 See the attachment to this letter for examples from the SFPUC’s academic research report, the 2021 Long Term Vulnerability Assessment. Or better yet, please hold a workshop and invite NGO’s to share the ﬂoor. 2 Letter dated May 12, 2025 from SFPUC General Manager Herrera to Palo Alto Councilmember Greer Stone.

Page 2 of 4 ends

If such a hypothesis is valid, it is disappointing that the SFPUC needs to use such a deception to support its position of opposing the Bay Delta Plan. To resort to such means not only erodes public trust but also raises the question of how weak its case is.

You inherited this longstanding problem. But there’s also urgency. Publishing the alarmist rationing data in this round of UWMP’s is all the worse in the context of the great work your constituents have done holding down demand: Prior UWMP projections have never been realized, current projections are lower than before, and annual Regional Water System demand hasn’t been over 200 mgd for the last 11 years.

Please ask sta+g78ﬁ to get their house in order and quantify the risk (return period) of the design drought and lesser potential variants. If the examples from the LTVA hold, action should be taken to develop a more reasonable drought model.

Kind regards,

Dave Warner

cc:

SFPUC Citizens’ Advisory Committee

Attachment

Page 3 of 4 ends

Attachment
Data from the SFPUC’s LTVA
3,4,5 Hinting at the Rarity of the Design Drought
1) Drought risk and storage needed. The LTVA provided the chart below to relate the amount of water storage to survive a drought against the rarity of such a drought. The up and to the right direction of the curves indicates that the more storage needed to survive a drought, the rarer the drought. The vertical dashed lines on the chart show where the 1976-77, 2012-2015, and the 1987-1992 droughts fall from a storage- required perspective assuming demand of 269 TAF (240 mgd). Superimposed on the chart is a line for the SFPUC’s design drought based on the design drought using ~1,300 TAF of storage. The vertical design drought line crosses the black curve at roughly the 70,000 year point on vertical axis (note that the scale of the vertical axis is logarithmic). This is the closest the LTVA comes to predicting the rarity of the design drought. Note that the red and blue lines are for drought frequency at higher temperatures from climate change.

3 Long Term Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Enterprise - Phase I prepared by Baptiste François, Alexa Bruce, Khanh Nguyen, Dong Kwan Park, and David Rheinheimer University of Massachusetts, Amherst Umit Taner University of Massachusetts, Amherst; and Deltares Sungwook Wi and Hassaan Khan University of Massachusetts, Amherst Alexis Dufour and David Behar San Francisco Public Utilities Commission David Yates and Caspar Ammann National Center for Atmospheric Research Marjolijn Haasnoot Deltares Casey Brown University of Massachusetts, Amherst dated 2021. 4 “This document was reviewed by a panel of independent experts selected by The Water Research Foundation” 5 Charts based on 100 years of historical data, 1100 years of tree ring data and 25,000 years of stochastic data

Page 4 of 4 ends

2) Frequency of droughts at various levels of storage needed. The LTVA provided the chart below to show the frequency of occurrence of various droughts against the amount of storage needed to survive the droughts. The horizontal axis shows storage used (cumulative deﬁcit) and the vertical axis shows the number of droughts using that amount of storage. The charts that drought frequency declines as more storage is required, to the point that there are no droughts that require 1,200 TAF of storage. The red line for the design drought was superimposed, showing that the data found no droughts came close to using as much storage as the design drought. In other words the design drought drives storing at least 100 TAF more water than needed to survive the worst drought found in more than 25,000 years of data. 3) Data from an LTVA related Public Records act request. Peter Drekmeier of the Yosemite Rivers Alliance, through a public records act request, received a table presented by the LTVA authors to SFPUC sta+g78ﬁ in 2020 which showed a 25,000 year “best estimate” for the design drought along with return periods for the 1976-77, 2012- 2015, and the 1987-1992 droughts. As the ﬁnal LTVA report had lower return periods for the other three droughts, Mr. Drekmeier adjusted downward the 2020 ﬁgure for the design drought to once in 7,841 years.

