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
September 3, 2026 through October 5, 2026
Date Received From Subject
September 3, 2026 M. Walker Wells Parking everywhere, and people crossing SR-35 on foot — one
example of a problem repeating
corridor-wide
September 4, 2026 Chris Makler Before someone is hit: cars racing, people running across
Highway 35 — one example of a
problem repeating corridor-wide
September 11, 2026 Ted Selker Before someone is hit: cars racing, people running across the
Skyline ridge — an example of
the problem on 35, 84 and 9
September 14, 2026 Bay Area Water Supply
& Conservation Agency
Revised Agenda - September 17,
2026 BAWSCA Board of
Directors Meeting (email +
attachment)
September 17, 2026 Barklee Sanders Public comment — Sept 22, 2026 agenda (Items 4, 8(g), 13):
Treasure Island legacy grid
September 17, 2026 Barklee Sanders Public comment — SFPUC Commission September 23, 2026
agenda: Treasure Island legacy
grid
September 17, 2026 Barklee Sanders Public comment — SFPUC Commission October 14, 2026
agenda: Treasure Island legacy
grid
September 17, 2026 Barklee Sanders Public comment — SFPUC Commission September 24, 2026
agenda: Treasure Island legacy
grid
September 17, 2026 Barklee Sanders Public comment — SFPUC Commission September 20, 2026
agenda: Treasure Island legacy
grid
September 17, 2026 Barklee Sanders Public comment — SFPUC Commission September 26, 2026
agenda: Treasure Island legacy
SFPUC Correspondence Log 9/3/2026 through 10/5/2026 Page 2 of 2
grid
September 17, 2026 Barklee Sanders Public comment — SFPUC Commission October 10, 2026
agenda: Treasure Island legacy
grid
September 17, 2026 Barklee Sanders Public comment — SFPUC Commission September 27, 2026
agenda: Treasure Island legacy
grid
September 17, 2026 Barklee Sanders Public comment — SFPUC Commission October 11, 2026
agenda: Treasure Island legacy
grid
September 17, 2026 Barklee Sanders Public comment — SFPUC Commission September 17, 2026
agenda: Treasure Island legacy
grid
September 17, 2026 Barklee Sanders Public comment — SFPUC Commission September 28, 2026
agenda: Treasure Island legacy
grid
September 17, 2026 Barklee Sanders Public comment — SFPUC Commission October 12, 2026
agenda: Treasure Island legacy grid
September 19, 2026 Lynne MacFarlane From Kings Mountain: parking everywhere, and people crossing
Skyline on foot — one more example
of the corridor problem
September 30, 2026 Megan Bone Formal Complaint & Request for Immediate Compliance Review —
SFPUC WD-2875 / Basset
Engineering / Grand View Ave
October 1, 2026 Theodore Rutledge, Jr. A constituent request: people crossing Skyline Blvd on foot to
reach the new trail — one example
of a problem repeating corridor-wide
October 5, 2026 Steve Foy Before someone is hit: is this the new normal for Highway 35? — one
more example of the corridor
problem
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: M. Walker Wells
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Canepa, David [[email protected]]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; April Chan; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ambuehl, David@DOT; [email protected]; Quintana, Pedro@DOT; [email protected]; [email protected]; El-Tawansy, Dina@DOT; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nguyen, Doanh@DOT; Ruiz, Sergio@DOT; Lee, Lester@DOT; Oberoi, Rajesh@DOT; Maung, Aung@DOT; Naseer, Amjad@DOT; [email protected]; Stevens III, William@DOT; Pardo, Rommel@DOT; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; RidgeTrail; Commission; Herrera, David; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Parking everywhere, and people crossing SR-35 on foot — one example of a problem repeating corridor-wide Date: Thursday, September 3, 2026 2:18:45 PM
To Caltrans District 4 and to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District:
Running pedestrians, racing drivers, parking on every shoulder — the new normal on the roads to the coast.
This is not an objection to the trail. It is a request to make reaching it safe, quickly, before the pattern of the last two weekends becomes normal.
The overflow has spread to the SR-92 pull-off near Skylawn, where families are crossing a fast highway on foot with nothing built for it.
This ridge was designated scenic for exactly what people are now coming to do here — walk it, ride it, look at it. The access simply has to catch up. Every one of these is within the ordinary powers of the agency being asked.
ASK 1 — CALTRANS: this one you can do now — restrict parking alongside the highway.
A posted no-parking restriction at the SR-92 pull-off and the SR-35 shoulders is the quickest thing anyone can do here, and it addresses the cause rather than the symptom. If a full restriction needs study, an interim one does not. Please post it now.
ASK 2 — CALTRANS: signal now that the encroachment permit is a priority.
The next step for the Purisima crossing is a Caltrans encroachment permit, which by Midpen’s own account waits on the environmental review. If Caltrans wants revisions, say so now rather than after certification. Either way, please put a clock on it.
ASK 3 — CALTRANS: one crosswalk programme for the whole corridor.
The new Watershed trailhead is the clearest proof: it opened onto a state highway with no crossing, and no process was underway to give it one. Please go to the trail agencies rather than waiting for them to come to you. A single corridor-wide inventory of trail crossings would be worth more than a decade of individual permits. Roadside parking that costs sight distance or forces walking in the lane is not a Kings Mountain problem. It repeats the whole length of these highways.
A word to SFPUC and the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, who are copied here: thank you.
Opening this ridge to the public and funding a safe crossing of Highway 35 are both genuinely good work. What you should not have to do is carry the highway half of it alone — that is Caltrans’ job, and Caltrans should be backing you far more than it is.
ASK 4 — MIDPEN: treat the crossing as the safety project it has become.
The board adopted the preferred design in November 2023, and the community still cannot find out when it will be built. The striping and beacon neighbours asked for in 2022 remain uncommitted. Please separate the Highway 35 crossing from the wider Purisima plan if that is what it takes to build it sooner, and give the community a construction date it can hold you to.
ASK 5 — MIDPEN: take a bigger role. Push Caltrans on crossings and parking alongside the highway.
The Purisima crossing shows Midpen can get a crossing designed and cleared by Caltrans.
Please apply that capability along the rest of the corridor. Ask Caltrans for engineered crossings and posted parking restrictions wherever the Bay Area Ridge Trail meets these three highways. The corridor was designated scenic for the users Midpen serves. Making it work for them is also what makes it less inviting to race — and quiet enough to experience the place with more than your eyes.
In short: please support Add Safe Corridor Crosswalks — crossings built systematically across SR-35, SR-84 and SR-9, starting with the two on this ridge. It is what the scenic corridor was meant for.
Thank you,
Safe Corridor Initiative
I’m part of the Safe Corridor Initiative for Highways 35, 84 and 9.
The evidence, and what the money could actually pay for: https://safecorridorinitiative.com This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Chris Makler
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; RidgeTrail; Commission; Info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Before someone is hit: cars racing, people running across Highway 35 — one example of a problem repeating corridor-wide
Date: Friday, September 4, 2026 7:57:06 AM
To Caltrans, who owns the road, and Midpen, who is building the crossing:
Chaos of people running across the highway, drivers racing along, parking everywhere. That is the status quo we are writing about on SR-35, SR-84 and SR-9.
Opening six miles of watershed to the public was the right call. The highway around it was not made ready, and it shows.
The overflow has spread to the SR-92 pull-off near Skylawn, where families are crossing a fast highway on foot with nothing built for it.
None of this is an argument against the trail, or against the road. It is an argument for finishing the job. They are modest asks, and the moment to act on them is now.
ASK 1 — CALTRANS: restrict parking alongside the highway around the new trailhead now.
