OUR MISSION: To provide our customers with high -quality, efficient and reliable water, power and sewer services in a manner that values environmental and community interests and sustains the resources entrusted to our care.
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
T 415.554.3155
F 415.554.3161
TTY 415.554.3488
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
Correspondence Log
June 18, 2026 through June 25, 2026
Date
Received
From Subject
June 18, 2026 Eileen Boken Strongly OPPOSING the Adoption of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan
Prepared by the San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission for the City and
County of San Francisco - SFPUC
Commission Meeting June 23, 2026
Agenda Item #8
June 19, 2026 Peter Drekmeier YRA Letter Re: UWMP and Storage (email + attachment)
June 20, 2026 Valerie Howard Crocker Amazon Playground WILL
REMAIN OPEN FOR ALL
June 21, 2026 Nancy Arbuckle SFPUC Urban Water Management Plan June 22, 2026 Rush Rehm Public Comment, SFPUC meeting for June 23, 2026
June 22, 2026 Mark Shahinian Sierra Club comments on Proposed Final 2025 UWMP (email + attachment)
June 23, 2026 Judith Kirk Re. item 8, SFPUC
June 23, 2026 Charlene
Woodcock
Message for SFPUC Commission
President Arce
June 25, 2026 CPC.PGEPower
AssetsEIR
PG&E Power Asset Acquisition Project
Draft EIR: Availability of Responses to
Comments (email + attachment)
June 25, 2026 Sue Chau Informational item for Commissioners (email + attachment)
June 25, 2026 Lisa Gibson Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR for the PG&E Power Asset
Acquisition Project (hardcopy
correspondence)
1 From: aeboken <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2026 8:06 PM
To: Commission
Subject: Strongly OPPOSING the Adoption of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan Prepared by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission for the City and County of San Francisco - SFPUC Commission Meeting June 23, 2026 Agenda Item #8 This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Report Suspicious TO: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
FR: Eileen Boken,
State and Federal Legislative Liaison
Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods*
*For identification purposes only.
RE: Adoption of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan Prepared by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission for the City and County of San Francisco - SFPUC Commission Meeting June 23, 2026 Agenda Item #8
Position: Strongly OPPOSING adoption
There is a longstanding adage in IT: garbage in, garbage out.
For the Urban Water Management Plan, the garbage in are the following:
- Outdated statistics
- Outdated policies
- Flawed assumptions
The result is garbage out.
Therefore, I'm strongly urging the SFPUC Commission to OPPOSE the adoption of the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan.
###
2 Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
1 From: Peter Drekmeier <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 19, 2026 9:24 AM
To: Commission
Cc: [email protected]; SFPUC Citizens' Advisory Committee; Lennear, Tiffany
Subject: YRA Letter Re: UWMP and Storage
Attachments: YRA Letter to SFPUC Re- Reservoir Storage.pdf Dear SFPU C Commissioners: Please see my attached letter regarding the Urban Water Management Plan and lack of transparency regarding the role of reservoir storage in projecting fu ture water rationing. T hanks you . -Peter ZjQcmQRY FpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRY FpfptBannerEnd
Dear SFPUC Commissioners:
Please see my attached letter regarding the Urban Water Management Plan and lack of transparency regarding the role of reservoir storage in projecting future water rationing.
Thanks you.
-Peter
Please note my new email address.
-----------------------
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
Yosemite Rivers Alliance
(Formerly Tuolumne River Trust)
[email protected]
1 June 19, 2026
President Josh Arce and Commissioners
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
[email protected]
Re: Item 8 (June 23, 2026): 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and Reservoir Storage.
Dear President Arce and Commissioners:
I was surprised while reviewing Appendix B of the UWMP (Summary of San Francisco’s Response to 2012-2016 Drought Experience – pdf page 450) and Appendix C (Summary of San Francisco’s Response to 2020-2023 Drought Experience – pdf page 462).
There is no mention of reservoir storage levels during those droughts.
As you know, storage is critical to SFPUC water supply. On pdf page 497 of the packet it states, “…the RWS depends on water supply that is stored prior to a drought; the storage in RWS reservoirs at the start of a drought is the main source of water supply that the SFPUC manages during a drought.”
The severity of a drought should be measured by the low point in storage during the drought. Ignoring storage is like having a bank statement with deposits and debits, but no account balance.
For storage levels during the 2020-2023 drought, please see Attachment A.