1 From: Peter Drekmeier <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 6, 2026 10:46 AM
To: Commission
Cc: Lennear, Tiffany
Subject: YRA Letter re: UWMP and Design Drought
Attachments: YRA Letter to SFPUC re UWMP - 4626.pdf; NGO Requests of the SFPUC.pdf; TRT Letter Re- Workshops Follow-Up.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Hi Tiffany, Would you be so kind as to forward the attached letter and two attachments to the Commissioners and appropriate staff at the SFPU C? Thank yo u very much. - Peter ZjQcmQRY FpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRY FpfptBannerEnd
Hi Tiffany,
Would you be so kind as to forward the attached letter and two attachments to the Commissioners and appropriate staff at the SFPUC?
Thank you very much.
-Peter
Please note my new email address.
-----------------------
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
Yosemite Rivers Alliance
(Formerly Tuolumne River Trust)
[email protected]
2 1
April 6, 2026

Chair Josh Arce and Commissioners
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
[email protected]

Re: Please Revisit the Design Drought Before the 2025 UWMP If Finalized.

Dear Chair Arce and Commissioners:

During the last Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) process, conservation groups made several efforts to encourage the SFPUC to revisit the Design Drought prior to finalizing the UWMP (two letters are attached). It wasn’t until July 16, 2021 – two weeks after the UWMP had been submitted to the State – that the SFPUC hosted a workshop on Water Demand Projections and Demand Management.

Five years have passed and the Commission has yet to consider amendments to the Design Drought. Last October, several Commissioners expressed surprise that the Design Drought had never been revisited. Much has changed in the 30+ years since the Design Drought was conceived (but never formally adopted).

Please hold a workshop on the Design Drought ASAP, followed by consideration of amendments. We have a small window of
opportunity to influence the UWMP before the numbers are locked in for another five years.

Ratepayers Are Struggling

Ratepayers are getting hit with affordability problems left and right. Between overestimating demand and water sales, growing capital needs, and alarmist, misleading rationing projections, the affordability risk is increasing rapidly.

The following comment recorded in the February 11, 2026 BAWSCA Board Policy Committee meeting notes is extremely alarming:

“Beyond the 10-Year CIP, SFPUC estimates approximately $10.1 billion of capital improvement projects over the next 30 years…For comparison, Mr. Francis referenced the Water
System Improvement Program (WSIP) which has a total cost of $4.8 billion...”

2 The WSIP cost $4.8 billion plus debt service. As a result of the price tag, water rates have quadrupled, and we will still be paying off the debt for quite some time.

Has the unexpected $10 billion in additional capital costs been factored into future rates, and how will those higher rates impact demand? How will the ensuing decrease in sales affect further rate increases?

Alarmist Rationing

We must do everything possible to rein in water rates. One of the main drivers of rates that could easily be rectified is perceived water supply shortages that won’t occur.

Unfounded fear of running out of water can lead to unnecessary rationing, which reduces the amount of water the SFPUC sells. In a fixed-cost system, selling less of a product means the unit price must increase. We’re seeing this now with the surprise 7.4% wholesale water price increase.

Even worse is investing in expensive alternative water supplies that won’t be needed.

The SFPUC has the most reliable water supply in the state. This is largely due to: 1) ample storage (enough reservoir capacity to hold six years-worth of water), and 2) exceptional water rights in Wet, Normal and Below Normal years (in an average year, the SFPUC is entitled to three years-worth of water).

I’m concerned about language provided by the SFPUC for inclusion in the BAWSCA member agencies’ Urban Water Management Plans. Specifically, Table 4e focusing on water supply availability during a five dry-year sequence.

The Department of Water Resources’ 2025 UWMP Guidebook references Water Code Section 10631 (b)(1), which requires “A detailed discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal water year, single dry year, and droughts lasting at least five years...”

How Is the SFPUC Framing Water Supply?