Please post the restriction now, rather than waiting for a study to confirm what residents are already watching. A temporary restriction while the permanent design is built would be entirely reasonable and entirely within your power.
ASK 2 — CALTRANS: expedite the Purisima crossing encroachment permit.
The next step for the Purisima crossing is a Caltrans encroachment permit, which by Midpen’s own account waits on the environmental review. We are asking for a commitment on timing, not on outcome: say how long the review will take, and hold to it.
ASK 3 — CALTRANS: adopt Add Safe Corridor Crosswalks for 35, 84 and 9.
The Ridge Trail crosses SR-35 repeatedly, and SR-84 and SR-9 carry the same pattern: parking on one side, trail on the other, and nothing built to cross. Purisima is the only one anyone has applied for. Please work proactively with Midpen, SFPUC, the County and the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council to identify every trail crossing on SR-35, SR-84 and SR-9 and treat them as one programme — rather than waiting for each agency to arrive separately with an encroachment permit. Please inventory the dangerous verges too. Roadside parking that forces walking in the traffic lane or costs drivers their sight distance is the same problem repeating along all three highways.
Thank you to SFPUC for opening the Peninsula Watershed, and to the Ridge Trail Council for funding the crossing work. Neither is the problem here. The problem is that Caltrans, which owns the road, is not meeting them halfway.
ASK 4 — MIDPEN: please give the crossing a construction date, and make it early.
Neighbours asked Midpen in 2022 for “roadway striping and advanced warning beacon for the trail crossing.” Four years on, not one piece of crossing hardware is committed — the design sits with Caltrans at a permit stage that has not begun. Give it a date, protect that date, and tell people what would put it at risk.
ASK 5 — MIDPEN: press Caltrans for safe access wherever trails meet these highways.
Residents can report what they see. Midpen can put it in front of Caltrans as an agency with a design team behind it. Please do that. What to press for: crossings at the trailheads, and keeping the highway verges clear. Neither is exotic, and both are entirely in Caltrans’ gift. Worth saying plainly: designing these highways for the people Midpen brings here also makes them less appealing to anyone treating them as a racetrack — and much quieter. Right now you can hear the road from deep inside the preserves. Preserving open space ought to include preserving what it sounds like.
Support the programme, restrict the parking alongside the highway, and build the crossing that is already designed. Those three things would change this hill.
There were hundreds of cars this past weekend. Go up and see for yourself! Sincerely,
Chris Makler — Woodside
[email protected]
I’m part of the Safe Corridor Initiative for Highways 35, 84 and 9.
The evidence base and the funding routes, together:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://safecorridorinitiative.com/? utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=crossings__;!!NCYPjq8!6uB AJJbtNG5uEgZ0lLWoNMcP8hbXxFaR_LvFtcHynzwRNmDfx1qwXJPFoCWVhXnMIV zs0WVsF6hmO2nPTcgm3d7P$
Sent from my iPhone
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Ted Selker
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ruiz, Sergio@DOT; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; RidgeTrail; Commission; Info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Before someone is hit: cars racing, people running across the Skyline ridge — an example of the problem on 35, 84 and 9
Date: Friday, September 11, 2026 2:49:44 PM
To Caltrans District 4 and to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District:
I have been trying to give money to make "breakdown" bike lane shoulders on 35 for 10 years. I have a powerpoint deck and the money. caltrans asked me for support from adjacent towns. I have gotten it from Palo Alto and Portola Valley...and encouragement from others.... I am ready to p
pay for engineering and installation. Maybe I need to pay for an advocate.
Thank you,
Ted Selker — palo alto
[email protected]
This comes from one of the people working on the Safe Corridor Initiative.
Everything we’ve documented on this corridor: https://safecorridorinitiative.com/? utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=crossings This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: M. Walker Wells
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Canepa, David [[email protected]]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; April Chan; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ambuehl, David@DOT; [email protected]; Quintana, Pedro@DOT; [email protected]; [email protected]; El-Tawansy, Dina@DOT; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nguyen, Doanh@DOT; Ruiz, Sergio@DOT; Lee, Lester@DOT; Oberoi, Rajesh@DOT; Maung, Aung@DOT; Naseer, Amjad@DOT; [email protected]; Stevens III, William@DOT; Pardo, Rommel@DOT; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; RidgeTrail; Commission; Herrera, David; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Parking everywhere, and people crossing SR-35 on foot — one example of a problem repeating corridor-wide Date: Thursday, September 3, 2026 2:18:45 PM
To Caltrans District 4 and to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District:
Running pedestrians, racing drivers, parking on every shoulder — the new normal on the roads to the coast.
This is not an objection to the trail. It is a request to make reaching it safe, quickly, before the pattern of the last two weekends becomes normal.
The overflow has spread to the SR-92 pull-off near Skylawn, where families are crossing a fast highway on foot with nothing built for it.
This ridge was designated scenic for exactly what people are now coming to do here — walk it, ride it, look at it. The access simply has to catch up. Every one of these is within the ordinary powers of the agency being asked.
ASK 1 — CALTRANS: this one you can do now — restrict parking alongside the highway.
A posted no-parking restriction at the SR-92 pull-off and the SR-35 shoulders is the quickest thing anyone can do here, and it addresses the cause rather than the symptom. If a full restriction needs study, an interim one does not. Please post it now.
ASK 2 — CALTRANS: signal now that the encroachment permit is a priority.
The next step for the Purisima crossing is a Caltrans encroachment permit, which by Midpen’s own account waits on the environmental review. If Caltrans wants revisions, say so now rather than after certification. Either way, please put a clock on it.
ASK 3 — CALTRANS: one crosswalk programme for the whole corridor.
The new Watershed trailhead is the clearest proof: it opened onto a state highway with no crossing, and no process was underway to give it one. Please go to the trail agencies rather than waiting for them to come to you. A single corridor-wide inventory of trail crossings would be worth more than a decade of individual permits. Roadside parking that costs sight distance or forces walking in the lane is not a Kings Mountain problem. It repeats the whole length of these highways.
A word to SFPUC and the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, who are copied here: thank you.
Opening this ridge to the public and funding a safe crossing of Highway 35 are both genuinely good work. What you should not have to do is carry the highway half of it alone — that is Caltrans’ job, and Caltrans should be backing you far more than it is.
ASK 4 — MIDPEN: treat the crossing as the safety project it has become.
The board adopted the preferred design in November 2023, and the community still cannot find out when it will be built. The striping and beacon neighbours asked for in 2022 remain uncommitted. Please separate the Highway 35 crossing from the wider Purisima plan if that is what it takes to build it sooner, and give the community a construction date it can hold you to.
ASK 5 — MIDPEN: take a bigger role. Push Caltrans on crossings and parking alongside the highway.
The Purisima crossing shows Midpen can get a crossing designed and cleared by Caltrans.
Please apply that capability along the rest of the corridor. Ask Caltrans for engineered crossings and posted parking restrictions wherever the Bay Area Ridge Trail meets these three highways. The corridor was designated scenic for the users Midpen serves. Making it work for them is also what makes it less inviting to race — and quiet enough to experience the place with more than your eyes.
In short: please support Add Safe Corridor Crosswalks — crossings built systematically across SR-35, SR-84 and SR-9, starting with the two on this ridge. It is what the scenic corridor was meant for.
Thank you,
Safe Corridor Initiative
I’m part of the Safe Corridor Initiative for Highways 35, 84 and 9.