The UWMP Itself Fails to Consider Reservoir Storage
Table 8-3 in the UWMP suggests that in 2050 the SFPUC would only be able to provide 68% of baseline water demand in Year 1 and 57% in Years 2 through 5 of a 5-year drought if the Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan is implemented. What’s hidden from this table is how the numbers were calculated.
2 Table 8-3 is based on the SFPUC’s methodology for addressing the Drought Risk Assessment (DRA) required for UWMPs. The Department of Water Resources’ UWMP Guidebook requires: “A detailed discussion of anticipated supply availability under a normal water year, single dry year, and droughts lasting at least five years, as well as more frequent and severe periods of drought, as described in the drought risk assessment.”
The SFPUC explains its methodology for addressing the Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment as follows:
“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 rationing figures provided by the SFPUC are extremely misleading, because they don’t provide sufficient context for water managers to determine whether extreme rationing is justified. To be able to make an informed decision, one would need to know how much water remains in storage at the end of each year.
Table YRA-1 on the following page 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 presented by the SFPUC.
Each of the following three tables addresses 2050 water supply projections with the Bay Delta Plan implemented. They do not include dead pool storage that is not easily accessible.
To put the storage figures in perspective, water demand in the SFPUC service area has been under 200 million gallons per day (mgd) for the past 11 years. 200 mgd equals 224 thousand acre-feet (TAF). Table YRA-1 uses the SFPUC’s UWMP drought scenario. At the end of the driest consecutive five-year sequence, the SFPUC would still have more than 600 TAF in storage – enough water to last 2.5 years, not including water entitlements that would accrue during the following years. If the SFPUC were to adopt a more reasonable drought scenario, this water could be used to erase the extreme rationing projected in the UWMP.
3 Table YRA-1. 8-year Design Drought, with the Bay Delta Plan implemented, 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).
• 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 SFPUC figures). 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). This storage level is higher than the maximum appearing in other documents because the SFPUC’s water bank at Don Pedro Reservoir is allowed to encroach into “flood storage” during the summer, but must be evacuated by October 1. This explains the high level of “Annual impact on storage” for 1986-87. • “Annual impact on storage” includes SFPUC water entitlements, minus demand, minus other system losses (everything is accounted for).
• Fiscal Year 92-76 is where the two droughts that make up the Design Drought on blended. It includes the second half of 1992 and the first half of 1976.
I think we would all agree that the SFPUC has a much more reliable water supply than Valley Water, yet the five consecutive dry-year sequence Valley Water uses found that they would experience no rationing in Years 1 to 3 of the drought, and less than 10% rationing in Years 4 and 5 (see Attachment B).
Table YRA-2 on the following page shows what the five consecutive dry year sequence would look like if the SFPUC followed the letter of the UWMP Guidebook (like Valley Water) and just looked at the driest consecutive five-year sequence out of the six-year drought of record (1987-1992). You’ll see that without any rationing, the SFPUC could manage the drought with the Bay Delta Plan implemented, and still have water remaining in storage. In fact, almost enough water in storage to last a sixth dry year.
4 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 implemented. 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 left in storage. Instead of showing 32% rationing in Year 1 and 43% rationing in Years 2 through 5, the UWMP 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. In this scenario the SFPUC could manage the driest consecutive six-year sequence, exceeding the UWMP requirement, and this is using the UWMP demand projections, which are considered the “outside envelope.”
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).
5 With such misleading calculations and conclusions in the UWMP, it’s not hard to see whey the SFPUC ranks low in terms of being trusted.
You’ve run out of time to make substantive changes to the UWMP, but you still have time to ask questions and make recommendations that can help put the SFPUC on a path toward better environmental stewardship and reduced water rate increases.
Let’s have a workshop on the Design Drought!
Sincerely,
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
Cc: BAWSCA
SFPUC Citizens’ Advisory Commission
6 Attachment A
SFPUC Water Shortage Emergency Declaration (2021)
Summary
November 2021: Following two dry years, the SFPUC declared a Water Shortage Emergency and called for systemwide water use reductions. At the time of the declaration, the SFPUC had more than a million acre-feet of water in storage (see below) – enough to last 4.5 years.
April 2022: The SFPUC imposed a 5% drought surcharge on San Francisco retail customers to make up for lost sales. Wholesale customers enacted their own measures.
Early December 2022: SFPUC storage was at a drought low-point of 932 thousand acre-feet – still enough water to last 4 years.