In the SFPUC letter to the BAWSCA member agencies, Steve Ritchie explains how the SFPUC opted to calculate the Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment:

“In each demand scenario for 2030 through 2050, the SFPUC estimated RWS deliveries using the standard SFPUC procedure, which includes adding increased levels of rationing as needed in dry years to balance the demands on the RWS with available water supply. The five consecutive dry-year sequence shown in the tables below represent years 2 through 6 of the design drought. The SFPUC chose this sequence because year 2 is the first year in which system-wide water use reductions could take effect, as the design drought sequence generally begins year 1 with full reservoirs. All simulations that the SFPUC has prepared for its 2025 UWMP have 3 increased levels of rationing in the final years of the design drought sequence. The SFPUC has presented the results in the standardized format prescribed by DWR.”

What’s Left Unsaid?

Table 8-3 below is from the SFPUC’s Draft 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP). The red boxes were added to focus on projected water availability in 2050. You’ll see that the SFPUC suggests it would only be able to provide 57% of baseline water demand in Years 2 through 5 of a five-year drought sequence if the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan is implemented. What’s hidden from this table is how the SFPUC calculated its numbers.

Source: SFPUC Draft 2050 UWMP

Note that Table 8-3 does not show how much water is left in storage at the end of each year, making it nearly impossible to determine whether the extreme level of rationing is justified. Table YRA-1 below puts things in greater perspective. It features the full eight years of the Design Drought and includes storage at the end of each year based on the rationing levels used in SFPUC Table 8-3 to produce “available water supply.”

Table YRA-1. 8-year Design Drought, with the Bay Delta Plan in effect, using SFPUC 2050 demand projections, and including storage.

Design Drought Fiscal Years

Source: Yosemite Rivers Alliance (using data provided by the SFPUC).

• “RWS” is “Regional Water System” (includes all SFPUC customers in San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda Counties).

4 • Columns represent the fiscal years of the Design Drought (July 1 to June 30), which is what the SFPUC uses. The column labeled “92-76” represents the second half of 1992 and the first half of 1976. This is the artificial year when the two droughts that make up the Design Drought are melded. • Table starts with SFPUC 2050 UWMP baseline demand of 215.1 mgd in 1986-87, and assumes 32% rationing in Year 2, and 43% rationing in Years 3-8 (per rationing figures used to produce water supply availability in SFPUC Table 8-3). Mgd is converted to thousand acre-feet (TAF) per year in the second row. • Storage at the beginning of the Design Drought is 1,517 TAF (per the SFPUC’s model). • “Annual impact on storage” is a calculation of SFPUC water entitlements, minus deliveries, minus other system losses (everything is accounted for).

Under the SFPUC Design Drought scenario, at the end of the first five consecutive dry years the SFPUC would still have more than 600 thousand acre-feet (TAF) of water remaining in storage – enough water to last 2.5 years (not including water entitlements that would accrue during those years). If the Design Drought weren’t so severe (it’s 19 times less likely to occur than what Valley Water and EBMUD plan for), most of the water left in storage during the latter part of the Design Drought could be used in prior years, reducing the need for severe rationing.

What if the SFPUC Stuck to the UWMP Guidebook?

Table YRA-2 below shows what the five consecutive dry year sequence would look like if the SFPUC followed the letter of the UWMP Guidebook and just looked at the driest five-year sequence. You see that without any rationing, the SFPUC could manage the five consecutive dry years, with the Bay Delta Plan in effect, and still have water remaining in storage. In fact, almost enough water in storage to last a sixth dry year.

Table YRA-2 – Regional Water System supply availability based on the six-year drought of record using the SFPUC’s 2050 baseline demand projection of 215.1 mgd. Table assumes the Bay Delta Plan is in effect. Table does not incorporate any rationing.

Source: Yosemite Rivers Alliance (using data provided by the SFPUC).

After the driest five-year sequence on record, the SFPUC would still have 217 TAF of water in storage.

Instead of showing only 68% of required water supply available in Year 1 and 57% in Years 2 through 5,

5 Table 8-3 (presented to the BAWSCA agencies as Table 4e) would show that 100% of demand could be met in all five years, and this is without any rationing.

Table YRA-3 is similar to Table YRA-2, except it assumes 10% rationing in Years 3 and 4, and 20% rationing in Years 5 and 6. Note that in this scenario the SFPUC can manage the driest consecutive six- year sequence (the drought of record), exceeding the UWMP requirement.