The evidence, and what the money could actually pay for: https://safecorridorinitiative.com This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Chris Makler
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; RidgeTrail; Commission; Info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Before someone is hit: cars racing, people running across Highway 35 — one example of a problem repeating corridor-wide
Date: Friday, September 4, 2026 7:57:06 AM
To Caltrans, who owns the road, and Midpen, who is building the crossing:
Chaos of people running across the highway, drivers racing along, parking everywhere. That is the status quo we are writing about on SR-35, SR-84 and SR-9.
Opening six miles of watershed to the public was the right call. The highway around it was not made ready, and it shows.
The overflow has spread to the SR-92 pull-off near Skylawn, where families are crossing a fast highway on foot with nothing built for it.
None of this is an argument against the trail, or against the road. It is an argument for finishing the job. They are modest asks, and the moment to act on them is now.
ASK 1 — CALTRANS: restrict parking alongside the highway around the new trailhead now.
Please post the restriction now, rather than waiting for a study to confirm what residents are already watching. A temporary restriction while the permanent design is built would be entirely reasonable and entirely within your power.
ASK 2 — CALTRANS: expedite the Purisima crossing encroachment permit.
The next step for the Purisima crossing is a Caltrans encroachment permit, which by Midpen’s own account waits on the environmental review. We are asking for a commitment on timing, not on outcome: say how long the review will take, and hold to it.
ASK 3 — CALTRANS: adopt Add Safe Corridor Crosswalks for 35, 84 and 9.
The Ridge Trail crosses SR-35 repeatedly, and SR-84 and SR-9 carry the same pattern: parking on one side, trail on the other, and nothing built to cross. Purisima is the only one anyone has applied for. Please work proactively with Midpen, SFPUC, the County and the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council to identify every trail crossing on SR-35, SR-84 and SR-9 and treat them as one programme — rather than waiting for each agency to arrive separately with an encroachment permit. Please inventory the dangerous verges too. Roadside parking that forces walking in the traffic lane or costs drivers their sight distance is the same problem repeating along all three highways.
Thank you to SFPUC for opening the Peninsula Watershed, and to the Ridge Trail Council for funding the crossing work. Neither is the problem here. The problem is that Caltrans, which owns the road, is not meeting them halfway.
ASK 4 — MIDPEN: please give the crossing a construction date, and make it early.
Neighbours asked Midpen in 2022 for “roadway striping and advanced warning beacon for the trail crossing.” Four years on, not one piece of crossing hardware is committed — the design sits with Caltrans at a permit stage that has not begun. Give it a date, protect that date, and tell people what would put it at risk.
ASK 5 — MIDPEN: press Caltrans for safe access wherever trails meet these highways.
Residents can report what they see. Midpen can put it in front of Caltrans as an agency with a design team behind it. Please do that. What to press for: crossings at the trailheads, and keeping the highway verges clear. Neither is exotic, and both are entirely in Caltrans’ gift. Worth saying plainly: designing these highways for the people Midpen brings here also makes them less appealing to anyone treating them as a racetrack — and much quieter. Right now you can hear the road from deep inside the preserves. Preserving open space ought to include preserving what it sounds like.
Support the programme, restrict the parking alongside the highway, and build the crossing that is already designed. Those three things would change this hill.
There were hundreds of cars this past weekend. Go up and see for yourself! Sincerely,
Chris Makler — Woodside
[email protected]
I’m part of the Safe Corridor Initiative for Highways 35, 84 and 9.
The evidence base and the funding routes, together:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://safecorridorinitiative.com/? utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=crossings__;!!NCYPjq8!6uB AJJbtNG5uEgZ0lLWoNMcP8hbXxFaR_LvFtcHynzwRNmDfx1qwXJPFoCWVhXnMIV zs0WVsF6hmO2nPTcgm3d7P$
Sent from my iPhone
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Ted Selker
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Ruiz, Sergio@DOT; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; RidgeTrail; Commission; Info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Before someone is hit: cars racing, people running across the Skyline ridge — an example of the problem on 35, 84 and 9
Date: Friday, September 11, 2026 2:49:44 PM
To Caltrans District 4 and to the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District:
I have been trying to give money to make "breakdown" bike lane shoulders on 35 for 10 years. I have a powerpoint deck and the money. caltrans asked me for support from adjacent towns. I have gotten it from Palo Alto and Portola Valley...and encouragement from others.... I am ready to p
pay for engineering and installation. Maybe I need to pay for an advocate.
Thank you,
Ted Selker — palo alto
[email protected]
This comes from one of the people working on the Safe Corridor Initiative.
Everything we’ve documented on this corridor: https://safecorridorinitiative.com/? utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=crossings This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Lourdes Enriquez
To: BAWSCA WMR
Cc: Smegal, Tom; Deborah Grimes; Sandra Johnson; Schutte, Allison C Subject: Revised Agenda - September 17, 2026 BAWSCA Board of Directors Meeting Date: Monday, September 14, 2026 4:53:01 PM
Attachments: 26_BAWSCA_Sept17_Agenda_FINAL_REVISED.pdf
Attached is a Revised Agenda for the BAWSCA Board of Directors Meeting on September 17, 2026.
Agenda items remain the same.
The revision is the addition of language to meet requirements of SB707.
The complete agenda packet is available on the BAWSCA website at https://bawsca.org/about/board/agendas.
Thank you
Lourdes Verzosa-Enriquez
Assistant to the CEO/General Manager
Bay Area Water Supply & Conservation Agency
155 Bovet Rd., #650
San Mateo, CA
94402
www.bawsca.org
2190242.1
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
September 17, 2026
6:30 P.M.
Burlingame Community Center – Sequoia Room
850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame
CLICK HERE TO VIEW LIVESTREAM
REVISED AGENDA
(One member of the Board will participate in this meeting by Teleconference as a reasonable accommodation under Gov’t Code § 54953(a)(4)-(b)). When any member of the board participates by teleconference, all votes taken at this meeting will be by roll call vote.) Agenda Item Presenter Page
1. Call to Order/Roll Call/Salute to Flag (Vella)
2. Comments by the Chair (Vella)
3. SFPUC Report (Ritchie)
4. Water Management Representatives Report – North Coast County WD (Carr)
5. Consent Calendar (Attachments) (Vella)
A. Approve Minutes of the July 16, 2026 Meeting
B. Receive and File Pre-Audit Budget Status Report – As of 6/30/26 C. Receive and File Investment Report – As of 6/30/26
D. Receive and File Directors’ Reimbursement Report – As of 6/30/26 E. Receive and File Employee Reimbursement Report – As of 6/30/26 F. Receive and File Bond Surcharge Collection, Account Balance and Payment Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2026
Pg 3
Pg 9
Pg 11
Pg 13
Pg 15
Pg 17
6. Public Comments on Items Not on the Agenda (Vella)
Members of the public may address the Board on any issues not listed on the agenda that are within the purview of the Agency. Comments on matters that are listed on the agenda may be made at the time the Board is considering each item.
Each speaker is allowed a maximum of two (2) minutes.
7. Action Calendar
A. Acceptance of BAWSCA’s Amended Conflict of Interest Code (Attachment) (Smegal) The Board Policy Committee did not meet in August. Item #7A is being presented to the Board without a recommendation from the BPC.
Pg 19
September 17, 2026 BAWSCA Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Packet Page 1 2190242.1
8. CEO Reports (Attachments) (Smegal)
A. BAWSCA’s Strategy 2050 Status Update and Path to Completion B. BAWSCA Review of SFPUC’s Alternative for Millbrae Ops Center C. CEO/General Manager’s Letter
D. Board Policy Calendar
E. Correspondence Packet (Under Separate Cover)
Pg 31
Pg 35
Pg 37
Pg 39
9. Closed Session #1
A. Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Vella)
Title: Current CEO/General Manager
Closed Session Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 (Under Separate Cover)
10. Information Report Related to CEO Compensation (Vella) A. Compensation Report for CEO/General Manager for FY 2026-27 (Under Separate Cover)
11. Closed Session #2 (Schutte)
A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Final License Application Proceedings for Don Pedro Hydroelectric Project, P-2299-082, and La Grange Hydroelectric Project, P-14581-002.
