Correspondence Log — CleanPowerSF Sfpuc Commission, September 8, 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
July 22, 2026 through September 1, 2026

Date Received From Subject
July 22, 2026 Sean Sharp Request to Delay Approval of Safeway Development Pending Sewer
Infrastructure Remediation
July 22, 2026 Marty Mackowski Water
July 27, 2026 Richard Pellegrini Request to Delay Approval of Safeway Development Pending Sewer
Infrastructure Remediation
July 28, 2026 Kathryn Inglin Request to Delay Approval of Safeway Development Pending Sewer
Infrastructure Remediation
July 30, 2026 Hannah Young CEQA Addendum for Islais Creek Bypass / CEQA Addendum for Sunset
Supply Pipeline
August 2, 2026 Jair D. Hernandez Re: Formal Notice – Alleged Participation and Complicity
by Affiliated Bay Area and Los
Angeles Area Governmental Entities,
Their Employees, Officials, and
Affiliated Entities in a Multi-State
Criminal Enterprise
August 5, 2026 Susan Rivlin Request to Delay Approval of Safeway Development Pending Sewer
Infrastructure Remediation
August 6, 2026 San Joaquin
Tributaries
Authority
SJTA Commission Regular Meeting
Agenda Packet - August 10 at 10 a.m.

August 7, 2026 Bay Area Water
Supply &
Conservation
Agency
Notice of Meeting Cancellation -
BAWSCA August 12, 2026 BPC
Meeting (email + attachments)
August 15, 2026 Friends of Mission
Creek SF
SF Marina District Sewage
Contamination and Proposed Safeway
Development (email + attachment)
August 17, 2026 Valerie Howard

MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL,

AND THE ROOT OF YOUR

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
August 23, 2026 Francisco Da Costa Justice and Fair play. Stand up for

SFPUC Correspondence Log 7/22/2026 through 9/1/2026 Page 2 of 2

your rights. 50 years advocacy.

August 25, 2026 Barklee Sanders File No. 260550 — IRFD No. 1 (Treasure Island) annexation,
September 15, 2026 hearing — resent
to the Commission
August 26, 2026 Peter Drekmeier Water Demand Projections Comparison
September 1, 2026 Bernadette Del
Chiaro
TIMELY: Request to hold SFPUC
Solar proposal and Meeting to discuss
future of local SF clean energy (email
+ attachment)

1 From: Sean Sharp <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2026 9:30 PM
To: [email protected]; Board of Supervisors (BOS); Sherrill, Stephen (BOS); Commission; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; SFPUC Citizens' Advisory Committee; Chan, Connie (BOS); Wong, Alan (BOS); Sauter, Danny (BOS); Mahmood, Bilal (BOS); Dorsey, Matt (BOS); Melgar, Myrna (BOS); Mandelman, Rafael (BOS); Fielder, Jackie (BOS); Walton, Shamann (BOS); Chen, Chyanne (BOS); Ethics Commission, (ETH); [email protected]; [email protected]; DBICUSTOMERSERVICE, DBI (DBI); [email protected]; EHS DPH (DPH); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject:

Request to Delay Approval of Safeway Development Pending Sewer Infrastructure Remediation
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Report Suspicious I am writing as a resident/community member regarding the proposed Safeway redevelopment project in the Marina District.

Since the closure of the Pierce Street outfall in May 2021, the surrounding sewer system has experienced repeated overflow conditions during storm events. These events have resulted in the discharge of untreated sewage into residential properties. These are documented, recurring conditions with implications for public health and safety.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act, public agencies are required to evaluate all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts of a project, including conditions involving the release of hazardous materials during upset or system failure scenarios. CEQA Guidelines further require analysis where a project may expose the public to hazards through such conditions. The existing conditions in the Marina indicate an ongoing exposure pathway associated with sewer system performance during storm events. Increasing density and wastewater load on a system already experiencing overflow conditions raises serious concerns regarding compliance with CEQA and applicable health and safety standards.

Public Resources Code §21002 provides that a project should not be approved where feasible mitigation measures are available to substantially lessen significant environmental effects. In this context, further evaluation of infrastructure capacity, system performance, and appropriate mitigation measures appears warranted prior to the introduction of additional load.

In addition, the Laguna outfall currently discharges into a proposed recreational water activities.

Where system performance during storm events results in overflow or discharge conditions, the potential for impacts to recreational waters and public exposure may warrant further evaluation. This is particularly relevant in the context of environmental review and interagency coordination. 2 Accordingly, I respectfully request that:

Approval of the proposed Safeway development be delayed until sewer system performance during storm conditions can be fully evaluated.

A comprehensive review be conducted of cumulative impacts related to existing infrastructure limitations and projected increases in wastewater load.

Any project approval be conditioned on demonstrated measures that address system performance and reduce the potential for overflow-related impacts affecting residential areas, public rights-of-way, and recreational waters.

This request is not an opposition to development, but a request that development proceed in a manner consistent with environmental review requirements and established health and safety standards.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Please review all newsletters

April 23rd 2026
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailchi.mp/27d76f0316e1/city-closes-pierce-st-outfall- 14055492__;!!NCYPjq8!7FHXovvjwqXzw-22osnK643IDcxZrGYKx- 4RpmS1L0P92IApdOKmCSTKhIrToIohffPiADHbZrKCmPZDKByjHXE$

Wed, Jan 11, 2023
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailchi.mp/043f27535c86/city-closes-pierce-st- outfall__;!!NCYPjq8!7FHXovvjwqXzw-22osnK643IDcxZrGYKx-
4RpmS1L0P92IApdOKmCSTKhIrToIohffPiADHbZrKCmPZDvRF8H7w$

Mon, Mar 31, 2025
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailchi.mp/8684f12e50b1/city-closes-pierce-st-outfall- 14052929__;!!NCYPjq8!7FHXovvjwqXzw-22osnK643IDcxZrGYKx- 4RpmS1L0P92IApdOKmCSTKhIrToIohffPiADHbZrKCmPZDxPIMQE8$
1 From: Marty Mackowski <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2026 8:54 PM
To: Commission
Subject: Water
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Report Suspicious Dear PUC,
Please use common sense in dealing with the water plan. We have plenty of water for the next 4 years. The water rates are way too high, and your approach only
makes things worse. Follow the science, since you are very inaccurate on your positions.
1 From: Richard Pellegrini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 10:47 PM
To: [email protected]; Board of Supervisors (BOS); Sherrill, Stephen (BOS); Commission; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; SFPUC Citizens' Advisory Committee; Chan, Connie (BOS); Wong, Alan (BOS); Sauter, Danny (BOS); Mahmood, Bilal (BOS); Dorsey, Matt (BOS); Melgar, Myrna (BOS); Mandelman, Rafael (BOS); Fielder, Jackie (BOS); Walton, Shamann (BOS); Chen, Chyanne (BOS); Ethics Commission, (ETH); [email protected]; [email protected]; DBICUSTOMERSERVICE, DBI (DBI); [email protected]; EHS DPH (DPH); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject:

Request to Delay Approval of Safeway Development Pending Sewer Infrastructure Remediation
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Report Suspicious I am writing as a resident/community member regarding the proposed Safeway redevelopment project in the Marina District.

In addition, the Laguna outfall currently discharges into a proposed recreational water activities.

Approval of the proposed Safeway development be delayed until sewer system performance during storm conditions can be fully evaluated.

A comprehensive review be conducted of cumulative impacts related to existing infrastructure limitations and projected increases in wastewater load.

This request is not an opposition to development, but a request that development proceed in a manner consistent with environmental review requirements and established health and safety standards.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Richard & Janet Pellegrini
222 Cervantes Blvd
San Francisco, Ca., 94123

Please review all newsletters

April 23rd 2026
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailchi.mp/27d76f0316e1/city-closes-pierce-st-outfall- 14055492__;!!NCYPjq8!4cSk3OS06Ed3kxAUMub_gkVFHa1RyPmL22bUD2vO69uLlAHVrihK1e84Sq GT7jhdS4xeFgBHPIjYFfRrNw$

Wed, Jan 11, 2023
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailchi.mp/043f27535c86/city-closes-pierce-st- outfall__;!!NCYPjq8!4cSk3OS06Ed3kxAUMub_gkVFHa1RyPmL22bUD2vO69uLlAHVrihK1e84SqGT 7jhdS4xeFgBHPIgZuFCwDw$

Mon, Mar 31, 2025
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailchi.mp/8684f12e50b1/city-closes-pierce-st-outfall- 14052929__;!!NCYPjq8!4cSk3OS06Ed3kxAUMub_gkVFHa1RyPmL22bUD2vO69uLlAHVrihK1e84Sq GT7jhdS4xeFgBHPIgNSJybBw$
1 From: Kathryn Inglin <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2026 7:08 AM
To: [email protected]; Board of Supervisors (BOS); Sherrill, Stephen (BOS); Commission; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; SFPUC Citizens' Advisory Committee; Chan, Connie (BOS); Wong, Alan (BOS); Sauter, Danny (BOS); Mahmood, Bilal (BOS); Dorsey, Matt (BOS); Melgar, Myrna (BOS); Mandelman, Rafael (BOS); Fielder, Jackie (BOS); Walton, Shamann (BOS); Chen, Chyanne (BOS); Ethics Commission, (ETH); [email protected]; [email protected]; DBICUSTOMERSERVICE, DBI (DBI); [email protected]; EHS DPH (DPH); [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject:

Request to Delay Approval of Safeway Development Pending Sewer Infrastructure Remediation
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Report Suspicious Dear City Officials,
I am writing as a Marina District resident regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Safeway site. While I support responsible growth, I am deeply concerned about the severe infrastructure strains already impacting our neighborhood— specifically regarding sewer capacity, public health, and environmental compliance.

Ever since the Pierce Street outfall was closed in May 2021, our neighborhood's sewer system has repeatedly backed up during major storms, causing untreated sewage to overflow into homes and public spaces. These are well-documented, ongoing public health hazards.
2 Adding significant density and wastewater load onto an already failing infrastructure system without a
comprehensive review poses major legal and health
concerns:

CEQA Compliance: Under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), public agencies must evaluate
foreseeable environmental risks, including system
failures and hazardous releases during upset conditions.

Adding wastewater load to a system actively
experiencing sewage overflows warrants rigorous
environmental review.

Mandated Mitigation: Public Resources Code §21002
prohibits approving projects with significant
environmental risks when feasible mitigation exists.

Infrastructure capacity must be evaluated and mitigated before adding extra load.

Water Quality & Public Health: With the nearby Laguna
outfall discharging near areas used for water recreation, storm-driven overflows threaten public health and local water safety.

I respectfully ask that the City:
3 1. Pause approval of the Safeway redevelopment until
storm-condition sewer performance is thoroughly
evaluated.

2. Conduct a cumulative impact review analyzing current infrastructure constraints combined with projected new
wastewater loads.

3. Condition any eventual approval on binding,
demonstrated infrastructure improvements that protect
residential homes, streets, and nearby waters from
sewage backups.

This isn't an opposition to housing—it's a request for
responsible development that respects state environmental law and ensures public safety.

Sincerely,
Kathryn Inglin
Marina District Resident

Here are links to newsletters documenting the problems:

April 23rd 2026
https://mailchi.mp/27d76f0316e1/city-closes-pierce-st-outfall-14055492

Wed, Jan 11, 2023
https://mailchi.mp/043f27535c86/city-closes-pierce-st-outfall

4 Mon, Mar 31, 2025
https://mailchi.mp/8684f12e50b1/city-closes-pierce-st-outfall-14052929

MEMORANDUM

DATE: July 30, 2026

TO: Tiffany Lennear
Director of Commission Affairs

FROM: Hannah Young, AICP
Acting Manager, Environmental Management Group

SUBJECT: Transmittal of CEQA Addenda for the
1) Southeast Bay Outfall Islais Creek Crossing Bypass
Service Life Extension Project and for the
2) Sunset Supply Pipeline Erosion Repair Project

Please transmit the document links below to the Commissioners and City Attorney Sheryl Bregman.