Table YRA-3 – SFPUC water supply based on the drought of record, using SFPUC 2050 UWMP demand projections, with the Bay Delta Plan in effect. 10% rationing in Years 3 and 4, and 20% rationing in Years 5 and 6.

Source: Yosemite Rivers Alliance (using data provided by the SFPUC).

What We Know about Design Drought Risk

To determine whether the Design Drought is justified, it’s important to understand how likely it is to occur. Planning for a drought that is not conservative enough can lead to water shortages. Planning for a drought that is too conservative can lead to unnecessary rationing or investments in very expensive alternative water supplies. Understanding the return period of a drought – how many years might pass between occurrences – is critical to sound planning.

The following table is from the SFPUC’s Long-Term Vulnerability Assessment (LTVA). It shows return periods for the three most severe observed droughts. The report found “no clear direction of change in mean annual precipitation over the planning horizon,” which is why the first set of numbers is highlighted (red box added). Note that these return periods are based on Regional Water System (RWS) demand of 269 thousand acre-feet, which is 240 million gallons per day (demand last year was 191 mgd).

6 Source: LTVA, p. 157

We’ve asked many times why the LTVA did not include a return period for the Design Drought, and have been told by SFPUC staff that such a calculation would be unreliable.

However, through a Public Records Act request, we received the following table from a presentation given by the LTVA authors to SFPUC staff in December 2020 – one year prior to the release of the final LTVA. The severity of SFPUC droughts is measured by “Deficit” (how much water must come out of storage), which is why the 25,293-year return period is circled. Note that the deficit for the Design Drought is 1,309 thousand acre-feet (TAF), compared to significantly shorter return periods for the known droughts. The 1987-92 drought has a return period of 797 years, making it the most severe drought on record (this is what Valley Water and EBMUD use for drought planning). Like Table 5-1 above, the figures below are based on RWS demand of 240 mgd.

Source: “Hydrological Drought Frequency Analysis for the Upper Tuolumne River,” 12/8/2020

SFPUC staff were quick to point out that the return periods in the draft table were adjusted downward significantly for the final LTVA (Table 5-1). Therefore, we adjusted the 25,293 figure proportionally. The following table shows the result.

7 Source: Yosemite Rivers Alliance

The “2020 Report” column lists the numbers from the draft table, and “LTVA” lists the final numbers. “LTVA/2020” is the percentage of the original numbers that ended up in the final report. The combined Design Drought (1987-92 plus 1976-77) was reduced to 31% of the draft numbers. 31% of 25,293 years is 7,841 years, which is where the once-in-8,000 years return period for the Design Drought originates.

However, once-in-8,000 years is the very low end for the Design Drought return period. You’ll see from the graph below that the relationship between Cumulative Deficit and Return Periods is logarithmic. As droughts get more severe, the return period becomes much greater. The deficits for the known droughts are included on this graph. Superimposed on the graph is a line for the cumulative deficit for the Design Drought (1,309 TAF), which suggests a return period of once-in-70,000 years. As a side note, the red and blue lines reflecting higher temperatures expected from climate change are higher than the black line, meaning return periods get longer as temperatures increase.

Source: LTVA, p. 157

8 Revising the length and severity of the Design Drought would have a huge impact on Urban Water Management Plans. Please make this an immediate priority. UWMPs are due to the Department of Water Resources by July 1.

Sincerely,

Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director

May 5, 2021 President Sophie Maxwell and Commissioners San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) 525 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 Via Email Re: Request for timely actions to address population and demand projections, alternative water supplies, and the length of the Design Drought. Dear President Maxwell and Commissioners: On behalf of the above environmental and fishing groups, we would like to thank you for hosting the three workshops focusing on the Tuolumne River. The depth of information provided and productive dialogue were refreshing. We request that you take three immediate actions to advance some of the issues identified at the March 26 workshop focusing on water supply and demand. They are:

2 1) Direct your staff to produce an appendix for the SFPUC and BAWSCA Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) that analyzes the impact on water supply of reducing the Design Drought to 7.5 years. This could be inserted easily into the UWMPs, and if in the future the SFPUC were to adopt this policy change, water agencies could simply use figures from the appendix in their Water Supply Assessments and other planning documents. We believe the BAWSCA agencies would support this addition, as it would make the approval of future housing projects much less problematic. 2) Commit to developing alternative water supplies, and incorporate the yield into the SFPUC’s water supply projections in the UWMP. The current draft does not commit the SFPUC to developing any new water supplies for the next 25 years. Recycling water provides the additional benefit of reducing the nutrient load from wastewater entering the Bay, and with stricter limits on the horizon, developing recycled water projects would give the SFPUC a jumpstart on adhering to future effluent reduction requirements. 3) Commission a peer review of San Francisco’s and BAWSCA’s population and demand projections. The review should explore why past UWMP demand projections were off by as much as 33%, and what has been done to correct over-projections. It should explain how population forecasts in the UWMP were determined, and why they are so much greater than those produced by the California Department of Finance. It also should explain why the demand projections in the UWMP are so far afield from those forecasted by the SFPUC’s financial department. Thank you for your prompt consideration of these requests. Sincerely, Peter Drekmeier Tuolumne River Trust Heinrich Albert Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter Carol Steinfeld Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Kristina Pappas San Francisco League of Conservation Voters Jeff Miller Alameda Creek Alliance Eric Wesselman Friends of the River Chris Shutes California Sportfishing Protection Alliance Cindy Charles Golden West Women Flyfishers Allison Boucher Tuolumne River Conservancy Mark Rockwell Fly Fishers International, Northern California Council 3 Mike Conroy Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations Institute for Fisheries Resources Dick Allen Lake Merced Task Force Lauren Weston Acterra: Action for a Healthy Planet Greg Reis The Bay Institute Laura Allen Greywater Action Elizabeth Dougherty Wholly H2O Larry Collins San Francisco Community Fishing Association San Francisco Crab Boat Owners Association John Buckley Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center Stuart Gross San Francisco Herring Association Konrad Fisher Water Climate Trust Bill Uyeki Peninsula Fly Fishers

OFFICES 57 Post Street, Suite 711 San Francisco, CA 94104 (415) 882-7252 1031 15th Street, Suite 6 Modesto, CA 95354 (209) 236-0330 67 Linoberg Street Sonora, CA 95370 (209) 588-8636 www.tuolumne.org BOARD MEMBERS John Kreiter, Chair Harrison “Hap” Dunning, Vice Chair Cindy Charles, Treasurer Kerstyn Crumb, Secretary Eric Heitz, Chair Emeritus Eddie Corwin Bob Hackamack Camille King Bill Maher Marty McDonnell John Nimmons Eric Riemer Bart Westcott April 26, 2021 President Sophie Maxwell and Commissioners SFPUC 525 Golden Gate Ave. San Francisco, CA 94102 Via Email Re: April 27 Agenda Item 7: Discussion of the Commission Water Workshops. Dear President Maxwell and Commissioners: Thank you again for hosting the three workshops focusing on the Tuolumne River. We appreciated the deep dives, and look forward to working with you to achieve the State’s co-equal goals of restoring the greater Bay-Delta ecosystem and ensuring reliable water supplies. We’re optimistic a balance can be achieved, and we’re pleased the Commission will be considering next steps at tomorrow’s meeting. One issue we hope you will consider soon is the possibility of removing one year from the Design Drought. If a decision is made before the Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) are submitted to the State by July 1, this simple change would make it much easier for San Francisco and the BAWSCA agencies to approve housing projects over the next five years. Two weeks ago, I attended a Menlo Park City Council meeting where they discussed some process issues for their UWMP. I was pleased to hear their consultant from EKI Environment and Water mention that several BAWSCA agencies had joined TRT in encouraging the SFPUC to use demand projections rather than contractual obligations to represent water demand. The BAWSCA agencies were concerned the higher rationing figures from the initial SFPUC document would provide ammunition for anti-growth advocates to oppose housing projects. By simply using demand projections instead of the sales cap, rationing in Year 3 of a drought was reduced from 55% to 40%. We now ask you to go a step further and consider removing a year from the Design Drought. The new, improved 7.5-year Design Drought still would be more severe than any drought over the past 1,100 years, based on tree-ring data. Regarding climate change, the SFPUC’s water entitlements will likely improve due to earlier runoff, shifting water from the post-April 15 time frame, when the Irrigation Districts are entitled to the first 4,000 cfs, to earlier in the season, when the Districts are entitled to the first 2,350 cfs.