B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9 - State Water Board Cases (Third Appellate District Court, Case No.
C101232).
12. Additional Time for Public Comments (As Time Permits) (Vella) Members of the public may address the Board on any issues that are within the purview of the Agency. Each speaker is allowed a maximum of two (2) minutes.
13. Directors’ Discussion: Comments, Questions and Agenda Requests (Vella)
14. Date, Time and Location of Future Meetings (Vella)
(See attached schedule of meetings)
15. Adjourn to next meeting scheduled for November 19, 2026 at 6:30 pm (Vella) Pg 41
Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities
Upon request, BAWSCA will provide for written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in and provide comments at/related to public meetings.
Please submit a request, including your name, phone number and/or email address, and a description of the modification, accommodation, auxiliary aid, service or alternative format requested at least two days before the meeting. Requests should be emailed to [email protected] or submitted by phone at 650-349-3000. Requests will be granted whenever possible and resolved in favor of accessibility.
September 17, 2026 BAWSCA Board of Directors Meeting Agenda Packet Page 2 This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Barklee Sanders
To: Commission
Subject: Public comment — Sept 22, 2026 agenda (Items 4, 8(g), 13): Treasure Island legacy grid Date: Thursday, September 17, 2026 5:19:31 PM
Dear President Arce and Commissioners,
I write as a San Francisco resident regarding the September 22, 2026 regular meeting agenda, and ask that this comment be included in the official record.
Item 8(g) — Treasure Island Water Resource Recovery Facility (Contract No. PRO.0226): The Commission is asked to approve a $1.5 million amendment, bringing construction management for Treasure Island's new water facility to $9 million. New infrastructure for Treasure Island's future is moving forward while the legacy electrical grid serving the island's current residents — including the Site 12 community — sits on the City's FY2026–35 deferred-projects list as "TIDA – Treasure Island Legacy Grid Improvement" (a dedicated switchyard circuit for residential areas north of 9th Street), estimated at $450,000 and currently unfunded. I ask the Commission to direct the General Manager to scope and fund interim backup battery systems and permanent grid upgrades for current Treasure Island residents now, and to move the legacy grid from the deferred list into the funded capital plan.
Item 13 — 2026–2028 Wildfire Mitigation Plan: resilience planning should explicitly include Treasure Island's legacy grid. By SFPUC's own account, the island has suffered more than 120 unplanned outages since January 2016 — 10 to 20 per year against an industry benchmark of no more than three. A credible mitigation plan must address the community living through those outages today, not only future buildout.
More broadly: the Treasure Island Infrastructure and Revitalization Financing District's $780 million bond program — now proposed to grow by another $520 million — contains no project language for the legacy electrical grid. The 199-page Infrastructure Financing Plan has zero capital-project language for it. Current residents are living with the outages while the financing issued in their name bypasses them.
Thank you for your consideration.
Barklee Sanders
San Francisco, CA
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Barklee Sanders
To: Commission
Subject: Public comment — SFPUC Commission September 23, 2026 agenda: Treasure Island legacy grid Date: Thursday, September 17, 2026 5:32:16 PM
Dear President Arce and Commissioners,
I submit this public comment for the SFPUC Commission meeting of September 23, 2026, sent by email per the agenda's public-comment instructions.
I write regarding the following agenda item(s):
- b) Hetch Hetchy Capital Improvement Program Quarterly (Q4) Report [keywords: Hetch Hetchy, capital improvement]
- d) Approve execution and submission of an attestation of veracity for Hetch Hetchy [keywords: Hetch Hetchy]
Each of these items touches infrastructure, capital planning, energy resilience, or public resources — and each is an opening to address an urgent, documented need: the failing legacy electrical grid serving current Treasure Island residents.
Treasure Island's legacy grid serves the people who live there today, and it is failing them. The SFPUC is the island's municipal electric provider, operating the system as a contractor to the Treasure Island Development Authority. By the SFPUC's own account, more than 120 unplanned power outages have struck the island since January 2016 — an average of 10 to 20 per year — against an industry benchmark of no more than three outages per year (SFPUC Assistant General Manager for Power memorandum, March 17, 2025).
Yet no capital funding is reaching the legacy grid. The City's adopted FY2022-31 capital plan carried a $17.533 million 'Treasure Island Power and Wastewater Improvements' line; by the FY2024-33 plan the word 'Power' had been removed from the project title and no Treasure Island power line remained. In the current FY2026-35 plan, the only dedicated legacy-grid project — 'TIDA - Treasure Island Legacy Grid Improvement,' a dedicated switchyard circuit for residential areas north of 9th Street, estimated at approximately $450,000 — sits on the deferred-projects list, unfunded.
Meanwhile, Treasure Island's infrastructure financing district carries a $780 million bond authorization, and the Controller's June 30, 2026 memorandum describes an additional $520 million tied to the annexation of new project areas. I urge this body to direct a portion of bond or other immediately available funding to backup batteries and legacy-grid upgrades for the people who live on Treasure Island now — including the Site 12 community — rather than leaving current residents on an unfunded, deteriorating grid while new development is financed around them.
Please include this comment in the official record for this meeting and provide a written response.
Respectfully,
Barklee Sanders
San Francisco, CA
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Barklee Sanders
To: Commission
Subject: Public comment — SFPUC Commission October 14, 2026 agenda: Treasure Island legacy grid Date: Thursday, September 17, 2026 5:32:25 PM
Dear President Arce and Commissioners,
I submit this public comment for the SFPUC Commission meeting of October 14, 2026, sent by email per the agenda's public-comment instructions.
I write under General Public Comment regarding an urgent, documented need within your jurisdiction: the failing legacy electrical grid serving current Treasure Island residents.
Treasure Island's legacy grid serves the people who live there today, and it is failing them. The SFPUC is the island's municipal electric provider, operating the system as a contractor to the Treasure Island Development Authority. By the SFPUC's own account, more than 120 unplanned power outages have struck the island since January 2016 — an average of 10 to 20 per year — against an industry benchmark of no more than three outages per year (SFPUC Assistant General Manager for Power memorandum, March 17, 2025).
Yet no capital funding is reaching the legacy grid. The City's adopted FY2022-31 capital plan carried a $17.533 million 'Treasure Island Power and Wastewater Improvements' line; by the FY2024-33 plan the word 'Power' had been removed from the project title and no Treasure Island power line remained. In the current FY2026-35 plan, the only dedicated legacy-grid project — 'TIDA - Treasure Island Legacy Grid Improvement,' a dedicated switchyard circuit for residential areas north of 9th Street, estimated at approximately $450,000 — sits on the deferred-projects list, unfunded.
Meanwhile, Treasure Island's infrastructure financing district carries a $780 million bond authorization, and the Controller's June 30, 2026 memorandum describes an additional $520 million tied to the annexation of new project areas. I urge this body to direct a portion of bond or other immediately available funding to backup batteries and legacy-grid upgrades for the people who live on Treasure Island now — including the Site 12 community — rather than leaving current residents on an unfunded, deteriorating grid while new development is financed around them.
Please include this comment in the official record for this meeting and provide a written response.