The San Francisco Planning Department published the Addendum for the SFPUC’s Southeast Bay Outfall Islais Creek Crossing Bypass Service Life Extension Project.
https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/public/share/web-
s18efb5ffb8124118a4e42177cf2a15b6

The San Francisco Planning Department also published the Addendum for the SFPUC’s Sunset Supply Pipeline Erosion Repair Project at San Mateo Creek.
https://sfpuc.sharefile.com/public/share/web-
sc78eec44705f4a0b9a60db31bd350dde

These documents are also available on the Planning Department’s website at https://sfplanning.org/sfceqadocs

cc: Kelly Yong, Environmental Project Manager, SFPUC
Calvin Huey, Senior Project Manager, SFPUC
Joey Yan, Project Manager, SFPUC
Hannah Young, Senior Environmental Project Manager, SFPUC Anna Lam, Project Manager, SFPUC

Re: Formal Notice – Alleged Participation and Complicity by Affiliated Bay Area and Los Angeles Area Governmental Entities, Their Employees, Officials, and Affiliated Entities in a Multi-State Criminal Enterprise
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
2 This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Report Suspicious

https://photos.app.goo.gl/xzQEporfV9b5MvqM7

1780 Aeroplaza Dr, Colorado Springs, CO 80916

Get Outlook for Android

August 1, 2026
Jair D. Hernandez CEO and Founder 4P LLC (DBA JAIR 4P LLC) and Ultra Brogito LLC 1500 N Grant St #4186, Denver, CO 80203 Mailing Address: 16192 Coastal Highway, Lewes, DE 19958 Email:
[email protected]
City and County of San Francisco San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) City College of San Francisco (CCSF) San Francisco Housing Authority Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District City of Walnut Creek Contra Costa County Contra Costa Community College District Walnut Creek School District Acalanes Union High School District East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) East Bay Regional Park District Oakland Unified School District City of Oakland City of Berkeley Berkeley Unified School District Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) San Mateo County Community College District City of Los Angeles Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) Los Angeles County Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Port of Los Angeles (Harbor Department) Port of Long Beach City of Long Beach Long Beach Unified School District City of Santa Monica Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA) Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport 4 Authority City of Glendale Glendale Water & Power City of Pasadena Pasadena Water & Power City of Beverly Hills
And Other Affiliated Bay Area and Los Angeles Area Governmental Entities Re: Formal Notice – Alleged Participation and Complicity by the City and County of San Francisco, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD), City College of San Francisco (CCSF), San Francisco Housing Authority, Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART), Golden Gate Bridge Highway & Transportation District, City of Walnut Creek, Contra Costa County, Contra Costa Community College District, Walnut Creek School District, Acalanes Union High School District, East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), East Bay Regional Park District, Oakland Unified School District, City of Oakland, City of Berkeley, Berkeley Unified School District, Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (Caltrain), San Mateo County Community College District, City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD), Los Angeles County, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Port of Los Angeles (Harbor Department), Port of Long Beach, City of Long Beach, Long Beach Unified School District, City of Santa Monica, Santa Monica- Malibu Unified School District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA), Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority, City of Glendale, Glendale Water & Power, City of Pasadena, Pasadena Water & Power, City of Beverly Hills, and Other Affiliated Bay Area and Los Angeles Area Governmental Entities, Their Employees, Officials, and Affiliated Entities in a Multi-State Criminal Enterprise Involving Bio-Hazard Retaliation, Hate Crimes, Fraud on Courts, Obstruction of Federal Law Enforcement, Color of Law Violations, Device Hacking, Psychiatric Abuse, and Related Predicate Acts – Previously Reported in FBI Hate Crime Reports, IRS/SEC Whistleblower Reports, and Reports to DHS, ICE, State Department, Department of War, U.S. Army Counterintelligence, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, and CIA – Demand for Immediate Investigation, Record Preservation, and Full Cooperation with Federal Authorities
Dear Mayors, Boards of Supervisors, Superintendents, General Managers, and Legal Departments:

I am the victim of a coordinated multi-state criminal enterprise that has operated since 2018, with the violations originating in Texas in 2024 and significant escalation in Colorado since April 13, 2026. This enterprise has engaged in device hacking, low-audio psychological coercion, bio-hazard retaliation through the intentional introduction of human and animal waste into rooms and facilities via air conditioning units and ventilation systems, hate crimes, false criminal accusations, sexual harassment, obstruction of communications with federal agencies, voter intimidation, and psychiatric abuse.

Participation and Complicity of the Identified Entities The governmental entities listed above, their employees, officials, and affiliated entities have participated in or enabled this criminal enterprise. This includes obstructing federal law enforcement investigations, facilitating or failing to correct fraudulent documentation, interfering with the victim’s ability to pursue legal claims against the State of Texas and other entities, and enabling ongoing hate crimes, cyber intrusions, environmental violations, and psychiatric abuse. 5 Not all affiliated Bay Area and Los Angeles Area governmental entities that may be involved or connected to this enterprise are necessarily listed in this notice. Additional entities may be identified and noticed as further information is developed.

The pattern of conduct previously documented in Texas has been facilitated and extended by networks connected to these entities.

Specific Violations and Applicable Legal Framework
The following predicate acts have been committed or enabled by the criminal enterprise with the participation or complicity of the identified entities. These crimes have been previously reported in FBI Hate Crime Reports, IRS and SEC Whistleblower Reports, and reports submitted to DHS, ICE, U.S.

Department of State, Department of War, U.S. Army Counterintelligence, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, and CIA.

Specific violations include:
 RICO and Conspiracy: Pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962; conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. See Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549 (2000).
 Conspiracy Against Rights and Color of Law: 18 U.S.C. § 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242.  Computer Fraud and Abuse: 18 U.S.C. § 1030.
 Obstruction of Justice and Witness Tampering: 18 U.S.C. § 1505 and 18 U.S.C. § 1512.  Hate Crimes: 18 U.S.C. § 245 and 18 U.S.C. § 249; 42 U.S.C. § 2000d (Title VI).  Bio-hazard Retaliation and Environmental Crimes: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq., and Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.  Theft of Trade Secrets and Economic Espionage: 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831–1832.  Fraud on the Court across multiple jurisdictions.
 Fruit of the Poisonous Tree: Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) and progeny.  Institutional Liability: Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (1978).  Psychiatric abuse as part of the coordinated enterprise.

Not all violations committed by the criminal enterprise and its participants are listed herein.

Additional predicate acts and violations continue to be identified and reported to the appropriate federal authorities.

Demand for Action
The identified entities are requested to:

1. Conduct a full internal investigation into all departments, employees, officials, systems, and operations involved in or complicit with the criminal enterprise.

2. Preserve all records, communications, surveillance footage, and documents related to the victim’s interactions and reports.

3. Fully cooperate with the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, FBI, DHS, ICE, EPA, and other federal agencies.

4. Refer all criminal aspects for prosecution.
6 Failure to take the actions requested herein will be documented for the record and will support additional civil claims, including treble damages under RICO.

No Precedent Clause Any settlement, payment, resolution, or enforcement action involving any of the identified entities or any affiliated entity shall not create a legal precedent, estoppel, waiver, or limitation on claims, damages, or awards against any other defendants or responsible parties in this matter or in related proceedings. Failure to take appropriate action will be documented and may increase potential exposure. Damages, including interest, will be assessed in court. All prior formal notices and demands previously submitted regarding this criminal enterprise remain in full force and effect.

This submission is made under penalty of perjury. The information contained herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I am prepared to provide additional evidence and documentation upon request.

Best,
Jair

Jair D. Hernandez
CEO and Founder
4P LLC and Ultra Brogito LLC
1500 N Grant St. #4186
Denver, CO 80203
: 302-200-9650 |깳깶깷깴깵깸: 310-579-2982
艒: 4P, LLC | X: @jair4pllc

The entire content of this email message is confidential. This also applies to any files attached to it. This email is intended for an individual or entity to whom they are addressed. In case you are not the addressee of this email, and you have received it in error, immediately contact the system manager. The information in this email is very sensitive, and it is intended for the specific addressee.

This email should not be disseminated, distributed or copied. If you have received this email and it was not for you, make sure to immediately notify the sender by email and afterwards delete this email from your system. Disclosing, copying, distributing, or taking any action in reliance to the email content is strictly prohibited. Consider yourself notified.

1 From: Susan Rivlin <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2026 7:52 PM
To: [email protected]; Board of Supervisors (BOS); Sherrill, Stephen (BOS); Commission; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; SFPUC Citizens' Advisory Committee; Chan, Connie (BOS); Wong, Alan (BOS); Sauter, Danny (BOS); Mahmood, Bilal (BOS); Dorsey, Matt (BOS); Melgar, Myrna (BOS); Mandelman, Rafael (BOS); Fielder, Jackie (BOS); Walton, Shamann (BOS); Chen, Chyanne (BOS); Ethics Commission, (ETH); [email protected]; [email protected]; DBICUSTOMERSERVICE, DBI (DBI); [email protected]; EHS DPH (DPH); Ashley Wessinger; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject:

Request to Delay Approval of Safeway Development Pending Sewer Infrastructure Remediation
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Report Suspicious I am writing as a resident/community member regarding the proposed Safeway redevelopment project in the Marina District.

Increasing density and wastewater load on a system already experiencing overflow conditions raises serious concerns regarding compliance with CEQA and applicable health and safety standards.

In addition, the Laguna outfall currently discharges into a proposed recreational water activities. Where system performance during storm events results in overflow or discharge conditions, the potential for impacts to recreational waters and public exposure may warrant further evaluation. This is particularly relevant in the context of environmental review and interagency coordination. 2 Accordingly, I respectfully request that:

Approval of the proposed Safeway development be delayed until sewer system performance during storm conditions can be fully evaluated.

A comprehensive review be conducted of cumulative impacts related to existing infrastructure limitations and projected increases in wastewater load.

This request is not an opposition to development, but a request that development proceed in a manner consistent with environmental review requirements and established health and safety standards.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Susan Eschweiler

Please review all newsletters

April 23rd 2026
https://mailchi.mp/27d76f0316e1/city-closes-pierce-st-outfall-14055492

Wed, Jan 11, 2023
https://mailchi.mp/043f27535c86/city-closes-pierce-st-outfall

Mon, Mar 31, 2025
https://mailchi.mp/8684f12e50b1/city-closes-pierce-st-outfall-14052929

Susan M. Eschweiler
1 From: Jennifer M. Land <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 6, 2026 10:00 AM
To: 'Robert Frobose'; '[email protected]'; 'Michael Frantz'; 'Glenn Spyksma' Cc: 'Mike Weststeyn'; '[email protected]'; 'Joe Alamo'; [email protected]; Jimi Netniss; 'Angela Cartisano'; 'Laura Isleib'; Herrera, Dennis J; Lennear, Tiffany; Ram, Jannie; Feitelberg, Brittany K; Flynn, Ronald P; Aguas, Valerie; Brad A. Koehn; Ashley Millsap; Peter Rietkerk; 'Danielle Barney'; '[email protected]'; Arthur Godwin; Valerie Kincaid; 'Mia Brown'; Bill Paris; WHIPPS, NICHOLAS (CAT) Subject: SJTA Commission Regular Meeting Agenda Packet - August 10 at 10 a.m.

Attachments: 081026 SJTA Commission Meeting Agenda Packet.pdf; 081026 SJTA Meeting Agenda_For Posting.pdf
Importance: High
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Report Suspicious Good morning Commissioners,
Attached please find the agenda packet for the upcoming regular meeting of the SJTA Commission scheduled for Monday, August 10 at 10:00 a.m.

PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING, AS ALL COMMISSIONERS AND THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR WILL BE PARTICIPATING REMOTELY:
 The TID Board Room will remain open and accessible for any public attendance  Commissioners should have received an email from “TID Board Host” on Tuesday, August 4 with a Zoom link to access the meeting
 Commissioners are required to post the agenda at their remote teleconference locations within 72 hours of the meeting
 The remote teleconference locations must be open and accessible to the public  During roll call, I will announce the following:
o Commissioners are participating remotely from the teleconference locations described on the agenda
o Ask each Commissioner to confirm that the agenda has been posted at their remote teleconference locations in accordance with the applicable laws o Ask each Commissioner to verify whether any members of the public are present at their remote teleconference locations
 Any actions taken during the meeting will need to be voted upon by a roll call vote (including motions)
Lastly, there is no memo for closed session matters – a verbal update will be provided during the meeting.

Please let me know if you have any questions or if I can be of any assistance. 2 Thank you,

Jennifer Land
Board & Administrative Services Manager
Turlock Irrigation District | 333 East Canal Drive | P.O. Box 949 |Turlock, CA 95381 Direct: (209) 883-8353
[email protected] | www.TID.org

1 From: Lourdes Enriquez <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 7, 2026 1:58 PM
To: BAWSCA WMR
Cc: Smegal, Tom; Deborah Grimes; Sandra Johnson
Subject: Notice of Meeting Cancellation - BAWSCA August 12, 2026 BPC Meeting Attachments: 26_BPC_August12_Notice of Cancellation BPC Meeting.pdf; 26_BPC_August12_CEO Letter_FINAL.pdf; 26_BPC_August12_Correspondence Packet_FINAL.pdf This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Report Suspicious This email transmits a Notice of Meeting Cancellation for the August 12, 2026 BAWSCA Board Policy Committee (BPC) Meeting.

Attached, and in live links, are the CEO Letter and Correspondence packet, both of which have been provided to the BAWSCA Board and are posted on the BAWSCA website.

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 CANCELLATION
of the

BOARD POLICY COMMITTEE MEETING

The regular meeting of the BAWSCA Board Policy Committee scheduled for August 12, 2026 at 1:30 p.m.
is CANCELLED.

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

August 12, 2026

155 Bovet Road, Suite 650
San Mateo, California 94402
(650) 349-3000 tel. (650) 349-8395 fax

MEMORANDUM
TO: BAWSCA Board of Directors
FROM: Tom Smegal, CEO/General Manager
DATE: August 7, 2026
SUBJECT: Chief Executive Officer/General Manager’s Letter Introduction and Conversation with County of San Mateo Department of Emergency Management (SMCEM)
BAWSCA staff and member agency Water Management Representatives met on August 6, 2026 at SMCEM’s Emergency Operations Center where a presentation was provided by Shruti Dhapodkar, San Mateo County’s Director of the Department of Emergency Management. The purpose of the presentation and discussion which followed was to explore ways to better coordinate emergency preparedness and response between the County and water providers. Approximately 50 member agency staff members were in attendance including SFPUC representatives and SMCEM staff.

Dr. Dhapodkar detailed the SMCEM’s work and attendees engaged in a vigorous discussion about actions and frameworks which might be put in place to improve emergency planning and response coordination. The discussion aligns with BAWSCA’s work on Strategy 2050 on emergency resilience which was presented to the board in July.

Follow-up discussions between SMCEM and BAWSCA staff will take place in the coming months. A part of that engagement will focus on if and how BAWSCA and its member agencies should participate in emergency exercises with the SMCEM, and whether BAWSCA or one or more of its member agencies should have a seat on the SMCEM operations team during emergencies. As it develops, coordination with San Mateo County can provide a template for work with Alameda and Santa Clara Counties in the future.

BAWSCA’s Landscape Education Program – FY 2025-26 Wrap-Up As part of BAWSCA’s subscription conservation program made available to interested member agencies, BAWSCA offers a Landscape Education Program. This program includes a series of webinar lecture classes that are 1 to 1.5 hours long and in-person lecture classes and hands-on workshops that are 2 to 3 hours long, all of which are offered free of charge to residents and professional landscaping service providers within the BAWSCA service area. The Landscape Education Program introduces attendees to the concepts of water-efficient landscaping using California native and drought-tolerant plants and water- efficient irrigation system design, operation, and maintenance.

The last of the classes scheduled for Spring 2026 was held on Sunday August 2, 2026. BAWSCA hosted 30 lectures/workshops with roughly 700 total attendees. The most popular topics included Efficient Irrigation & Tree Care, Gardening with Succulents, Water-Efficient Landscape Design, and Edible

August 12, 2026
Gardening. BAWSCA is currently creating the next schedule for Fall 2026. Each offering will be posted on the BAWSCA website once finalized.

Coastside County Water District’s Ribbon Cutting Ceremony On Wednesday July 29, 2026, Tom Francis, BAWSCA’s Water Resources Manager, attended CCWD’s Ribbon Cutting Ceremony celebrating the completion of the Half Moon Bay Prestressed Concrete Tank and Seismic Upgrades Project. Approximately 50 people attended the ceremony. Attendees included local elected officials, including the Mayor of Half Moon Bay as well as a representative of Congressman Kevin Mullin.

# # #
August 12, 2026

BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY

BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
August 7, 2026
Correspondence and media coverage of interest between July 22, 2026 and August 7, 2026

From: Peter Drekmeier, Yosemite Rivers Alliance, Policy Director To: Chair Vella and members of the BAWSCA Board of Directors Date: July 31, 2026
Subject: SFPUC Side Agreement with the Irrigation Districts

Water Supply Conditions:

Date: July 23, 2026
Source: Inside Climate News
Article: Global warming unmakes winter in the West

Water Infrastructure:

Date: August 5, 2026
Source: The Conversation
Article: How hackers attack municipal water systems – and why the utilities are so vulnerable

Date: July 27, 2026
Source: SF Gate
Article: Regional: 10-Year Deadline For Cleaner Wastewater Extended

Water Supply Management
Date: August 7, 2026
Source: Department of Water Resources
Article: California begins a new era of water planning

Date: July 28, 2026
Source: Stanford Report
Article: Improving water affordability for low-income residents

Date: July 22, 2026
Source: CBS Sacramento
Article: As AI expands, California communities debate new data center projects

Water Policy:

Date: July 27, 2026
Source: Public Policy Institute of California
Article: An Exclusive Interview with Outgoing DWR Director Karla Nemeth

(This page was intentionally left blank)
July 31, 2026

Chair Louis Vella and Board Members
Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
[email protected]

Re: SFPUC Side Agreement with the Irrigation Districts

Dear Chair Vella and Board Members:

At your July 16 Board meeting, Steve Ritchie referred to a side agreement the SFPUC signed with the Irrigation Districts back in the 1990s. I’m attaching a copy of that agreement.

You’ll see that the seventh point in the agreement states:

“The City agrees to support the Districts’ negotiating position regarding volumes of water to be provided for fish flows during the FERC mediation process and during any proceedings before FERC relating to that fish flow issue.”

The Bay Delta Water Quality Control Plan is conjoined with the current FERC proceedings because the State Water Board intends to include the Bay Delta Plan (or the Tuolumne River Voluntary Agreement) in the Water Quality Certification that will be incorporated into the licenses for Don Pedro and La Grange Dams.

When the draft document for Phase 1 of the Bay Delta Plan was released in 2016, The SFPUC couldn’t just come out and say they were opposing the Plan because they had committed to following the Irrigation Districts’ lead on fish flows, so they had to manufacture a more compelling argument. A month after the draft Bay Delta Plan was released, the General Managers of the SFPUC and BAWSCA had an OpEd published in the SF Chronicle1 that stated:

“Our initial economic analysis of the first iteration of this plan forecast up to 51 percent rationing, resulting in 140,000 to 188,000 jobs lost in the Bay Area. These same forecasts also

1 San Francisco to state on water-use cutbacks: How low can we go?, San Francisco Chronicle, October 7, 2016 –
https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/article/San-Francisco-to-state-on- water-use-cutbacks-How-9940351.php

show between $37 billion and $49 billion in decreased sales transactions.”

We were shocked to read this, because just two years earlier we had been invited to review a socioeconomic impact report the SFPUC had commissioned. The projected jobs and economic losses were 2.5 times lower than what were cited in the OpEd, and this didn’t take into consideration major flaws we identified in the 2014 report.

When asked about the disparity, SFPUC staff claimed the 2014 study was just a draft, so they cited the results of the 2009 study, which had been “finalized.” The truth is that the 2009 study had been rushed to meet a deadline for an Administrative Law Judge hearing, and following its release, the very same author (David Sunding of the Brattle Group) began a five-year process to flesh out his work and produce the 2014 “draft study.”

In other words, the 2009 study was a very rough draft and the 2014 study was a final draft. You’ll see below that very little changed from the 2014 draft to the final report in 2018. Despite this, the SFPUC never corrected the record.

The table below shows the projections from the three reports and the OpEd. You’ll see that the OpEd figures were almost exactly the same as those in the 2009 study. The 2014 study was finalized in 2018, and the figures changed very little.

It’s been great to see BAWSCA Directors questioning the SFPUC at recent meetings. We have multiple examples of them disseminating disinformation, and encourage you to keep digging deeper into their narrative. We can help you identify issues that need attention. Please take advantage of the history, facts and analysis we can bring to the table.

Sincerely,

Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director

(This page was intentionally left blank)

INSIDE CLIMATE NEWS: Global warming unmakes winter in the West Inside Climate News | July 23, 2026 | Bob Berwyn

A new climate attribution study shows that heating from greenhouse gases could drive extreme snow droughts in the region every third year by 2050.

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

For millions of people across the American West who rely on water from winter storms to sustain farms, towns and industries, last winter became an agonizing vigil for snow that seldom came.

What little snow did fall melted much too quickly, leading to the worst snow drought on record for nearly the entire mountain backbone of the region, from northern Montana to the Sierra Nevada and the Cascades, through Wyoming, Nevada, Colorado and Utah, and into New Mexico and Arizona. It disrupted daily life and caused economic hardships, dried up streams, left reservoirs depleted and primed forests and grasslands to burn in wildfires.

And if the planet continues warming at the current pace, a snow drought as severe and widespread as last winter’s could occur every third year by 2050, and nine out of 10 years by the end of the century, said a team of researchers from Montana, Wyoming and Colorado who analyzed how human-caused warming of the climate system influenced the drought.

Their extreme event attribution study, published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that global warming has already made such a drought about four times more likely today than in a climate without industrial fossil fuel emissions.

As dry and especially warm conditions persisted for months, uneasiness spread through mountain ski towns and ranching communities. Fearing the summer—and years—ahead, “scientists, the recreation industry, and the press asked whether the low snow anomaly was attributable to climate change,” the authors wrote in the paper.

It became apparent that the 2025-2026 snow drought would make a compelling case study for extreme-event attribution research, said lead author Adrienne Marshall, an assistant professor and hydrologist at the Colorado School of Mines.

The findings have serious implications for state and federal agencies managing water and other natural resources. The study found that global warming made such an extreme snow drought about 14 times more likely in the Upper Colorado River Basin, where accumulated snow usually melts slowly into the summer, providing water to river ecosystems, orchards and power plants thousands of miles away in the deserts of the Southwest.

Marshall said it was a ”gut punch” when the study showed how much more frequent extreme snow droughts will likely be if greenhouse gas emissions aren’t reduced. It really hit home, she added, when she went on a spring snowpack survey to several high-altitude measuring sites at Hidden Valley and Trail Ridge Road in Colorado’s Rocky Mountain National Park.

“There was just so much bare ground where there should have been snow,” she said. “It was really striking, and it brought home what we were seeing in the analysis.”

widespread across the Northern Hemisphere. Credit: Rutgers Global Snow Lab

Recent progress in climate modeling bolstered their confidence in the results, she said.