2 Scenario VII at the March 26 workshop demonstrated that removing a year from the Design Drought would add between 27 and 33 mgd to Total Yield. That’s a lot of water, and would reduce potential rationing considerably. This would help remove a substantial barrier to the approval of much-needed housing. We request that you take up this issue in time to amend the 2020 UWMP, which will guide development decisions for the next five years. Other Factors that Influence Potential Rationing In addition to the length of drought planning, several other factors influence potential rationing. These include unimpaired flow requirements, population growth, water demand and the development of alternative water supplies. We believe the population and demand forecasts in the UWMP are highly inflated, and the pace of developing alternative water supplies is extremely slow. We request that the SFPUC schedule a deep dive into these issues to better understand past over-projections and how they might be avoided in the current UWMP. Population Growth According to the draft UWMP, between 2005 and 2020 the population of San Francisco grew from 781,806 to 899,732. That amounted to 15% growth over a 15-year period, or 1% per year. The 2020 UWMP is projecting San Francisco’s population will grow by 25% over the next 15 years, reaching 1,251,214. That’s a substantially higher growth rate of 1.67% per year. Given the increase in outmigration from California in recent years and growing community opposition to development, we believe these projections are unreasonable. While the UWMP forecasts San Francisco’s population will grow by 39% over the next 25 years, the California Department of Finance forecasts growth of only 10%. That’s a huge difference, and worthy of analysis. Between 2005 and 2020 the population of the BAWSCA agencies grew from 1.69 million to 1.86 million. That amounted to 10% growth in population over the 15-year period. The current UWMP is projecting the BAWSCA agencies will grow to 2.19 million by 2035 – a considerably higher growth rate of 18% over the same time period. While the UWMP forecasts the population of the BAWSCA territory to grow by 31% over the next 25 years, the Department of Finance forecasts the population of the three counties with BAWSCA member agencies (San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda) will grow by only 14%. The UWMP projections are more than twice those of the Department of Finance.

3 Demand Projections SFPUC and BAWSCA demand projections have always been highly inflated. Since UWMPs were first required in 2000, demand has been over-projected by an average of 22%. Leading up to the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) in 2008, demand in the Regional Water System service area was projected to reach 285 mgd by 2018. Actual demand was only 196 mgd, a difference of 31% over the 10-year period. The main reason demand has decreased so much has been rising water rates, which send a strong price signal to consumers. Water rates have tripled over the past 13 years to pay for the $4.8 billion (plus debt service) incurred by the WSIP. Rates are now expected to increase by another 33% over the next five years. The SFPUC’s water supply division and BAWSCA have been slow to grasp the major role price plays in demand. Most recently, demand projections from the SFPUC’s 2015 UWMP were off by 15% in 2020. The SFPUC’s financial division has been much more accurate, with good reason. If they were to over-project sales, the SFPUC would face a deficit. The SFPUC’s current 10-Year Financial Plan forecasts water sales will remain flat over the next decade. These projections are 8% lower than those assumed in the UWMP. Following is a table showing the difference between demand projections in the previous four UWMPs and actual demand.

4 Alternative Water Supplies The SFPUC has identified about 35 mgd of alternative water supplies, but the UWMP assumes none of these potential sources will become available in the next 25 years. It states: The capital projects that are under consideration would be costly and are still in the early feasibility or conceptual planning stages. Because these water supply projects would take 10 to 30 years to implement, and because required environmental permitting negotiations may reduce the amount of water that can be developed, the yield from these projects are not currently incorporated into the SFPUC’s supply projections. If the SFPUC were to prioritize the development of these alternative water supplies, they could be available by 2040. This seems worthy of a discussion to determine whether they should be factored into future supply in the UWMP. Thank you for considering these comments. Sincerely, Peter Drekmeier Policy Director

CleanPowerSF Sfpuc CommissionApril 14, 2026

CleanPowerSF Sfpuc Commission
April 14, 2026