Respectfully,
Barklee Sanders
San Francisco, CA
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Barklee Sanders
To: Commission
Subject: Public comment — SFPUC Commission September 24, 2026 agenda: Treasure Island legacy grid Date: Thursday, September 17, 2026 5:32:29 PM
Dear President Arce and Commissioners,
I submit this public comment for the SFPUC Commission meeting of September 24, 2026, sent by email per the agenda's public-comment instructions.
I write regarding the following agenda item(s):
- b) Hetch Hetchy Capital Improvement Program Quarterly Report [keywords: Hetch Hetchy, capital improvement]
- 8. Authorize the General Manager to execute an Installment Sale Agreement to secure a Clean [keywords: Treasure Island] - 10. Approve Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. PRO.0168.B, Engineering Services for [keywords: capital improvement]
Each of these items touches infrastructure, capital planning, energy resilience, or public resources — and each is an opening to address an urgent, documented need: the failing legacy electrical grid serving current Treasure Island residents.
Treasure Island's legacy grid serves the people who live there today, and it is failing them. The SFPUC is the island's municipal electric provider, operating the system as a contractor to the Treasure Island Development Authority. By the SFPUC's own account, more than 120 unplanned power outages have struck the island since January 2016 — an average of 10 to 20 per year — against an industry benchmark of no more than three outages per year (SFPUC Assistant General Manager for Power memorandum, March 17, 2025).
Yet no capital funding is reaching the legacy grid. The City's adopted FY2022-31 capital plan carried a $17.533 million 'Treasure Island Power and Wastewater Improvements' line; by the FY2024-33 plan the word 'Power' had been removed from the project title and no Treasure Island power line remained. In the current FY2026-35 plan, the only dedicated legacy-grid project — 'TIDA - Treasure Island Legacy Grid Improvement,' a dedicated switchyard circuit for residential areas north of 9th Street, estimated at approximately $450,000 — sits on the deferred-projects list, unfunded.
Meanwhile, Treasure Island's infrastructure financing district carries a $780 million bond authorization, and the Controller's June 30, 2026 memorandum describes an additional $520 million tied to the annexation of new project areas. I urge this body to direct a portion of bond or other immediately available funding to backup batteries and legacy-grid upgrades for the people who live on Treasure Island now — including the Site 12 community — rather than leaving current residents on an unfunded, deteriorating grid while new development is financed around them.
Please include this comment in the official record for this meeting and provide a written response.
Respectfully,
Barklee Sanders
San Francisco, CA
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Barklee Sanders
To: Commission
Subject: Public comment — SFPUC Commission September 20, 2026 agenda: Treasure Island legacy grid Date: Thursday, September 17, 2026 5:32:35 PM
Dear President Arce and Commissioners,
I submit this public comment for the SFPUC Commission meeting of September 20, 2026, sent by email per the agenda's public-comment instructions.
I write regarding the following agenda item(s):
- c) Results of the 2023 Water Revenue Bond Issuance [keywords: bond] - d) Water Enterprise Capital Improvement Program Quarterly Report [keywords: capital improvement]
- e) Water System Improvement Program Quarterly Report [keywords: electric] - b) Approve execution and submission of an attestation of veracity for Hetch Hetchy Power’s [keywords: Hetch Hetchy]
- e) Award Contract No. PRO.0226, Treasure Island Water Resource Recovery Facility [keywords: Treasure Island]
- 6. Authorize the Issuance of up to $145 million of the 2023 Series A Power Revenue Bonds (2023 [keywords: bond, power enterprise] - h) Quarterly Report to the Board of Supervisors on the Status of Applications to PG&E for [keywords: electric]
Each of these items touches infrastructure, capital planning, energy resilience, or public resources — and each is an opening to address an urgent, documented need: the failing legacy electrical grid serving current Treasure Island residents.
Treasure Island's legacy grid serves the people who live there today, and it is failing them. The SFPUC is the island's municipal electric provider, operating the system as a contractor to the Treasure Island Development Authority. By the SFPUC's own account, more than 120 unplanned power outages have struck the island since January 2016 — an average of 10 to 20 per year — against an industry benchmark of no more than three outages per year (SFPUC Assistant General Manager for Power memorandum, March 17, 2025).
Yet no capital funding is reaching the legacy grid. The City's adopted FY2022-31 capital plan carried a $17.533 million 'Treasure Island Power and Wastewater Improvements' line; by the FY2024-33 plan the word 'Power' had been removed from the project title and no Treasure Island power line remained. In the current FY2026-35 plan, the only dedicated legacy-grid project — 'TIDA - Treasure Island Legacy Grid Improvement,' a dedicated switchyard circuit for residential areas north of 9th Street, estimated at approximately $450,000 — sits on the deferred-projects list, unfunded.
Meanwhile, Treasure Island's infrastructure financing district carries a $780 million bond authorization, and the Controller's June 30, 2026 memorandum describes an additional $520 million tied to the annexation of new project areas. I urge this body to direct a portion of bond or other immediately available funding to backup batteries and legacy-grid upgrades for the people who live on Treasure Island now — including the Site 12 community — rather than leaving current residents on an unfunded, deteriorating grid while new development is financed around them.
Please include this comment in the official record for this meeting and provide a written response.
Respectfully,
Barklee Sanders
San Francisco, CA
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Barklee Sanders
To: Commission
Subject: Public comment — SFPUC Commission September 26, 2026 agenda: Treasure Island legacy grid Date: Thursday, September 17, 2026 5:32:39 PM
Dear President Arce and Commissioners,
I submit this public comment for the SFPUC Commission meeting of September 26, 2026, sent by email per the agenda's public-comment instructions.
I write regarding the following agenda item(s):
- d) Hetch Hetchy Capital Improvement Program Quarterly Report [keywords: Hetch Hetchy, capital improvement]
- a) Approve modification of Job Order Contract No. JOC-92, General Engineering (A [keywords: Hetch Hetchy]
- e) Award Contract Nos. PRO.0275.A-C, Hetchy Capital Improvement Projects As-Needed [keywords: capital improvement]
- d) Capital Planning Improvement Initiative Update [keywords: capital plan] Each of these items touches infrastructure, capital planning, energy resilience, or public resources — and each is an opening to address an urgent, documented need: the failing legacy electrical grid serving current Treasure Island residents.
Treasure Island's legacy grid serves the people who live there today, and it is failing them. The SFPUC is the island's municipal electric provider, operating the system as a contractor to the Treasure Island Development Authority. By the SFPUC's own account, more than 120 unplanned power outages have struck the island since January 2016 — an average of 10 to 20 per year — against an industry benchmark of no more than three outages per year (SFPUC Assistant General Manager for Power memorandum, March 17, 2025).
Yet no capital funding is reaching the legacy grid. The City's adopted FY2022-31 capital plan carried a $17.533 million 'Treasure Island Power and Wastewater Improvements' line; by the FY2024-33 plan the word 'Power' had been removed from the project title and no Treasure Island power line remained. In the current FY2026-35 plan, the only dedicated legacy-grid project — 'TIDA - Treasure Island Legacy Grid Improvement,' a dedicated switchyard circuit for residential areas north of 9th Street, estimated at approximately $450,000 — sits on the deferred-projects list, unfunded.
Meanwhile, Treasure Island's infrastructure financing district carries a $780 million bond authorization, and the Controller's June 30, 2026 memorandum describes an additional $520 million tied to the annexation of new project areas. I urge this body to direct a portion of bond or other immediately available funding to backup batteries and legacy-grid upgrades for the people who live on Treasure Island now — including the Site 12 community — rather than leaving current residents on an unfunded, deteriorating grid while new development is financed around them.
Please include this comment in the official record for this meeting and provide a written response.