In particular, co-author Stefan Rahimi, an assistant professor of computing and atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming, used a new generation of high-resolution Earth system models that simulate the atmosphere and mountains at a resolution fine enough to capture rugged terrain where snowfall and the accumulation of frozen precipitation can vary dramatically over short distances.

At the heart of the effort was a high-resolution physics-based snow data set for the Western U.S., which took him four years to compile, even with some time on the University of Wyoming-based Derecho supercomputer, a flagship system for climate modeling and a partnership between the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the National Science Foundation.

Simply running climate models at higher resolution without improving how well they represent the underlying physics is a bit like doing a jigsaw puzzle with more pieces, but many of them are blank or blurry. For an attribution study on a snow drought, those pieces have to be filled with detailed information on how mountains shape storms, how snow collects and how it melts. Without that, finer- scale simulations are a “fool’s errand,” he said.

Co-author Marianne Cowherd, a climate and Earth scientist and assistant professor at Montana State University, said she used to mainly think of snow as a transportation headache, and a source for school snow days, having grown up in Michigan. When she moved to California, she came to see mountain snow as stored water, a shift in perspective that made snow a compelling way to study climate change.

The snow drought started unfolding even as the winter seemed about normal at first, she said, with only slightly below average precipitation in the Northern Rockies. The problem was persistent warmth.

Every major river basin in the West experienced either its warmest or second-warmest winter on record, according to federal agencies. Often, rain fell instead of snow even at elevations higher than 8,000 feet above sea level, where winter rain is historically rare. It evaporated into the warm air, slowly at first, and then all at once when the region was blistered by a March heatwave that left some snow- measuring sites snow-free in early April, when the snow should be at its deepest.

Around Bozeman, people were shocked by early ski area closures and started worrying much sooner than usual about dry forest fuels and the wildfire danger. What struck Cowherd the most was when “people around town started thinking farther ahead than they normally would, and connecting poor snowpack with fire, water and the rest of the climate system,” she said.

One of Cowherd’s contributions to the research was developing ways to define and categorize snow droughts in measurable terms, for example by the total water content stored in the regional snowpack in spring, when supplies for the summer season are assessed.

If extreme snow droughts happen frequently by the end of the century, she added, “We may need to reexamine how we’re defining drought, and even what we intuitively mean by a drought. Is it about an expectation? Is it about supply?”

Among people who spend a lot of time thinking about climate change and studying climate models, “there’s this sense that you just know that certain trends that you see must be driven by climate change,” she said. But a statistical evaluation, considering whether climate change is a factor, or whether an event would have happened without warming, “is a much more rigorous type of question,” she said.

“I think the most surprising thing was just how much the Upper Colorado stood out as being just quite scary,” she said. As the study began, she focused on how unusual it was that so many places were experiencing snow shortages simultaneously. “And then this project really showed me how much worse it was in the Upper Colorado than in any other part of the West.”

# # #
How hackers attack municipal water systems – and why the utilities are so vulnerable The Conversation | August 5, 2026 | William Akoto, American University School of International Service

Hackers tried to break into at least 30 municipal water systems in Minnesota on July 26-27, 2026. Since then, Michigan and five other states have reported similar cyberattacks.

The attackers did not try to infiltrate the computers that utility offices use. Instead, they tried to seize control of small computers in equipment like pumps and valves that deliver drinking water to millions of people.

The utilities countered the attacks by shutting down the control computers and sending personnel out into the field to operate equipment manually. Utility officials have said that water remained safe to drink.

As a scholar who researches cyber conflict, I find that the methods used in these incidents are typical of international cyberattacks. Initial suspicion has fallen on hackers allegedly aligned with Iran, but the U.S. government has yet to attribute the attack to anyone.

How can someone from far away seize control of a water system and possibly shut off the flow or taint the water?

Controlling the water machinery
There are about 152,000 public drinking water systems in the United States, according to the federal government. A municipality gets its water from lakes, reservoirs, rivers or underground aquifers.

Pumps move water through pipes to a treatment plant that filters and disinfects it. More pumps push the treated water into storage tanks, then through distribution pipes to homes and businesses. The entire system can span many square miles.

Small computers control numerous pumps and other equipment involved in moving and treating drinking water, from source to consumer. Taloma et al, CC BY

The hackers accessed small computers called programmable logic controllers at the water systems that operate all sorts of industrial equipment. The programmable logic controllers read sensors that measure conditions such as water pressure, water chemistry, tank levels and equipment status, and automatically operate pumps, valves and alarms. A household thermostat is a useful comparison: It reads the temperature and tells the heating or cooling system what to do.

The programmable logic controllers also transmit operational data to a utility’s central computer system. Workers use dashboards to monitor the information and send commands back to the controllers. The two-way communications can travel through wired networks, over radio or cellular links, or through internet connections.

Many utilities operate with small staffs, so remote connections allow an employee to monitor a distant pump or tank, receive an alarm after hours or let a vendor diagnose equipment without traveling to every site.

Controllers that use the internet may access it directly, or go through protective firewalls, secure gateways or virtual private networks. Direct access is more vulnerable because there are fewer defensive barriers. A hacker can find a controller by scanning the internet and finding its Internet Protocol, or IP , address, then try a weak or stolen password or exploit a known security flaw.

To reach a controller through a secure gateway or encrypted service, a hacker would have to steal remote-access credentials, or break into the gateway or private network, or get control of an operator’s workstation. The hacker could then use that foothold to reach the controller.

Attempted access can also be part of an intruder’s longer-term strategy to collect information, test defenses or establish entry for a later date.

How an attack works
Attacks on industrial control systems often follow a familiar sequence. Infiltration often begins with a quiet search for access. Attackers scan internet addresses for controllers, dashboards and outside companies that provide remote access services, looking for targets that are linked directly to the internet.

Next, the attacker looks for a default or stolen password to log in, an unpatched vulnerability or a misconfigured remote-access service. Sophisticated malware is not always necessary: In 2023, U.S. officials reported that Iranian-linked hackers targeted internet-connected Unitronics programmable logic controllers used by water utilities. Some utilities were still using the manufacturer’s default password, according to the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

Finally, the attacker exploits the access they have gained. This could mean changing a password, issuing commands or attempting to alter the controller’s software. Researchers at the National Institute of Standards and Technology note that an intruder could replace legitimate control instructions with malicious commands. An attacker could also sneak into an office computer through phishing, then access the controller network.

Industrial equipment in service for decades is extremely vulnerable because it may not support modern security features, and utilities may delay updates because they want to avoid interrupting operations.

Reports thus far indicate that hackers accessed the Minnesota water systems through controllers that communicate over the internet directly. A July 30 FBI and Environmental Protection Agency advisory stated that attackers remotely accessed Rockwell Automation MicroLogix programmable logic controllers that were connected directly to the internet, and changed their IP addresses and passwords.

Defensive moves that utilities can take
The most immediate step that utilities can take to protect themselves is to remove controllers and human dashboards from direct connection to the internet. Following the Minnesota attacks, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency urged water utilities to place this equipment behind properly configured firewalls and other safeguards.

When remote access is necessary, utilities should route communications through a secure gateway or VPN, require multiple levels of authentication, and limit how much access each user has. Utilities should change default passwords, disable unused remote-access services and install vendor-approved updates to connected equipment.

In their guidance on internet-exposed dashboards, the cybersecurity agency also recommends separating operational networks from email and other business systems. This measure makes it harder for attackers to move between the two systems.

Finally, utilities should back up controller programs, log remote-access activity and practice restoring systems and operating manually.

A matter of resources
Rural water utilities with limited resources are a significant vulnerability in the United States’ critical infrastructure.

A group of volunteer cybersecurity experts is providing guidance to water utilities, but their reach is limited. Smaller utilities may need government funding or shared cybersecurity services to be able to defend themselves.The Conversation

William Akoto, Assistant Professor of Global Security, American University School of International Service

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

# # #
Regional: 10-Year Deadline For Cleaner Wastewater Extended By Water Board For Certain Projects
SF Gate | July 27, 2026 | Bay City News Service

Ray Saint Germain/Ray Saint Germain/Bay City News

Two years ago, the Bay Area's 40 publicly owned wastewater treatment agencies got some hard news. They had 10 years to upgrade their facilities to reduce pollutants entering the bay by 40%, at an estimated cost of $11 billion.

At a Thursday meeting of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, a pathway was initiated for certain projects to get a deadline extension, if they qualify and are moving as quickly as possible.

The 2034 deadline was established when the water board tightened the rules for issuing the permit required to discharge treated effluent into Bay Area waters. The move was in response to massive fish kills in 2022 and 2023 caused by consecutive algae blooms.

"What we learned in 2022 is that it spread throughout San Francisco Bay because of the nutrients," said Eileen White, executive officer for the board. "It was like a buffet for the harmful algal blooms. The algae was eating it up."

The bloom used nearly all the nitrogen available in the water, said Kevin Lunde, senior environmental scientist with the board. "It resulted in extremely low dissolved oxygen levels," he said. "Tens of thousands of fish were killed."

White said that the California Water Quality Control Board has a statewide policy that allows for compliance in 10 years.

"What we're doing with this amendment is basically a little carve-out in the San Francisco Bay Water Board Basin Plan," White said. The carve out includes a five-year extension for special projects in the nine counties covered by the Bay Area plan that provide enhanced environmental benefits.

Special projects include nature-based solutions, like building levees or wetlands adjacent to wastewater facilities that absorb the pollutants from treated effluent before it reaches the Bay while enhancing flood protection. Other qualifying projects include recycled water plants that send treated water to another user before discharging it, and innovative technologies that need additional time for pilot testing but have enhanced environmental benefits such as reduced energy and chemical usage or sludge production.

The extensions are also being provided to conventional biological treatment facilities and ones that already fall below the regulatory nutrient limit, as well as the Union Sanitary District in Union City, which was constructing a nutrient reduction project two years before the 2024 permit change.

"We are concerned that the board is allowing too many projects to qualify for its proposed expansion," said Jon Rosenfield, science director with San Francisco Baykeeper, an environmental nonprofit that focuses on the San Francisco Bay watershed.

Rosenfield said in an email that science indicates the 10-year pollution limits are probably too weak to protect the Bay from more harmful algae blooms.

"Fifteen years is too long, the Bay needed better protections from wastewater pollution years ago," he said. "The exceptions are too broad -- all infrastructure upgrades to treatment plants are unique and challenging. The Board should be driving the urgency and innovation by requiring implementation of solutions within 10 years."

Lunde said in Thursday's meeting that some projects, like nature-based solutions and water recycling, might take more than 10 years to complete.

The Regional Water Quality Control Plant in Palo Alto reached a milestone in December with the construction of a pilot horizontal levee. That project began in 2018 and cost $7 million. The levee will only absorb 100,000 gallons of water out of the 20 million gallons of wastewater treated at the plant each day.

Treasure Island's recycling facility won a prestigious award in 2025 at a cost of $165 million. In March, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission General Manager Dennis Herrera said in a statement that San Francisco plans to invest $2.36 billion over the next 20 years to upgrade its wastewater collection and treatment system.

White said Thursday that the board would have the authority to grant the extra time for certain qualifying projects if the Basin Plan amendment is approved by the state Water Quality Control Board, the California Office of Administrative Law and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

"Even if they are doing one of these qualifying projects, it doesn't grant them more time," White said." They must be moving as quickly as possible. If they still can't get it done in 10 years, we can give them an extension without going the enforcement route."

# # #

(This page was intentionally left blank)
California begins a new era of water planning
Department of Water Resources | August 7, 2026 | Department of Water Resources

The California Water Plan is the state’s long-range strategic roadmap for managing water resources. Updated every five years, it helps guide decisions by state, regional, and local water managers. Development is now underway for California Water Plan (CWP) 2028, the first under a new planning approach established by Senate Bill 72 (Chapter 210, Statutes of 2025).