January 2023: After extremely heavy precipitation in December and January, it was clear the SFPUC would achieve full storage. On January 17, storage was at 1.35 million acre-feet.
May 2023: The SFPUC finally lifted the drought surcharge, but not before it was built into their FY 2023- 24 budget. That budget experienced a $25 million shortfall in retail (San Francisco) water sales and a $5 million shortfall in wholesale (BAWSCA) sales.
Source: SFPUC Drought Conditions Update, December 6, 2021.
7 SFPUC storage hit its lowest point of the drought in early December 2022, but there was still enough water to last four years.
Source: SFPUC Drought Conditions Update, December 5, 2022.
By mid-January 2023, SFPUC storage had already reached 92% of capacity and snowpack accumulation was on a record-setting pace. The drought was clearly over.
Source: SFPUC Drought Conditions Update, January 17, 2023.
8 Snowpack can be considered “water in the bank,” and it was clear there would be a tremendous amount of runoff in the spring to top off all the reservoirs with lots of water to spill.
Source: SFPUC Drought Conditions Update, January 17, 2023
The SFPUC Water Enterprise was headed toward a large budget deficit in FY 2023-24 – it ended up being $25 million in lost retail (San Francisco) revenues and $5 million in lost wholesale (BAWSCA) revenues.
Here’s how it was explained:
“Water and Wastewater: revenues are projected to be below budget. The budget was adopted assuming the drought surcharge would remain. It was removed May of 2023. Additionally, the wholesale water volumes are lower than expected.”1
Why did the SFPUC wait until May to lift the drought surcharge, and why did they assume it would remain in place for another year despite the extremely wet beginning to 2023?
How did the Water Shortage Emergency and call for water conservation impact finances and water rates?
Was it prudent for the SFPUC to declare a Water Shortage Emergency when they had 4.5 year’s-worth of water in storage? The Design Drought suggests it was.
1 SFPUC FY 2023-24 1st Quarter Budget Report, December 12, 2023 – https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/se1f88d7d5b3a41829939713649bc1802
9 In FY 2023-24, the SFPUC experienced a $25 million shortfall in retail (San Francisco) water sales and a $5 million shortfall in wholesale (BAWSCA) sales.
Source: SFPUC FY 2023-24 4th Quarter Budget Report, September 24, 2024 – https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/share/view/s297e2428d54946e5a39c984791d83b82
Based on the following graph, was it reasonable for the SFPUC to wait until May to lift the drought surcharge?
Source: SFPUC Water Supply Conditions Update, October 2, 2023.
The SFPUC ended the 2023 water year entitled to enough water (2.77 million acre-feet) to refill all of its reservoirs almost twice.
10 Attachment B
Valley Water’s 5 Consecutive Dry-Year Sequence
7.3.3 Five Dry Year Service Reliability
The greatest challenge to Valley Water’s water supply reliability is multiple dry years, such as those that occurred in 1988 through 1992 and in 2012 through 2016. The five dry-year period used in this analysis is 1988 to 1992, which was an extended and more severe drought within historic record and WEAP modeling period. Estimated supplies and demands for the period, under different demand years, are shown in Table 7-4. The analysis indicates that with existing and planned projects’ supplies, Valley Water’s diverse water supplies are sufficient to meet demands throughout the full five-year drought in demand years 2035 and 2040 without having to call for short-term water use reductions, but in demand years 2030 as well as 2045 through 2050, there will be shortages in the last two years of the drought. The shortages are less than 10% of projected demands, thus within Valley Water’s level of service goal of meeting 100% of annual water demand during non-drought years and at least 80% of annual water demand in drought years. Those shortages will be addressed through a combination of supply augmentation from transfer and exchange and water use reductions.
11 1
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2026 5:25 AM
To: ChenStaff
Cc: [email protected]; SherrillStaff; SauterStaff; WongStaff (BOS); MahmoodStaff; DorseyStaff (BOS); MelgarStaff (BOS); MandelmanStaff (BOS); FielderStaff; Waltonstaff (BOS); ChanStaff (BOS); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Herrera, David; Commission; John-Baptiste, Alicia (MYR); Madland, Sarah (REC); Board of Supervisors (BOS) Subject: Crocker Amazon Playground WILL REMAIN OPEN FOR ALL This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Report Suspicious Dear Supervisor Chen:
We are NOT giving up our Crocker Amazon Playground!!!