Respectfully,
Barklee Sanders
San Francisco, CA
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Barklee Sanders
To: Commission
Subject: Public comment — SFPUC Commission September 26, 2026 agenda: Treasure Island legacy grid Date: Thursday, September 17, 2026 5:32:39 PM
Dear President Arce and Commissioners,
I submit this public comment for the SFPUC Commission meeting of September 26, 2026, sent by email per the agenda's public-comment instructions.
I write regarding the following agenda item(s):
- d) Hetch Hetchy Capital Improvement Program Quarterly Report [keywords: Hetch Hetchy, capital improvement]
- a) Approve modification of Job Order Contract No. JOC-92, General Engineering (A [keywords: Hetch Hetchy]
- e) Award Contract Nos. PRO.0275.A-C, Hetchy Capital Improvement Projects As-Needed [keywords: capital improvement]
- d) Capital Planning Improvement Initiative Update [keywords: capital plan] Each of these items touches infrastructure, capital planning, energy resilience, or public resources — and each is an opening to address an urgent, documented need: the failing legacy electrical grid serving current Treasure Island residents.
Treasure Island's legacy grid serves the people who live there today, and it is failing them. The SFPUC is the island's municipal electric provider, operating the system as a contractor to the Treasure Island Development Authority. By the SFPUC's own account, more than 120 unplanned power outages have struck the island since January 2016 — an average of 10 to 20 per year — against an industry benchmark of no more than three outages per year (SFPUC Assistant General Manager for Power memorandum, March 17, 2025).
Yet no capital funding is reaching the legacy grid. The City's adopted FY2022-31 capital plan carried a $17.533 million 'Treasure Island Power and Wastewater Improvements' line; by the FY2024-33 plan the word 'Power' had been removed from the project title and no Treasure Island power line remained. In the current FY2026-35 plan, the only dedicated legacy-grid project — 'TIDA - Treasure Island Legacy Grid Improvement,' a dedicated switchyard circuit for residential areas north of 9th Street, estimated at approximately $450,000 — sits on the deferred-projects list, unfunded.
Meanwhile, Treasure Island's infrastructure financing district carries a $780 million bond authorization, and the Controller's June 30, 2026 memorandum describes an additional $520 million tied to the annexation of new project areas. I urge this body to direct a portion of bond or other immediately available funding to backup batteries and legacy-grid upgrades for the people who live on Treasure Island now — including the Site 12 community — rather than leaving current residents on an unfunded, deteriorating grid while new development is financed around them.
Please include this comment in the official record for this meeting and provide a written response.
Respectfully,
Barklee Sanders
San Francisco, CA
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Barklee Sanders
To: Commission
Subject: Public comment — SFPUC Commission October 10, 2026 agenda: Treasure Island legacy grid Date: Thursday, September 17, 2026 5:32:45 PM
Dear President Arce and Commissioners,
I submit this public comment for the SFPUC Commission meeting of October 10, 2026, sent by email per the agenda's public-comment instructions.
I write under General Public Comment regarding an urgent, documented need within your jurisdiction: the failing legacy electrical grid serving current Treasure Island residents.
Treasure Island's legacy grid serves the people who live there today, and it is failing them. The SFPUC is the island's municipal electric provider, operating the system as a contractor to the Treasure Island Development Authority. By the SFPUC's own account, more than 120 unplanned power outages have struck the island since January 2016 — an average of 10 to 20 per year — against an industry benchmark of no more than three outages per year (SFPUC Assistant General Manager for Power memorandum, March 17, 2025).
Yet no capital funding is reaching the legacy grid. The City's adopted FY2022-31 capital plan carried a $17.533 million 'Treasure Island Power and Wastewater Improvements' line; by the FY2024-33 plan the word 'Power' had been removed from the project title and no Treasure Island power line remained. In the current FY2026-35 plan, the only dedicated legacy-grid project — 'TIDA - Treasure Island Legacy Grid Improvement,' a dedicated switchyard circuit for residential areas north of 9th Street, estimated at approximately $450,000 — sits on the deferred-projects list, unfunded.
Meanwhile, Treasure Island's infrastructure financing district carries a $780 million bond authorization, and the Controller's June 30, 2026 memorandum describes an additional $520 million tied to the annexation of new project areas. I urge this body to direct a portion of bond or other immediately available funding to backup batteries and legacy-grid upgrades for the people who live on Treasure Island now — including the Site 12 community — rather than leaving current residents on an unfunded, deteriorating grid while new development is financed around them.
Please include this comment in the official record for this meeting and provide a written response.
Respectfully,
Barklee Sanders
San Francisco, CA
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Barklee Sanders
To: Commission
Subject: Public comment — SFPUC Commission September 27, 2026 agenda: Treasure Island legacy grid Date: Thursday, September 17, 2026 5:32:50 PM
Dear President Arce and Commissioners,
I submit this public comment for the SFPUC Commission meeting of September 27, 2026, sent by email per the agenda's public-comment instructions.
I write regarding the following agenda item(s):
- a) Approve an increase of $600,000 to the Contract cost contingency for Contract [keywords: electric, generator]
Each of these items touches infrastructure, capital planning, energy resilience, or public resources — and each is an opening to address an urgent, documented need: the failing legacy electrical grid serving current Treasure Island residents.
Treasure Island's legacy grid serves the people who live there today, and it is failing them. The SFPUC is the island's municipal electric provider, operating the system as a contractor to the Treasure Island Development Authority. By the SFPUC's own account, more than 120 unplanned power outages have struck the island since January 2016 — an average of 10 to 20 per year — against an industry benchmark of no more than three outages per year (SFPUC Assistant General Manager for Power memorandum, March 17, 2025).
Yet no capital funding is reaching the legacy grid. The City's adopted FY2022-31 capital plan carried a $17.533 million 'Treasure Island Power and Wastewater Improvements' line; by the FY2024-33 plan the word 'Power' had been removed from the project title and no Treasure Island power line remained. In the current FY2026-35 plan, the only dedicated legacy-grid project — 'TIDA - Treasure Island Legacy Grid Improvement,' a dedicated switchyard circuit for residential areas north of 9th Street, estimated at approximately $450,000 — sits on the deferred-projects list, unfunded.
Meanwhile, Treasure Island's infrastructure financing district carries a $780 million bond authorization, and the Controller's June 30, 2026 memorandum describes an additional $520 million tied to the annexation of new project areas. I urge this body to direct a portion of bond or other immediately available funding to backup batteries and legacy-grid upgrades for the people who live on Treasure Island now — including the Site 12 community — rather than leaving current residents on an unfunded, deteriorating grid while new development is financed around them.
Please include this comment in the official record for this meeting and provide a written response.
Respectfully,
Barklee Sanders
San Francisco, CA
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Barklee Sanders
To: Commission
Subject: Public comment — SFPUC Commission October 11, 2026 agenda: Treasure Island legacy grid Date: Thursday, September 17, 2026 5:32:55 PM
Dear President Arce and Commissioners,
I submit this public comment for the SFPUC Commission meeting of October 11, 2026, sent by email per the agenda's public-comment instructions.
I write regarding the following agenda item(s):
- 14. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – Pursuant to California Government Code, [keywords: resilience]
Each of these items touches infrastructure, capital planning, energy resilience, or public resources — and each is an opening to address an urgent, documented need: the failing legacy electrical grid serving current Treasure Island residents.
Treasure Island's legacy grid serves the people who live there today, and it is failing them. The SFPUC is the island's municipal electric provider, operating the system as a contractor to the Treasure Island Development Authority. By the SFPUC's own account, more than 120 unplanned power outages have struck the island since January 2016 — an average of 10 to 20 per year — against an industry benchmark of no more than three outages per year (SFPUC Assistant General Manager for Power memorandum, March 17, 2025).