Initial public engagement efforts and early technical work are laying the foundation for a more actionable CWP that will help guide water decisions for years to come. During the first meetings of the CWP Advisory Committee, Tribal Advisory Committee, State Agency Team, and Technical Working Group, participants shared their insights and concerns. DWR will use this information to develop the most significant modernization of the CWP in decades. Early feedback is helping refine technical priorities, shape future engagement, and focus the conversations that will guide implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 72.

Early Input Highlights Needs
At the inaugural Advisory Committee meeting held in May 2026, committee members emphasized the need for transparent technical analysis, stronger coordination across agencies, and clear public communication. They identified groundwater recharge, new water storage, conservation, and recycling as some of the most promising strategies for improving California’s long-term water resilience. Members also requested additional discussion of the Water Evaluation Adaptation Planning-Future Scenarios (WEAP-FS) modeling framework and offered recommendations for designing regional forums that encourage meaningful local participation.

A Roadmap for Modernizing Water Planning
CWP 2028 will establish the foundation, while CWP 2033 will expand watershed-scale planning statewide and evaluate regional portfolios of projects and strategies. Input gathered at these meetings will inform a structured implementation roadmap spanning both updates.

During 2026, DWR is gathering statewide data, expanding watershed-scale models, and revising planning assumptions. This work will provide a stronger scientific foundation for evaluating future water supply challenges and identifying strategies to improve California’s long- term water reliability.

Opportunities to Participate
Engagement will continue throughout development of CWP 2028 and CWP 2033. Californians can participate through Advisory Committee meetings, regional forums, California Water Commission briefings, and topic-specific workshops. Future opportunities for members of the public to engage in the planning efforts will be shared under Public Involvement at CaliforniaWaterPlan.com.

Regional forums beginning later this year will bring together local agencies, water managers, Tribes, and interested parties, including members of the public, to discuss watershed conditions, review planning assumptions, identify regional plans and projects, and help develop strategies that reflect local priorities while supporting statewide planning.

Looking Ahead
As planning, technical work, and public engagement continue, each phase will build on the last.

DWR will continue sharing progress and incorporating input to help create a CWP grounded in sound science, informed by Californians, and focused on implementation. The next public meeting of the Advisory Committee will be held August 25 and 26, 2026, in Alhambra.

# # #

Learn More
California Water Plan Home Page
California Water Plan Roadmap Fact Sheet
Advisory Committee Meeting Materials

Improving water affordability for low-income residents
Stanford researchers are working with the City of Santa Cruz to improve assistance programs for residents who pay their water bills indirectly through rent.

Stanford Report | July 28, 2026 |

Santa Cruz, California, beach and wharf | Getty Images

In brief
• Water affordability is a growing strain, particularly for low-income households and those in multi-unit housing.
• California’s Proposition 218 limits how much utilities can subsidize lower rates, making assistance programs hard to design.
• Stanford researchers and the City of Santa Cruz have launched a program extension to reach renters who pay water bills indirectly through rent, rather than as direct customers.

Water utility assistance programs in California struggle to reach and assist many customers affected by rising rates, particularly renters and those who don’t pay water bills directly to utilities.

“Water affordability challenges are a large and increasing issue for folks, especially low-income populations. And that’s being exacerbated by aging infrastructure, climate change, and

changing funding structures to programs,” said Khalid Osman, a Stanford assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering and leader of the Osman Lab.

31% of Californians live in households at risk for water poverty.

He and Sarah Fletcher, assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering and a Center Fellow at the Woods Institute for the Environment, are collaborating with the City of Santa Cruz Water Department on a research project supported in part by Stanford’s Office of Community Engagement.

Osman brings experience from his study in East Palo Alto and Detroit that assessed residents’ perceptions of tap water quality and advocated for equitable infrastructure reform. Fletcher leads the Fletcher Lab and has collaborated with the City of Santa Cruz on water affordability since 2020. Greta Markey, a Knight-Hennessy Scholar pursuing a PhD in civil and environmental engineering and a research student at the Fletcher Lab, is leading the study.

A California-centric issue
A key factor in water affordability for California residents is the state’s Proposition 218, which requires water utilities to charge customers based on the actual cost to service them. This limits options for subsidizing lower rates for some customers through assistance programs.

“About 31% of Californians live in households with incomes considered at risk for water poverty, and in the state, about 155,000 households owed more than $1,000 in water bills as of the latest data we have,” said Osman.

Almost a quarter of the U.S. population doesn’t pay water bills directly to utilities, according to the Water Research Foundation. Rather, they pay through rent or split within multi-unit housing.

Groups paying water bills through indirect methods are considered hard-to-reach populations.

“There’s a lack of data on how these hard-to-reach populations experience water affordability challenges, and what the impact of indirect billing is,” said Markey.

The collaboration between Stanford and Santa Cruz was born out of this research gap. “If we don’t understand how renters experience water affordability,” Markey said, “we may be missing how to design customer assistance programs or effective rate structures that reach folks who need this help most.”

Customer assistance program extension
Water utilities’ customer assistance programs (CAPs) have emerged in California over the past five years as infrastructure upgrades for climate resiliency and state requirements have caused prices to increase substantially.

The Santa Cruz Municipal Utilities Customer Assistance Program has a single-family CAP accessible for residents who either own their home or are renters with the water bill in their name. Recently, a CAP extension was launched that expands the program for multi-family customers.

Multi-family CAPs are difficult to implement due to a lack of available research and population accessibility challenges; hence, only a few exist nationwide. But those working to address the challenge are hopeful.

“We are venturing into uncharted territory,” said Megan Bunch, a program analyst at the Santa Cruz Water Department and a coordinator of the Santa Cruz Municipal Utilities CAP. “Analyzing data from this project will give us a better ability to evaluate success.”

A thirst for knowledge
After conducting focus groups with landlords, property managers, and tenants to gather their perspectives on water affordability and bill routing, researchers designed surveys based on the results. Long term, the results will help both Stanford and Santa Cruz better understand what water affordability looks like for hard-to-reach populations.

“I care deeply about bridging community science with engineering and infrastructure design,” Markey said. “So, being able to do this qualitative community-engaged work that supports technical modeling is exactly what I want to be doing with my research: showing that engineering is primarily people-focused.”

The CAP extension could also set an important precedent, Bunch said. “If we can get this off the ground and show success, then it could be a template for other utilities to move forward with developing this kind of program and expanding the reach of support beyond those who are account holders to multi-family tenants.”

# # #

For more information
Stanford’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering is a joint department of the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability and the School of Engineering.

(This page was intentionally left blank)
As AI expands, California communities debate new data center projects CBS Sacramento | July 22, 2026 | Darrielle Fair

As California races to build the infrastructure needed to power artificial intelligence, communities across the state are increasingly weighing whether they want data centers in their own backyards.

The rapid expansion of AI has fueled demand for new data centers, prompting local governments to consider proposals from developers while lawmakers debate how the facilities should be regulated.

Some cities are embracing the projects. Others are putting the decision directly in the hands of voters.

Last month, voters in Monterey Park overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure prohibiting the development of new data centers within city limits. More than 86% voted in favor of the ban.

In Calistoga, residents recently voiced concerns during public meetings over the possibility of data centers being built on the Napa County Fairgrounds.

Gov. Gavin Newsom said he believes those decisions should remain with local governments.

"I believe localism is determinative," Newsom said. "It's a local planning decision, and I think that's appropriate."

At the same time, Newsom said major technology companies should help pay for the infrastructure needed to support their operations.

"You're Microsoft. You can afford to make those contributions. You're Google. You can afford to make those contributions," he said.

Data centers, which store and process the massive amounts of information used by AI systems, have drawn criticism for their high electricity and water demands, as well as concerns over noise and environmental impacts.

While data centers have operated in California for decades, the AI boom has accelerated interest in building new facilities across the state.

CBS News Sacramento reached out to several data center operators about their water and energy use. Most declined to comment.

Paul Royere, senior vice president of finance and administration for Stockton-based Nautilus Data Technologies, said modern data centers can provide economic benefits while minimizing environmental impacts when they are built in appropriate locations.

"Built in the right areas under the existing environmental and permitting requirements, data centers are a net add to communities," Royere said.

He said facilities should be located in industrial areas with existing infrastructure rather than in residential neighborhoods or rural communities.

As development proposals continue to surface, Newsom said the California Public Utilities Commission has been tasked with developing recommendations on how the state should regulate data centers while protecting Californians from higher electricity costs.

Several bills are also moving through the California Legislature that would establish new oversight of data centers. Among the proposals are requirements for operators to publicly report monthly water and energy usage and to incorporate data centers into California's statewide water shortage planning.

# # #
An Exclusive Interview with Outgoing DWR Director Karla Nemeth Public Policy Institute of California | July 27, 2026 | Jeffrey Mount and Sarah Bardeen

California Department of Water
Resources (DWR) director Karla
Nemeth left the department last
month after nearly nine years of
service. Before she takes over as
the director of the Association of
California Water Agencies
(ACWA), we sat down with her to
talk about how DWR changed
during her tenure, what (still)
keeps her up at night, and what
advice she’d offer California’s
next governor.

Why has managing water at
DWR become so complicated?

DWR was established in 1956, after a devastating flood in northern California. World War II veterans were drafted to engineer a huge system that would deal with flooding and move a lot of water vast distances for water supply. So a very linear era with narrow objectives birthed both the State Water Project and the department. We live in a very different world today. With extreme weather and older infrastructure, both day-to-day and season-to-season management are much harder, and the cumulative damage to groundwater basins and river systems over the last 100 years is catching up with us. The stakes are just off-the-charts.

We started bringing together 300 DWR experts, supervisors, and managers for one big meeting, twice a year. Every fall we’d talk about how the water year was setting up, flood and drought risks, information gaps, and opportunities to manage better. Then every spring, we’d talk about how the water year went. When you have engineers, operators, geologists, hydrologists, and biologists all comparing notes, it can get pretty creative. Everyone starts to understand the value of managing State Water Project pumps, groundwater recharge, or floodplains for fish in real time. And we all fell in love with better forecasting—I know I did!

What are you most proud of?

I’m proud that the department became expert implementers of groundwater management. When the groundwater legislation was signed, we knew it was the most important piece of water legislation in at least a generation. It’s a huge thing to be entrusted with a brand-new program— one that needed governance, technical expertise, and regulatory decisions. There’s much more to do—groundwater management lies in its implementation—but I think DWR’s done a good job.

California Department of Water Resources Director Karla Nemeth Speaks at the Inaugural Water Resources Science
Symposium, DWR

I’m also proud of our leadership culture around multidisciplinary science. We’ve integrated not just across disciplines but across the people managing an emergency, the people doing long- term planning, and everyone in between.

We’ve also made it safer to try new things. We can and do disagree, but in the end to make progress we have to commit. Part of that involves revisiting decisions without recrimination. That gets everybody more comfortable with incremental risk-taking, because everybody’s learning and following new information as it becomes available.

What does the future hold for the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta?

I worry about the Delta all the time. It faces physical challenges with climate change and political challenges with emotions that run high. Despite years of downsizing, the tunnel project remains an unfortunate diversion from the Delta’s broader issues. I worry about levees threatened by seepage underneath them as much as overtopping. The state can and should deal with both Delta conveyance and levees. I’ve hoped for a partnership, but that’s been stalled for the last eight years. I find that heartbreaking.

What’s the future of the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project?

That also keeps me up at night. It’s nearly impossible to overstate the enmeshment of the State Water Project and the federal Central Valley Project. Deep cuts at the Bureau of Reclamation are concerning, and I’m worried that the system’s not performing as well as we’ve come to expect. We need to get as much as possible out of these projects to meet urban, agricultural, business, and environmental needs, and that will take ongoing and unprecedented cooperation.