Inferior colonist-settlers massacred hundreds of ancient advanced civilizations in the Americas to steal their land and resources, but the Giants are NOT going to get away with stealing Crocker Amazon Playground from San Franciscans!!!
Supervisor Chen, we DEMAND strong leadership from YOU to speak out in opposition to, and vote NO on, the proposal to privatize Crocker Amazon Playground and fence out all but a few elite baseball and soccer players.
Crocker Amazon Playground IS going to remain open FOR EVERYONE!!! Your Constituent,
Valerie Howard
1 From: Nancy Arbuckle <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2026 12:59 PM
To: Commission
Subject: SFPUC Urban Water Management Plan
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Report Suspicious Dear Commissioners.
Having just read over your recently released Urban Water Management Plan, I am sorry to say that we ratepayers in San Francisco are once again very disturbed and angry about the SFPUC’s unwillingness to accept the water reality that we live in and to admit that water demand has declined considerably and has done so consistently for years. Moreover, the SFPUC’s excess storage of water is a set-up for dumping water (as has occurred in the recent past). Of special concern is the SFPUC’s complete lack of focus or interest in environmental stewardship, a value we San Franciscans hold in high regard. At the heart of this latest plan are its misleading calculations and lack of transparency in process and conclusions. What gets commented on publicly at SFPUC meetings and what we want to address is the so-called Design Drought. This ill-advised, deceptive and false premise on which you base everything needs to be taken apart, examined, interrogated, and ultimately discarded. Once that happens, you can really begin to embrace your mission — to serve the public.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Nancy Arbuckle
2111 Hyde St.
Apt. 306
San Francisco, CA
1 From: Rush Rehm <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 10:44 AM
To: Commission
Subject: Public Comment, SFPUC meeting for June 23, 2026 This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Report Suspicious Dear Commissioners:
I am sorry I cannot attend the meeting in person, as I am currently in Uganda. However, I am a former San Francisco resident of longstanding, now living in Redwood City, which purchases most of its water from SFPUC, and is a member of BAWSCA.
As I am sure you are aware, many rate payers are appalled at the rise in the price of domestic water. Although there are many reasons for this, some beyond anyone's control, others have identifiable causes. You need to address how your actions have worsened the problem, and you should (I would like to say must) address them.
SFPUC uses an absurd drought return estimate, which has led the Commission consistently to overestimate the amount of future water needs, even as use domestic water use has leveled off in spite of significantly increased population. People have learned to conserve water, but you seem not to have noticed.
Your drought return figures are off the wall and we have to pay for it. There is no scientific basis for assuming a drought whose likelihood is once in thousands of years. But you cling to these absurd figures (at one meeting I heard one of your experts insist that we must prepare for "a drought of Biblical proportions.". In issues of water, we would do better to follow science than Old Testament myth. Adjust your drought return estimates to something reasonable and credible, and you will not need to pull so much water from the Yosemite Valley river system – leading to slow, turgid flow that kills salmon, threaten the Delta with blue algae growth, and makes the rate payers prepare for something that won't happen in my lifetime, or yours, or your children's or grand-children's or great grand children's or great-great grandchildren's. I could go on.
Moreover, by greatly overestimating future water use, you have set us up for ever increasing rates. When that demand does not materialize, you will have to raise rates to cover the shortfall in revenue, a debt spiral that is unsustainable and inexcusable.
Please, follow the science. Listen to the public. Do the right, smart, wise thing - for us and for the environment.
2 If you find the issues I've raised confusing, arrange for a workshop where intelligent people who have studied them can make matters clear to you, in a way that an email like mine cannot.
Thank you.
Rush Rehm
Rush Rehm
Professor, Theater and Performance Studies, and Classics (Emeritus), Stanford University Artistic Director, Stanford Repertory Theater (SRT) http://stanfordreptheater.com/
"Maybe the courts will save us. Maybe the next elections will end this nightmare. Maybe there are limits to extremism. Maybe the worst is over. These self-delusions prevent us from resisting while the gallows are being constructed in front of us." Chris Hedges
Stanford Repertory Theater continues to develop the public history project, Verdict: Slave Trials in the Cape of Good Hope, 1705–1793, in Cape Town, South Africa, July 2026.
Voices of the Earth - from Sophocles to Rachel Carson and Beyond remains available, all formats free for non- commercial purposes Visit https://stanfordreptheater.com/; click on the Voices of the Earth Tab, quick registration, and a password gives you free access to the material.