Yet no capital funding is reaching the legacy grid. The City's adopted FY2022-31 capital plan carried a $17.533 million 'Treasure Island Power and Wastewater Improvements' line; by the FY2024-33 plan the word 'Power' had been removed from the project title and no Treasure Island power line remained. In the current FY2026-35 plan, the only dedicated legacy-grid project — 'TIDA - Treasure Island Legacy Grid Improvement,' a dedicated switchyard circuit for residential areas north of 9th Street, estimated at approximately $450,000 — sits on the deferred-projects list, unfunded.
Meanwhile, Treasure Island's infrastructure financing district carries a $780 million bond authorization, and the Controller's June 30, 2026 memorandum describes an additional $520 million tied to the annexation of new project areas. I urge this body to direct a portion of bond or other immediately available funding to backup batteries and legacy-grid upgrades for the people who live on Treasure Island now — including the Site 12 community — rather than leaving current residents on an unfunded, deteriorating grid while new development is financed around them.
Please include this comment in the official record for this meeting and provide a written response.
Respectfully,
Barklee Sanders
San Francisco, CA
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Barklee Sanders
To: Commission
Subject: Public comment — SFPUC Commission September 17, 2026 agenda: Treasure Island legacy grid Date: Thursday, September 17, 2026 5:33:02 PM
Dear President Arce and Commissioners,
I submit this public comment for the SFPUC Commission meeting of September 17, 2026, sent by email per the agenda's public-comment instructions.
I write regarding the following agenda item(s):
- 3. Presentations on Alternative Water Supply (AWS) Planning [keywords: reliability, resilience]
- 4. Public Comment [keywords: reliability]
Each of these items touches infrastructure, capital planning, energy resilience, or public resources — and each is an opening to address an urgent, documented need: the failing legacy electrical grid serving current Treasure Island residents.
Treasure Island's legacy grid serves the people who live there today, and it is failing them. The SFPUC is the island's municipal electric provider, operating the system as a contractor to the Treasure Island Development Authority. By the SFPUC's own account, more than 120 unplanned power outages have struck the island since January 2016 — an average of 10 to 20 per year — against an industry benchmark of no more than three outages per year (SFPUC Assistant General Manager for Power memorandum, March 17, 2025).
Yet no capital funding is reaching the legacy grid. The City's adopted FY2022-31 capital plan carried a $17.533 million 'Treasure Island Power and Wastewater Improvements' line; by the FY2024-33 plan the word 'Power' had been removed from the project title and no Treasure Island power line remained. In the current FY2026-35 plan, the only dedicated legacy-grid project — 'TIDA - Treasure Island Legacy Grid Improvement,' a dedicated switchyard circuit for residential areas north of 9th Street, estimated at approximately $450,000 — sits on the deferred-projects list, unfunded.
Meanwhile, Treasure Island's infrastructure financing district carries a $780 million bond authorization, and the Controller's June 30, 2026 memorandum describes an additional $520 million tied to the annexation of new project areas. I urge this body to direct a portion of bond or other immediately available funding to backup batteries and legacy-grid upgrades for the people who live on Treasure Island now — including the Site 12 community — rather than leaving current residents on an unfunded, deteriorating grid while new development is financed around them.
Please include this comment in the official record for this meeting and provide a written response.
Respectfully,
Barklee Sanders
San Francisco, CA
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Barklee Sanders
To: Commission
Subject: Public comment — SFPUC Commission September 17, 2026 agenda: Treasure Island legacy grid Date: Thursday, September 17, 2026 5:33:02 PM
Dear President Arce and Commissioners,
I submit this public comment for the SFPUC Commission meeting of September 17, 2026, sent by email per the agenda's public-comment instructions.
I write regarding the following agenda item(s):
- 3. Presentations on Alternative Water Supply (AWS) Planning [keywords: reliability, resilience]
- 4. Public Comment [keywords: reliability]
Each of these items touches infrastructure, capital planning, energy resilience, or public resources — and each is an opening to address an urgent, documented need: the failing legacy electrical grid serving current Treasure Island residents.
Treasure Island's legacy grid serves the people who live there today, and it is failing them. The SFPUC is the island's municipal electric provider, operating the system as a contractor to the Treasure Island Development Authority. By the SFPUC's own account, more than 120 unplanned power outages have struck the island since January 2016 — an average of 10 to 20 per year — against an industry benchmark of no more than three outages per year (SFPUC Assistant General Manager for Power memorandum, March 17, 2025).
Yet no capital funding is reaching the legacy grid. The City's adopted FY2022-31 capital plan carried a $17.533 million 'Treasure Island Power and Wastewater Improvements' line; by the FY2024-33 plan the word 'Power' had been removed from the project title and no Treasure Island power line remained. In the current FY2026-35 plan, the only dedicated legacy-grid project — 'TIDA - Treasure Island Legacy Grid Improvement,' a dedicated switchyard circuit for residential areas north of 9th Street, estimated at approximately $450,000 — sits on the deferred-projects list, unfunded.
Meanwhile, Treasure Island's infrastructure financing district carries a $780 million bond authorization, and the Controller's June 30, 2026 memorandum describes an additional $520 million tied to the annexation of new project areas. I urge this body to direct a portion of bond or other immediately available funding to backup batteries and legacy-grid upgrades for the people who live on Treasure Island now — including the Site 12 community — rather than leaving current residents on an unfunded, deteriorating grid while new development is financed around them.
Please include this comment in the official record for this meeting and provide a written response.
Respectfully,
Barklee Sanders
San Francisco, CA
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Barklee Sanders
To: Commission
Subject: Public comment — SFPUC Commission September 28, 2026 agenda: Treasure Island legacy grid Date: Thursday, September 17, 2026 5:33:07 PM
Dear President Arce and Commissioners,
I submit this public comment for the SFPUC Commission meeting of September 28, 2026, sent by email per the agenda's public-comment instructions.
I write regarding the following agenda item(s):
- g) Capital Improvement Program Quarterly Report [keywords: capital improvement]
- a) Approve the selection of AECOM Technical Services, Inc.; award Agreement No. [keywords: Hetch Hetchy, capital improvement] - 15. Authorize the General Manager to execute an agreement between Pacific Gas and [keywords: electric]
- 67.10(d)(1) (discussion only)
(Mueller) [keywords: electric]
Each of these items touches infrastructure, capital planning, energy resilience, or public resources — and each is an opening to address an urgent, documented need: the failing legacy electrical grid serving current Treasure Island residents.
Treasure Island's legacy grid serves the people who live there today, and it is failing them. The SFPUC is the island's municipal electric provider, operating the system as a contractor to the Treasure Island Development Authority. By the SFPUC's own account, more than 120 unplanned power outages have struck the island since January 2016 — an average of 10 to 20 per year — against an industry benchmark of no more than three outages per year (SFPUC Assistant General Manager for Power memorandum, March 17, 2025).
Yet no capital funding is reaching the legacy grid. The City's adopted FY2022-31 capital plan carried a $17.533 million 'Treasure Island Power and Wastewater Improvements' line; by the FY2024-33 plan the word 'Power' had been removed from the project title and no Treasure Island power line remained. In the current FY2026-35 plan, the only dedicated legacy-grid project — 'TIDA - Treasure Island Legacy Grid Improvement,' a dedicated switchyard circuit for residential areas north of 9th Street, estimated at approximately $450,000 — sits on the deferred-projects list, unfunded.