They have always been two parallel systems. In 2010, along with many other water governance reforms, the Little Hoover Commission explored the benefits of merging them. It’s complicated, but in this age of climate and affordability pressures, enabling our system to work more efficiently and reliably may be enough to motivate us to work through the potential.

What advice would you give the next governor?

If I could sit down with the next governor, I would first urge him to become familiar with the incredibly dynamic nature of California’s hydrology and how we manage it. The organizational structures we have in place today won’t meet the water challenges we already face, much less those in the near future. We will have to evolve. Water needs are intensely local and diverse.

Listen to everyone—but challenge them to be part of a vision for the whole state.

Second, get behind the backbone infrastructure projects: large-scale groundwater recharge, large-scale water recycling, the tunnel, and Sites Reservoir. They are big, but they are the most affordable solutions over the long haul. Don’t let a single project take all the oxygen in the room.

We need them all, and they work together: surface water, groundwater, recycled water.

Finally, I would remind him that DWR doesn’t solve everything, but it can be better a better partner to local water districts, regulatory agencies, environmental groups, and environmental justice groups, just by doing the work it’s already doing better. Help your departments do that.

My list is much longer than that, but that’s enough. There’s water work to be done in every part of the state. I loved my time at DWR, and I’m looking forward to taking the helm at ACWA. I want to see ACWA at the forefront of consequential water management strategies that set California up for the next century, including passing the baton to the next generation of water leaders—and preparing them to run with it.

# # #
1 From: Mission Creek <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, August 15, 2026 12:51 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Sherrill, Stephen (BOS); SherrillStaff; Commission; The Marina 94123; SolutionsNotSandbags San Francisco; SFPUC Citizens' Advisory Committee; Eileen White (SFBRWQCB); Brian Thompson (SFBRWQCB); Amy Miller (EPA R9 Enforcement); Mayor Daniel Lurie (SF Mayor); John-Baptiste, Alicia (MYR); Neighbors Against Flooding; Prather, Joel; Cheree Peterson (EPA R9); [email protected]; NGO-Marina Assoc; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Alex Mullaney (Ingleside Light); Adam Lashinsky (SF Standard); Joe Eskenazi (Mission Local); [email protected]; Sejal Choksi-Chugh (Baykeeper); Chair at Surfrider; [email protected] Subject:

SF Marina District Sewage Contamination and Proposed Safeway Development Attachments: sf chron marina safeway DTSC contamination.pdf This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Report Suspicious Dear Ms. Waxmann and Mr. Gross
Friends of Mission Creek (FOMC) would like to thank you for the recent article about concerns of continued contamination at the proposed development site of the SF Marina Safeway.

See: https://www.sfchronicle.com/realestate/article/sf-marina-safeway-environmental-concerns- 22385747.php (attached). FOMC has worked with Solutions Not Sandbags (SNS), and other neighborhood groups affected by poor sewer management decisions as well as promoting improved water quality in Mission Creek and all our shared waterways and beaches.

One thing that is missing in discussions of the proposed development is concern about the raw sewage discharged from San Francisco's combined sewage system onto Marina Blvd and into the homes along Marina Blvd, including some residences only 1 block away from the proposed development. The new development is proposed to substantially increase the residential population of the site which will increase the number of humans actively discharging human waste into the combined sewers in the area.

These combined sewers mix both raw sewage and storm runoff in a single pipe system. During relatively modest storms, the sewage system along Marina Blvd is overloaded causing backups of raw, untreated sewage and storm water. Historically this area had not been a flooding c oncern until the illegal closure of
the Pierce St. outfall by SFPUC in Mar 2021. The very first time it rained after this outfall closure in Oct. 2021, raw sewage and storm water gushed out of sewer manholes flooding over 50 homes along Marina Blvd. On New Years Eve, Dec. 2022 a similar storm again caused sewage to flood out of the manholes onto the streets and again into over 50 homes in the area. Even relatively minor storms such as seen 5-6 times in the last 5 years cause the sewers to back up flooding 1-2 homes on Marina Blvd, primarily the homes most affected by subsidence of the unconsolidated sand fill in the area.

The concern regarding the proposed development is not an increase in stormwater runoff. Rainfall itself is not the issue. The concern is the increase in human waste that will be discharged during relatively common storms that discharge raw sewage onto Marina Blvd. Stormwater in one's home is irritating.

Human feces, toilet paper, sanitary napkins etc. into one's home is a public health hazard. 2 FOMC is not against proper development needed to overcome California's ongoing housing shortages.

We are against increased wastes being discharged into private homes and businesses.

The closure of the Pierce St. outfall in 2021 was not approved by the State's sewer regulator as required by San Francisco PUC's federal "National Pollution and Discharge Elimination System" (NPDES) discharge permit. The closure removed a thin margin of safety in the area. With the closure of the Pierce St. outfall, the sewers upstream are capable of flowing considerably more sewage from the neighborhoods upstream than the pipes leading away from Marina Blvd. This means the upstream areas are well protected from flooding at the expense of the downstream homes. Reports provided by SFPUC Asst. General Manager Joel Prather(cc'd here) clearly show the consequences of the closure and the areas impacted.

Because the closure was a violation of SFPUC's discharge permits, it was included in the Mar 2024 Baykeeper "Notice of Intent" letter which led to the currently ongoing US EPA, Calif. Regional Board, Baykeeper and now Marina residents lawsuit to enforce the discharge permit conditions. This should also include the unapproved closure of the outfall. This lawsuit may also reference the permit's "Duty to mitigate" discharges likely to harm public health. In previous regulatory action to address concerns about public health impacts of raw sewage into homes and businesses, SFPUC claimed there was no regulatory authority to prevent SFPUC from dumping raw sewage into resident's homes. In the case of the Pierce St. outfall closure, raw sewage discharged onto Marina Blvd flows over the roadway and into the bay at various points, defeating SFPUC's previous claims of immunity. Similar discharges in other areas of SF had led to the Nov. 2021 "Cleanup and Abatement Order"(CAO) requiring SFPUC to correct sewage flooding in 3 other areas of the City.

FOMC would like to encourage the SF Chronicle and others interested in the negative impacts of the proposed development to investigate the ongoing problems not only with the Marina Blvd sewage contamination but the disastrous and very costly impacts the lack of concern for public health and safety by SFPUC past managers. Currently SFPUC is struggling to meet the conditions of the 2021 CAO.

Costs are skyrocketing above the 2021 estimated $699mil price tag. The currently ongoing (but likely to be settled shortly) permit violations lawsuit will also come with considerably more unanticipated expenses. These expenses will be major factors in increased SFPUC costs and increased rates paid by SF residents. The current permit violations enforcement lawsuit does not address many additional problems SFPUC has had in managing it's permitted combined sewer discharges, and without a more nuanced update to it's 50 year old Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO) Control Plan, it is likely to continue to be found in violation of both its current permit and the National CSO Control Policy for additional violations not currently in the present enforcement action.

The sewage flooding and discharge system upgrades had been initially planned for the in 2010 SFPUC "Sewer System Master Plan" but subsequently cut from the budget to pay for the ongoing "Bayside Biosolids Digester" project which had been initially estimated to cost $1.2bil but has ballooned to over $4bil (approaching $5bil?) including all the ancillary projects required for the proprietary process digester project. Note that after this expense, the biosolids may not be able to be used for land treatment (disposal on farms) due to increasing concern about PFAS in our biosolids, leaving that investment worthless. Worse yet, the soon to come online digester processes will have massive increased operations and maintenance (O&M) costs which have not been well planned for, further increasing SF ratepayers burdens.

3 Lack of adequate oversight by the press, politicians, regulators and the public had now put SFPUC and SF ratepayers in a sinking financial hole as well as left SF residents and visitors at increasing risk to public health and safety. FOMC has welcomed the regulatory agencies and NGOs finally stepping in to help address this. We now encourage the press to also step up and examine these problems in more detail to help politicians and the public understand the consequences of poor sewer management decisions made over the last 15 years. Hopefully this will lead to improved management decisions and better managed costs in the future.

Thank you for your time and efforts
Friends of Mission Creek

Notes, resources and references:

FOMC and SNS have made all documents and records obtained available to the public on Google Drives. We encourage you to follow up to investigate the above concerns. Please feel free to request help finding information from FOMC or SNS:

1. Google Drive Root: Documents obtained by Public Records Requests and other information:
a. Solutions Not Sandbags: SF Sewer WikiLeaks - Documents Related to sewage discharges in San Francisco b. FOMC: FOMC Pollution Archives

2. FOMC Combined sewer overflow page: https://www.friendsofmissioncreek.org/cso

3. 2010 Sewer System Master Plan documents: 2010 Sewer System Master Plan documents a. SFPUC's claim of no regulatory authority to prevent public health hazard of sewage into private homes: tm_405 regulatory considerations for wet weather collection system backups.pdf
b. Flooding focus areas and recommendations, note that when the report was written in Aug 2009 Marina Blvd was not considered a problem area: tm_505_ddmp_focus_area_alternative_recommendations.pdf

4. SFPUC 2012 General Manager decision to remove all flooding projects from the Sewer System Improvement Program (SSIP):2012 - July SFPUC commission Meeting, Harrington Smoking Gun

5. 2021 Cleanup And Abatement Order: R2-2021-0021 CAO - Flooding Clean Up and Abatement Order CAO a. also see 2019 US EPA Administrator Wheeler's letter to Ca. Gov. Gavin Newsome:Copy of EPA letter to CA-9.26.19_letter-epa.pdf

6. Decision to close the Pierce St. sewer outfall:
a. 2022 SNS/FOMC report on Closure of the Pierce St. outfall: 1.3-Report on the Information obtained from SFPUC regarding the consequences of the closure of the Pierce St Outfall.pdf
b. Timing of decision to close Pierce based on PGE/Gashouse cove agreement?documents provided by group concerned about PGE MGP pollution

7. Regional Board request for information about Pierce Closure and SFPUC/Prather's reports:
a. Folder: Response to Regional Boards 13383 letter regarding Marina b. Oct 2024 Prather report showing increased flooding after closure of the Pierce St. outfall: 10-2-2023 10102326 13383 NORTH SHORE FLOODING LETTER, OCTOBER 1 2023 REPORT (FILE) (1).pdf

8. Baykeeper/US EPA Permit Violation enforcement lawsuit:
a. folder:Baykeeper-EPA lawsuit
b. Baykeeper NOI: 00.Baykeeper NOI - SFPUC-2024.03.06-Notice-Letter-FINAL.pdf

9. Clean Water Act/NPDES US EPA info:https://www.epa.gov/npdes a. National CSO Control Policy: https://www.epa.gov/npdes/combined-sewer-overflow-control-policy

10. SFPUC Southeast Plant Biosolids Project: https://www.sfpuc.gov/construction-contracts/construction-projects/biosolids-digesters-facilities a. concerns about PFAS and future regulations: https://rockinst.org/blog/emerging-state-regulations-of-pfas-for-biosolids/

1 From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, August 17, 2026 7:01 AM
To: ChenStaff; ChanStaff (BOS); SherrillStaff; SauterStaff; WongStaff (BOS); MahmoodStaff; DorseyStaff (BOS); MelgarStaff (BOS); MandelmanStaff (BOS); FielderStaff; Waltonstaff (BOS); Board of Supervisors (BOS); [email protected]; [email protected]; Madland, Sarah (REC); [email protected]; [email protected]; John-Baptiste, Alicia (MYR); Commission Subject: MONEY IS THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL, AND THE ROOT OF YOUR CONFLICT OF INTEREST This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender. Report Suspicious RE: NO ARTIFICIAL TURF
Dear Supervisor Chen:

In a July 23, 2026, J.D. Morris San Francisco Chronicle article entitled, “’The money is just obscene ‘Inside Lurie’s funding machine reshaping S.F. politics’”, a consultant named Mr. Jaye “said officials need to make sure they’re not just ‘improving our city based on the whims, desires and fixations of the wealthy.’” A business owner, Ms. Evans, “stressed that the outside groups operate with little government oversight. That makes it harder for the public to influence the process and shape the role that donor-backed groups play in managing the city’s public spaces…’The decisions that are being made by these corporate interests are in favor of the wealthy…They’re not in the interest of San Franciscans.’”
Governments are systems created whereby citizens and other residents pay taxes in order to receive goods and services. Those who work in such systems—hired, elected, appointed—are called EMPLOYEES! Their job is to use the money paid into the system to provide citizens and those others the needed goods and services. Those paying the taxes are the BOSSES! As one of your constituent-bosses, I find your job performance to date on the issue of the Crocker Amazon Playground Artificial Turf Baseball Plan to be unsatisfactory and in need of immediate improvement. Your job description includes “overseeing District Eleven and responding to constituent concerns and ensuring their needs are represented at the city level.” Your constituents have carefully researched and clearly communicated their concerns about the harms of the Giants plan, including about artificial turf:

Artificial turf has high installations costs, heats the environment, destroys the life of the soil, demolishes habitat for wildlife, and can release harmful chemicals into the environment.