1 From: Mark Shahinian <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 22, 2026 1:37 PM
To: Commission
Cc: Ritchie, Steve; Lee, Jennifer; Kothari, Manisha; Heinrich Albert; Sarah Ranney; John Bauters
Subject: Sierra Club comments on Proposed Final 2025 UWMP Attachments: 260622 SFPUC UWMP final Sierra Club comments.pdf This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Report Suspicious Please find attached the Sierra Club's comments on the proposed final 2025 UWMP for the June 23 Commission meeting..
Thank you,
Mark Shahinian
June 22, 2026 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 525 Golden Gate Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Dear SFPUC commissioners: The Sierra Club finds the SFPUC staF’s presentation of the final UWMP version for your approval disappointing. Instead of engaging with the public, the presentation makes conclusory assertions of correctness. Instead of engaging with the facts, the presentation continues down a path of denial and obfuscation. Instead of following the results presented by their professional consultants, emails obtained via public records request show staF directed the consultants to make model changes to raise the demand forecast because, in staF’s view, “our demand projections should not be below Finance’s. ” Instead of applying judgement, the UWMP incorporates BAWSCA’s inflated demand projections without question instead of, as the finance team wisely does, applying a discount to BAWSCA’s numbers. The staF tells you this methodology is keeping water users safe. What this flawed methodology actual does is uses the environment as the buFer. Rather than properly forecasting demand and properly accounting for future droughts, the SFPUC has made up facts to get the results they want. These results lead to less water for the ecosystem, and more infrastructure spend. Decision-making has become so polluted with bad data that there is no way to operate except by using the environment as the buFer. StaF is asking you to endorse this decision-making method. We live in the world’s center of advanced technology and yet the SFPUC’s projections of water demand have been wrong and too high for 30 years. An SFPUC spokesman told the San Francisco Chronicle that the SFPUC is following “the science and our hard-learned decisions.” Science depends on facts. The SFPUC, apparently, does not.
We urge you to reject this UWMP . This commission should not endorse the data the UWMP contains and the culture it showcases that makes the environment pay for sloppy modeling and decisions. This board, San Franciscans and the environment we cherish all deserve better. Sincerely, Mark Shahinian Sierra Club SF Bay Chapter Water Committee 1 From: Judith Kirk <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 1:20 PM
To: Commission
Subject: Re. item 8, SFPUC
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Report Suspicious Please include this email in the record; I just got back into town and feel passionately how important our CA water issues are, and that science does not take priority is unbelievable.
The SFPUC Design Drought does not just harm our environment; it absolutely hurts ratepayers terribly, to the point that people need to choose between paying the water bill and feeding their kids.
This does not have to be the way it is!!!! The claims we may run out of water are unfounded and wrong. The Design Drought MUST be changed. PLEASE.
Passionately,
Judith Kirk
Redwood City 94062
1 From: Charlene Woodcock <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2026 7:42 PM
To: Commission
Subject: Message for SFPUC Commission President Arce
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Report Suspicious Dear Commission President Arce,
I delivered a comment on Item 8 at today’s commission during the period when you were briefly absent for another meeting. Since you were unable to hear the comments, I provide mine below:
SFPUC Commissioners:
My comments are with regard to the Design Drought Plan.
According to the state’s website California Water Watch, current major reservoir levels are at 109% of average, with Oroville Dam full and northern California weather predicted to be little affected by La Niña conditions.
Statewide we’ve had 97% of normal precipitation. Northern California is predicted to experience normal weather through this rest of the year.
My greatest concern is for the SFPUC to protect our Delta ecosystem and allow enough water to flow from the rivers into the Delta to keep the water cool and improve conditions for healthy fisheries.
We have shown that when called upon, residents here can reduce water use significantly. Most of us would much rather conserve water than see our Delta and its fisheries destroyed by inadequate water flows. Planning for extreme droughts can result in over-filled reservoirs and the building of needless new environmentally-destructive reservoirs such as SITES.
Rather than planning for extreme drought, with the damage that would do to our fisheries and the Delta by reducing flow through the Delta, we need you to reconsider the Design Drought plan and invite public commentary to achieve a scientifically- informed, reasonable approach to water management. Voluntary agreements are inadequate.
And on a separate note, in response to the earlier mention of data center water use:
At all levels of government, we need to ensure that, before they are permitted, data centers must be required to design a closed circle to circulate the water they use and they must be required to provide their own clean energy.