Negative impacts of artificial turf include:
*Dead zone-
*stops exchange of oxygen
*suffocates the soil
*kills necessary insects such as worms
*removes food and shelter for birds and pollinators
2 *Heat-
*absorbs heat to temperatures hotter than air, overheating areas *causes potential heat stress to humans, pets and wildlife *Recycling-
*can’t be recycled due to mixed-material construction, so ends up in landfill *Toxic chemical runoff-
*can release harmful and persistent chemicals like PFAs into the environment--with catastrophic toxicity if burning in a wildfire
*Injuries-can cause more lower body injuries than natural grass- *90% of NFL players want to play on natural grass and will bargain for this in their next contract
*A neighbor and I recently met soccer players just finishing playing games on the Crocker Amazon Playground artificial turf soccer fields. We gave each player a flyer explaining what was going to happen and the Crocker Amazon community point of view. 90% of these players said that they prefer natural grass!

While you have tried to ensure “these needs are represented at the city level”, you have not succeeded. The response, from the Recreation and Park Commission and Director, your Board of Supervisors colleagues, and the Mayor, has been to disregard, ignore and contemptuously dismiss community ideas on a less expensive, community-decided alternative plan (including no artificial turf, open fields, and mature trees) that would meet community needs and wishes, and that would not squander precious taxpayer money ($20,000,000 Bond Funds) and assets (Crocker Amazon Playground) by imposing an unsuitable, harmful and unhealthy Giants plan to privatize Crocker Amazon Playground playing fields.

The question is, “Whose interest is being served?” The community wants to continue access for all to green natural space in this park that has served the community well for generations.The public needs more public natural space, not less. This Giants plan would ultimately serve mainly baseball players, including the wealthy who can pay high fees for their children to play baseball with for-profit private clubs (that are part of the billion-dollar youth sports industry) at private sports complexes built to their specifications, and would exclude the community who have paid taxes and are entitled to the enjoyment of their natural public park.

Voting “Yes” on the Giants’ plan would be a clear conflict of interest with your duty to represent the needs of District Eleven constituents. Your constituents do not need $48,000,000 to fund this harmful vanity project.

WHAT THIS COMMUNITY NEEDS IMMEDIATELY IS A PROPER FIRE HYDRANT SYSTEM COMMENSURATE WITH THE UPDATED SYSTEMS ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY! YOUR PRIORITY MUST BE to secure $48,000,000 for a proper fire hydrant system in District Eleven.

The Crocker Amazon neighborhood has been designated as a highest risk wildfire area; home insurance policies have been cancelled. You only have to look at Berkeley, Santa Rosa, Lahaina, Los Angeles and Spokane, to see what can happen here. Our water hydrant system is wholly inadequate to meet the need. We demand that you make this issue your number one priority and that you find $48,000,000 in charitable donations to meet this real need.

WHEN THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RECONVENES IN SEPTEMBER, I DEMAND THAT YOU TELL YOUR

COLLEAGUES ON THE BOARD THAT YOU, AT THE DIRECTION OF YOUR CONSTITUENTS, HAVE 3 SCHEDULED A MEETING TO DISCUSS CANCELLING THE GIANTS’ PLAN AND TO CONSIDER THE COMMUNITY’S LESS EXPENSIVE AND MORE APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVE PLAN. IN ADDITION, YOU MUST TELL THEM THAT THEY HAVE AN ETHICAL DUTY TO SUPPORT YOUR CONSTITUENTS’ CLEAR OPPOSITION TO THE GIANTS’ PLAN BY ALSO VOTING “NO” ON IT.

In your September Newsletter, I DEMAND that you inform us that the Giants artificial turf project has been cancelled, that a meeting has been scheduled to begin a new community-decided plan, and that you describe what efforts you are making to secure funding without delay for an appropriate fire hydrant system.

Sincerely,

ONE OF YOUR CONSTITUENT-BOSSES,
Valerie Howard

1 From: Francisco Da Costa <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, August 23, 2026 12:50 PM
To: [email protected]; Angelica Cabande; Shepard, Alex (CON); Millard Larkin II; Board of Supervisors (BOS); Bell, Courtney; Rev. Andrew Bozeman, M.Msc.; Cheryl Bonilla; Stone, Claire (CON); Conrad King; Hossain, Ayeesha (CON); Maria Da Costa; Derek Toliver; Dan Hernandez; Eddie Edias; EPA Region9; Environmental Justice EPA; Mary Ratcliff; Theo Ellington; Rex Tabora; John Farrell; Lotus Yee Fong; Linda Fadeke Richardson; Miguel Galarza; rudy gonzalez; Bruce Giron; Mark K. Harris; How, Kathryn; Joyce Iulio-Sua; Cedro Cedro; Hussain, Lila (CII); Chu, Carmen (ADM); carol harvey; Catarino Mendoza; Valerie Tulier; clinton white; Greg Welch; Wong, Greg (DPH); [email protected]; Rannon Ross; SFGTV SFGTV; joe king; [email protected]; James Autry; Larry Stringer; Steve Zeltzer; Steve Lawrence; Vince Courtney; Peter Warfield; JOHND JOHND; John Mixon; Jerry Mixon; Jae Ryu; Scott Hanks; majeid crawford; James Williams; [email protected]; Claytis Claytis; Norma Sanchez; R Und O De Souza; Olton Rensch; Patrick Monk; Robinson, Stephen D; Robert Woods; Robert Y. Hernandez; Robert Campbell; Jim Salinas; Salah Salah; Maurice Tatum; Andrew Bozeman; Daniel Solberg; Ronnie Chism; Cheeko Cheeko; [email protected]; Jim Queen; Lennear, Tiffany; Mark Muhammad; Moncrease, Lexus; Doug Comstock; Hood, Donna; Ali Altaha; Felipe Riley; Joseph Kaulave; Maria Kaulave; Joseph Kaulave; Juan Simmons; Dulce Morales; James Bryant; [email protected]; Bruce Giron Sr.; Oscar James; Lin Robertson; Mishwa Lee; Bill Lee; Simi Iulio; Mohammed Nuru; Harlan Kelly; Mike Crahan; [email protected]; [email protected]; David Wo; [email protected]; Rudy Corpuz; Rudy R.; MBell MBell; Robyn Purchia; Chris Jackson; Ernie Jackson; Flaherty, Steve (DPA)
Subject:

Justice and Fair play. Stand up for your rights. 50 years advocacy.

This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Report Suspicious Check this out:
https://kilamanjaro-kilamanjaro.blogspot.com/2026/08/san-francisco-has-chosen-to-defy-laws.html Francisco Da Costa
Director
Environmental Justice Advocacy
1 From: Barklee Sanders <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 12:53 PM
To: Commission
Subject: File No. 260550 — IRFD No. 1 (Treasure Island) annexation, September 15, 2026 hearing — resent to the Commission
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Report Suspicious President Arce and Commissioners,
I am resending the correspondence below, which I sent on August 24, 2026 to the Board of Supervisors, the Treasure Island Development Authority, and the SFPUC Citizens' Advisory Committee. The copy addressed to Commissioner Arce at his former Office of Economic and Workforce Development address was returned as undeliverable, so I am directing this copy to the Commission through the Secretary.

I am the Chair of the SFPUC Citizens' Advisory Committee Power Subcommittee and a member of the District 6 Citizens Advisory Committee. I am writing as a Treasure Island resident and ratepayer. --- original message, sent August 24, 2026 ---
Members of the Board,
I am writing about File No. 260550, the annexation of territory to Infrastructure and Revitalization Financing District No. 1 (Treasure Island), set for a Committee of the Whole hearing on September 15, 2026.

Government Code section 53369.5(b) provides that the legislative body may, at any time, amend the infrastructure financing plan for a district. Section 53369.5(a) permits a district to finance existing facilities that are essentially nonfunctional, obsolete, hazardous, or in need of upgrading or rehabilitation.

The existing Treasure Island electrical distribution system appears nowhere in Appendix C of the Infrastructure Financing Plan. I ask that when the amended Plan returns to the Board, Appendix C be amended to name that system as an eligible facility.

Please include this correspondence in the file for the September 15 hearing. --- end of original message ---
2 I raise it with this Commission because the facilities at issue are the SFPUC's own. The Commission has already been briefed on their condition: the March 17, 2025 memorandum from Assistant General Manager Barbara Hale and Deputy Manager Catherine Spaulding on electric reliability for Treasure Island legacy housing customers was addressed to Commissioner Arce.

I would welcome the Commission's view on whether SFPUC staff support naming the existing Treasure Island electrical distribution system as an eligible facility in the amended Infrastructure Financing Plan, and whether staff intend to communicate a position to TIDA or to the Board before the September 15 hearing.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,

Barklee Sanders
Treasure Island resident
Chair, Power Subcommittee, SFPUC Citizens' Advisory Committee Member, District 6 Citizens Advisory Committee
[email protected]
(607) 597-9843
1 From: Peter Drekmeier <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2026 11:06 AM
To: Commission; SFPUC Citizens' Advisory Committee;
[email protected]
Subject: Water Demand Projections Comparison
Attachments: Water Demand Comparison.pdf
Please see attached letter regarding water demand projections. Thank you. - Peter ZjQcmQRY FpfptBannerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQRY FpfptBannerEnd
Please see attached letter regarding water demand projections.

Thank you.
-Peter
Please note my new email address.
-----------------------
Peter Drekmeier
Policy Director
Yosemite Rivers Alliance
(Formerly Tuolumne River Trust)
[email protected]

August 26, 2026 SFPUC Commission SFPUC Citizens’ Advisory Committee BAWSCA Board of Directors Hi Folks, I’m curious if anyone has any thoughts on the following two graphs. They were produced two years apart, yet the demand projections are vastly different. The top graph is from the SFPUC’s Alternative Water Supply Plan (February, 2024) and the bottom graph is from an April 14, 2026 Urban Water Management Plan presentation.

Sincerely,
Peter Drekmeier Policy Director

1 From: Bernadette Del Chiaro <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 1, 2026 2:35 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; Arce, Joshua; Leveroni, Stephen; Jamdar, Avni; Stacy, Kate H; Thurlow, Meghan E; Commission; [email protected]; [email protected]; Colin Cook-Miller; Roger Lin; Laura Neish; [email protected]; John Smigelski Subject: TIMELY: Request to hold SFPUC Solar proposal and Meeting to discuss future of local SF clean energy
Attachments: Letter to Mayor Lurie Solar & SF.pdf
Dear Mayor Lurie, Cc: Ali cia John-B aptiste, Offi ce of Mayor Lurie Joshua Arce , President, SFPUC Stephe n Lever oni , Vice President, SFP UC Avni Jamdar, Commissi oner, SFPUC Kate Stacey, Commi ssioner, SFP UC Meg han Thurlow , Commissioner , SFPUC On ZjQcmQR YFpfptBa nnerStart
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.