I provide these comments as a SF Bay Area taxpayer and lifelong Californian who has from childhood understood that southern California is desert land and that water is our most precious resource.
Charlene M.Woodcock
Berkeley, CA
1 From: Chau, Sue
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2026 12:22 PM
To: Lennear, Tiffany
Cc: Chau, Sue
Subject: Informational item for Commissioners
Attachments: Memo to Comm Secretary - PGE RTC.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Please see attached memo for information to be provided to the Commissioners for their information – no action for the Commissioners at this time. Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Sue
Sue Chau
Senior Environmental Project Manager, Environmental Management San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Office: 415-554-3238
Cell: 628-333-1144
[email protected]
Delivering excellence in the environmental review, permitting and construction compliance process through teamwork, knowledge, integrity, and respect.
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.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 25, 2026
TO: Tiffany Lennear, Director of Commission Affairs
FROM: Sue Chau
Acting Manager, Environmental Management
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the PG&E Power
Asset Acquisition Project
The San Francisco Planning Department has published the Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the PG&E Power Asset Acquisition Project. The responses to comments document in addition to the draft EIR is the final EIR. Please transmit the document link to the Commissioners and City Attorney Sheryl Bregman.
PG&E Power Asset Acquisition Project Responses to Comments
The document is also available on the Planning Department’s website at https://sfplanning.org/sfceqadocs
cc: Josh Andresen, Senior Project Manager, SFPUC
1 From: Chau, Sue
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2026 12:22 PM
To: Lennear, Tiffany
Cc: Chau, Sue
Subject: Informational item for Commissioners
Attachments: Memo to Comm Secretary - PGE RTC.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Please see attached memo for information to be provided to the Commissioners for their information – no action for the Commissioners at this time. Let me know if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Sue
Sue Chau
Senior Environmental Project Manager, Environmental Management San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
525 Golden Gate Avenue, 11th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
Office: 415-554-3238
Cell: 628-333-1144
[email protected]
Delivering excellence in the environmental review, permitting and construction compliance process through teamwork, knowledge, integrity, and respect.
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.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 25, 2026
TO: Tiffany Lennear, Director of Commission Affairs
FROM: Sue Chau
Acting Manager, Environmental Management
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the PG&E Power
Asset Acquisition Project
The San Francisco Planning Department has published the Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the PG&E Power Asset Acquisition Project. The responses to comments document in addition to the draft EIR is the final EIR. Please transmit the document link to the Commissioners and City Attorney Sheryl Bregman.
PG&E Power Asset Acquisition Project Responses to Comments
The document is also available on the Planning Department’s website at https://sfplanning.org/sfceqadocs
cc: Josh Andresen, Senior Project Manager, SFPUC
P1asannFhaniniscgo 49 South Van Ness Avenue, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94103
628.652.7600
www.sfplanning.org
RECEIVED
MEMORANDUM JUN 2 9 2026
Date: June 25, 2026 COMMISSION OFFICE Case No.: 2023-005370ENV Project Title: PG&E Power Asset Acquisition Project
To: Members of the Planning Commission and Interested Parties From: Lisa Gibson, Environmental Review Officer
Re: Responses to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the PG&E Power Asset Acquisition Project
The San Francisco Planning Department has published the Responses to Comments document the draft environmental impact report (EIR) for the above-referenced project on the San Francisco Planning Department's website at sfplanning.orgisfceqadocs. This document, along with the draft EIR, will be before the planning commission for final EIR certification on July 9, 2026. The planning commission will receive public testimony on the final EIR certification at the July 9 hearing. Please note that the public review period for the draft EIR ended on May 19, 2025; any comments received after that date, including any comments provided orally or in writing at the final EIR certification hearing, may not be responded to in writing.
The planning commission does not conduct a hearing to receive comments on the responses to comments document, and no such hearing is required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Interested parties, however, may always write to commission members or to the president of the commission at commissions.secretaryPsfgov.org (preferred) or at the address above and express an opinion on the responses to comments document, or the commission's decision to certify the completion of the final EIR for this project.
Please note that the responses to comments document in addition to the draft EIR is the final EIR. If you have any questions concerning the responses to comments document or the environmental review process, please contact Julie Moore at CPC.PGEPowerAssetsEIRPsfgov.org or at 628.652.7566.
Thank you for your interest in this project and your consideration of this matter.
EP 13.9 5-4 Para informaciOn en Espanol Darner al Para sa impormasyon sa Tagalog tumawag sa 628.652.7550