Report Suspicious
ZjQcmQR YFpfptBa nner End
Dear Mayor Lurie,
Cc: Alicia John-Baptiste, Office of Mayor Lurie
Joshua Arce, President, SFPUC
Stephen Leveroni, Vice President, SFPUC
Avni Jamdar, Commissioner, SFPUC
Kate Stacey, Commissioner, SFPUC
Meghan Thurlow, Commissioner, SFPUC
On behalf of a coalition of environmental and energy justice organizations, I write to respectfully request a meeting with you to discuss San Francisco’s energy future and how you can provide much needed leadership. And, urgently, we write to request that the Clean Power SF proposal related to rooftop solar be held and not voted on at the SF PUC meeting on Sept 8th to allow time for this important conversation with you. Our letter is attached.

We believe, through your leadership, San Francisco can become a “beacon on the hill” for the state, country and, indeed, the world, showing how to modernize our energy resources to solve multiple problems including climate change, energy affordability, reliability and access to good, local jobs that can’t be outsourced. But short-changing critical resources like rooftop solar and local storage, run in the opposite direction.

We respectfully request a meeting at your earliest convenience, and, again, a hold on the SF PUC agenda to allow time for this important conversation. While we understand and appreciate that the staff of the SF PUC have improved their rooftop solar policy from its original form, we believe it is
still off course. Our organizations have not been part of this important public policy conversation to date though we have a lot of expertise and experience to bring to the table. 2 Thank you for considering this urgent request. We can be reached at 916-765-3224 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Bernadette Del Chiaro, Senior Vice President, Environmental Working Group Antonio Díaz, Organizational Director, PODER
Colin Andrew Logan, Energy Justice Organizer, Reclaim Our Power Jessica Guadalupe Tovar, Executive Director, Local Clean Energy Alliance John Smigelski , President, California Alliance for Community Energy Laura Neish, Executive Director, 350 Bay Area
Robert M. Gould, M.D., President, Physicians for Social Responsibility - San Francisco Bay Chapter
Roger Lin, Senior Attorney, Energy Justice Program, Center for Biological Diversity

Bernadette Del Chiaro
Senior Vice President, California
[email protected]

September 1, 2026

The Honorable Daniel Lurie
Mayor of San Francisco
City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]

RE: Request to Hold Clean Power SF’s Solar Export Credit Proposal from the Commission’s September 8th Agenda and Request for a Meeting.

Dear Mayor Lurie:

San Francisco can be a leader in addressing climate change while also expanding energy affordability and access to quality jobs. Harnessing San Francisco’s spirit of innovation, you have the potential to make the City a beacon on the hill in moving toward smart, state of the art energy that can meet our environmental and economic challenges, while keeping the lights on.

We are concerned, however, that the CleanPowerSF proposal regarding rooftop solar, while an improvement from what we understand was originally proposed, misses the mark. As leaders of the environmental movement, we were not brought into discussions on this important policy decision. We respectfully request a meeting with you to discuss San Francisco's energy future and how you can provide much needed leadership and vision. And we request that the Clean Power SF proposal be held on September 8th to allow time for this important conversation.

The need for such leadership has never been greater. The coming Super El Niño promises to make 2027 the hottest year on record, driving up the need for indoor air conditioning in order to protect public health. New research by the Environmental Working Group shows extreme heat events in San Francisco have increased 145% over the past ten years.1 Extreme heat threatens the health of all San Franciscans, especially sensitive populations. Given the rapidly advancing effects of climate change on San Francisco, the scale of that near-term harm could be considerable.

Resilience to natural disasters, including earthquakes, gives San Francisco another reason to reorient its approach to electricity. In 2017, the San Francisco Department of the Environment called for the City, “to build resilience through the implementation of solar with energy storage.”2 The Department concluded that locally built microgrids and stand-alone solar energy with batteries are solutions critically needed for San Francisco homes and businesses.

1 https://www.ewg.org/research/californias-rising-heat-and-soaring-utility-bills-make-vital-cooling-unaffordable-many 2 See December 2018, "Solar and Energy Storage", SF Department of the Environment, page 1, https://www.sfenvironment.org/media/10352/download?inline

2 San Franciscans have suffered the consequences of increasing electricity rates, unreliable electricity, and PG&E’s sluggish clean energy investments. But you can change that historical trajectory and choose instead to embark on a path of true energy independence, affordability, reliability and modernization. This path would help solve pressing problems and help protect against the effects of climate change, while also serving as a model for California and the world.

San Francisco’s extraordinary potential to create an affordable, equitable, safe and clean energy future prompts us to request a meeting with you, Mayor Lurie, and your staff before the SF Public Utilities Commission votes on their "Solar Proposal" at the Commission’s September 8th meeting. We are concerned with how the pending proposal treats San Francisco customers who generate clean energy using the most local of all forms of clean energy: solar panels located on roofs, warehouses and over parking lots of San Francisco

Customer solar generation, located behind the meter (BTM), represents a unique class of electricity resource: it requires no new transmission infrastructure, is the most reliable form of energy, and can be deployed at a scale far faster than utility-scale projects. Prioritizing local solar generation resources, with either customer-owned or City-owned batteries, would serve San Francisco customers more cheaply, quickly, and effectively than large-scale alternatives.

In addition, customer solar generation located in San Francisco provides multiple environmental and economic benefits over large-scale renewable energy resources located outside San Francisco. Siting battery and solar resources inside the City can save San Francisco transmission costs and PG&E fees. Paying a premium for regional power sources that offer little or no improvement in local resilience further burdens San Francisco families and businesses.3

Clean Power SF’s proposal devalues the solar electricity generated by San Franciscans and shared with their neighbors. We would like to discuss with you how the current proposal will discourage San Franciscans from investing in solar energy which, in turn, will result in San Francisco deepening its reliance on out-of-town energy resources. We are concerned with the way that Clean Power SF counts as “local” large scale renewable projects located as far away as Napa and Santa Clara counties, treating all power obtained from the nine county Bay Area as “local.” We would also like to discuss how San Francisco can examine the job drain from relying on large scale projects located outside of San Francisco and also determine the job creation benefits that would accrue if San Francisco prioritized the development of new City-owned as well as customer-sited solar generation and storage resources located within San Francisco. Inexpensive and readily available tools exist and are routinely used by other governments to determine the jobs impact of various energy technologies, including San Francisco based rooftop solar. MCubed used the National Renewable Energy Laboratory JEDI economic impact analysis tool to determine that “rooftop solar produces three times more in local earnings, 3.5 times more value-added income and three times more jobs than grid-scale solar.”4 The SFPUC can easily obtain the JEDI economic impact tool to determine, zip code by zip code, the increased jobs created by prioritizing San

3 See October 21, 2022 LAFCO Executive Officer’s Comments on the 2022 CleanPowerSF Integrated Resource Plan Modeling Results, https://lafco.archive.sf.gov/sites/default/files/lfc102122_item4.pdf 4 McCann, Developing Credits for Rooftop Solar that Reflect the Full Value, p. 5.

3 Francisco- sited solar generation and storage resources in its modeling, in setting its tariffs, and in its integrated resource planning.

Clean solar power located within San Francisco also provides safety and resiliency benefits, protecting San Francisco families and businesses from transmission and wildfire-related blackouts, PG&E pre-emptive power shutoffs and problems developing on the larger grid. The New York Times recently detailed myriad problems that occur from national security threats and sabotage of transmission equipment, using PG&E’s Metcalf plant as a key example of the vulnerabilities facing California and the nation from reliance on complex, aging, transmission structures like PG&E’s system.5 San Francisco-located solar coupled with battery storage and behind the meter resources would increase safety, security and reliability for all San Franciscans.

Optimizing solar generation already located in San Francisco and prioritizing siting new solar generation and storage resources in San Francisco will enable the City to ramp up its clean energy and save more quickly than continuing its reliance on large scale renewables located outside San Francisco.6 The large-scale resources located outside San Francisco now prioritized by Clean Power SF all require PG&E-owned transmission lines to transport the electricity to San Francisco.

Continued over-reliance on PG&E’s transmission lines creates unnecessary economic costs in part because power transmitted over those lines lose about 9% according to the California Independent System Operator (CAISO).7 These line losses mean that San Francisco must over-buy already- expensive power in order to have enough power to keep the lights on in San Francisco. Reducing the need to over-buy expensive remote power could translate to at least a 9 percent reduction in costs incurred from overbuying the additional electricity needed due to line loss.

San Francisco stands at a critical juncture in deciding the energy future. Now is the time to embrace local, customer-sited and community-shared solar energy and storage resources, and reverse years of dependence on large far away power plants and their expensive, unreliable and dangerous transmission lines. San Francisco can chart a new course for itself, and in so doing, lead by example. The building of local solar generation resources as well as solar and storage systems, owned both by the city’s residents and businesses as well as by the city itself and linked together through modern microgrid technologies can deliver the best path to more affordable energy, more local jobs that can’t be outsourced, and to putting money back in the pockets of middle- and working-class families and small businesses.

Our organizations respectfully request that the Commission hold the Solar Proposal from consideration at the Commission’s September 8th meeting, and request a meeting with you and your staff to discuss how the proposal can be improved before the Commission votes on it.

5 Christopher Cox, “What if America Went Completely Dark”, New York Times Magazine, August 18, 2026. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/08/18/magazine/national-blackout-power-electricity- outage.html?searchResultPosition=1
6 MCubed has quantified the economic value of solar and storage resources within San Francisco as adding $0.15168 per kWh in value, or 15 cents for every kWh San Francisco customers deliver for use by their neighbors right here in San Francisco. See McCann, Developing Credits for Rooftop Solar that Reflect the Full Value, p. 4. 7 CAISO, CAISO 2024-25 Study Plan, https://stakeholdercenter.caiso.com/RecurringStakeholderProcesses/2024-2025- Transmission-planning-process , Table 2.7-4.

4 San Francisco, armed with thorough and robust data that incorporates all the benefits of San Francisco-based solar generation and storage resources, could invest in resources that will reduce customer bills and carbon emissions, improve safety and reliability, and create jobs for San Franciscans simultaneously. San Francisco’s unique ability to harness and optimize its own resources and to develop additional cost-effective clean energy generation resources located in San Francisco could become the model for California, if not the nation.

With vision and leadership, you can reorient San Francisco toward safe, clean, reliable and more affordable energy. Our coalition can be reached via Bernadette Del Chiaro at 916-765-3224 or [email protected] to schedule a meeting.

Sincerely,

Antonio Díaz
Organizational Director
PODER

Bernadette Del Chiaro
Senior Vice President, California
Environmental Working Group

Colin Andrew Logan
Energy Justice Organizer
Reclaim Our Power

Jessica Guadalupe Tovar
Executive Director
Local Clean Energy Alliance

John Smigelski
President
California Alliance for Community Energy

Laura Neish
Executive Director
350 Bay Area

Robert M. Gould, M.D.

President
Physicians for Social Responsibility - San
Francisco Bay Chapter

Roger Lin
Senior Attorney, Energy Justice Program
Center for Biological Diversity

cc:

Alicia John-Baptiste, Office of Mayor Lurie
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
Joshua Arce, President, SFPUC
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
Stephen Leveroni, Vice President, SFPUC
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
Avni Jamdar, Commissioner, SFPUC
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
Kate Stacey, Commissioner, SFPUC
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
Meghan Thurlow, Commissioner, SFPUC
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
SF Public Utilities Commission
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]

CleanPowerSF Sfpuc CommissionSeptember 8, 2026

CleanPowerSF Sfpuc Commission
September 8, 2026