Meanwhile, Treasure Island's infrastructure financing district carries a $780 million bond authorization, and the Controller's June 30, 2026 memorandum describes an additional $520 million tied to the annexation of new project areas. I urge this body to direct a portion of bond or other immediately available funding to backup batteries and legacy-grid upgrades for the people who live on Treasure Island now — including the Site 12 community — rather than leaving current residents on an unfunded, deteriorating grid while new development is financed around them.
Please include this comment in the official record for this meeting and provide a written response.
Respectfully,
Barklee Sanders
San Francisco, CA
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization.
Report Suspicious
From: Barklee Sanders
To: Commission
Subject: Public comment — SFPUC Commission October 12, 2026 agenda: Treasure Island legacy grid Date: Thursday, September 17, 2026 5:33:08 PM
Dear President Arce and Commissioners,
I submit this public comment for the SFPUC Commission meeting of October 12, 2026, sent by email per the agenda's public-comment instructions.
I write regarding the following agenda item(s):
- 7. Commissioner Bond Disclosure Responsibility Training:
Presentation advising the [keywords: bond]
Each of these items touches infrastructure, capital planning, energy resilience, or public resources — and each is an opening to address an urgent, documented need: the failing legacy electrical grid serving current Treasure Island residents.
Treasure Island's legacy grid serves the people who live there today, and it is failing them. The SFPUC is the island's municipal electric provider, operating the system as a contractor to the Treasure Island Development Authority. By the SFPUC's own account, more than 120 unplanned power outages have struck the island since January 2016 — an average of 10 to 20 per year — against an industry benchmark of no more than three outages per year (SFPUC Assistant General Manager for Power memorandum, March 17, 2025).
Yet no capital funding is reaching the legacy grid. The City's adopted FY2022-31 capital plan carried a $17.533 million 'Treasure Island Power and Wastewater Improvements' line; by the FY2024-33 plan the word 'Power' had been removed from the project title and no Treasure Island power line remained. In the current FY2026-35 plan, the only dedicated legacy-grid project — 'TIDA - Treasure Island Legacy Grid Improvement,' a dedicated switchyard circuit for residential areas north of 9th Street, estimated at approximately $450,000 — sits on the deferred-projects list, unfunded.
Meanwhile, Treasure Island's infrastructure financing district carries a $780 million bond authorization, and the Controller's June 30, 2026 memorandum describes an additional $520 million tied to the annexation of new project areas. I urge this body to direct a portion of bond or other immediately available funding to backup batteries and legacy-grid upgrades for the people who live on Treasure Island now — including the Site 12 community — rather than leaving current residents on an unfunded, deteriorating grid while new development is financed around them.
Please include this comment in the official record for this meeting and provide a written response.
Respectfully,
Barklee Sanders
San Francisco, CA
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Lynne MacFarlane
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; RidgeTrail; Commission; Info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]
Subject: From Kings Mountain: parking everywhere, and people crossing Skyline on foot — one more example of the corridor problem
Date: Saturday, September 19, 2026 11:49:17 PM
To everyone with authority over SR-35 and the trailheads on it:
Chaos on the highway: people running across it, people racing along it, and parking everywhere. That is the new status quo on 35, 84 and 9.
The Skyline Watershed Ridge Trail is something this community wanted. The conditions on SR-35 and SR-92 since it opened are something nobody wanted.
This is the pattern every weekend since the opening: full lot, overflow onto two highway shoulders, and people crossing on foot wherever they happened to park.
Two of these asks are immediate. The rest are about how this corridor is run. None of them requires a new idea. None of this requires closing the trail or inventing anything new.
ASK 1 — CALTRANS: you can do this one now. Restrict parking alongside the highway.
Sign it, clearly and on both approaches. That alone would change the picture. Only Caltrans can restrict parking alongside a state highway. The County and the trail operators cannot do this one.
ASK 2 — CALTRANS: say the encroachment permit can be fast-tracked.
The Highway 35 crossing at Purisima has a design, a preferred alternative and a budget line. The remaining gate is the Caltrans encroachment permit. Please treat a designed pedestrian crossing on a scenic highway as the priority it is, rather than a routine queue item.
ASK 3 — CALTRANS: apply this to the whole corridor, proactively.
Every trailhead on SR-35, SR-84 and SR-9 has the same geometry and the same risk. Only one of them has a designed crossing. Please work proactively with Midpen, SFPUC, the County and the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council to identify every trail crossing on SR-35, SR-84 and SR-9 and treat them as one programme — rather than waiting for each agency to arrive separately with an encroachment permit. Wherever parking alongside these highways makes people walk in the road or blinds an approach, it should be posted and cleared as part of the same programme.
The land agencies are not the obstacle. SFPUC opened the watershed and the Ridge Trail Council co-funds the crossing at Purisima. They need Caltrans to meet them on the highway side, and so far it has not done enough.
ASK 4 — MIDPEN: prioritise the Purisima crossing for safety, and build it sooner.
To be clear, the adopted plan is a good one: it cuts parking alongside SR-35 from ten spaces to three, adds defined no-parking zones, and nearly doubles off-highway capacity. The problem is not the plan. It is the pace. We are asking for a date, publicly stated, and for the crossing to be prioritised ahead of the elements that are not safety- critical.
ASK 5 — MIDPEN: lead on this. Individual residents cannot move Caltrans; you can.
Midpen holds the relationship, the engineering capacity and the credibility. Kings Mountain holds the evidence. Together those are enough. Advocate for safe crossings and for parking prevention along SR-35, SR-84 and SR-9 — the two things standing between the public and safe access to this hill. The same measures that let families reach a trailhead safely make this a less rewarding place to speed — and let people on the trail hear birds rather than exhaust. Please make that case to Caltrans.
Restrict the parking alongside the highway, expedite the permit, build the crossings — and back a corridor programme so the next one does not take five years.
Gratefully,
Lynne MacFarlane — Capitola
(Long time Bay Area Resident/ Cyclist)
[email protected]
I’m one of the many neighbors watching what happens on this hill.
The evidence base and the funding routes, together:
https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://safecorridorinitiative.com/? utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=crossings__;!!NCYPjq8!8yh mOATVxQffn9xfjvhKuLLba-
EGfuzirYCmQGsHO__Srxc7pfVDgOH_T9VLKR1hig4xk0zRkKCK-ojIiXHUge0_IBYa$ Lynne (Watanabe) MacFarlane
(831) 346-2743 cell
LinkedIn/lynnewatanabe
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Megan Bone
To: [email protected]; Kech, Stephen; [email protected]; DPW, StreetSpace (DPW) Cc: MandelmanStaff (BOS); Mandelman, Rafael (BOS); Commission; Public Works Permits (DPW); communications Subject: Formal Complaint & Request for Immediate Compliance Review — SFPUC WD-2875 / Basset Engineering / Grand View Ave
Date: Wednesday, September 30, 2026 9:43:26 PM
WARNING: The following file attachments have been removed from this message for your safety: 2026-09-30_basset_grandview_24th-25th_permit25exc-02300.heic, 2026-04- 27_basset_grandview_24th-25th_permit25exc-02300.heic, 2026-07- 07_basset_grandview_elizabeth-24th_permit25exc-02300_multiplesigns.heic Please contact the SFPUC IT Customer Service Center at (415) 551-4357 for further information or open a service request at
https://sfpuc.service-now.com
To Basset Engineering, SFPUC, San Francisco Public Works, and the Office of Supervisor Mandelman:
I am a resident of 630 Grand View Avenue and am writing to formally request an immediate review of the management and oversight of Basset Engineering’s work associated with SFPUC Contract WD-2875, particularly the extensive and repeatedly extended No Stopping/Tow Away restrictions throughout Grand View Avenue and the surrounding neighborhood.
I have also submitted SF311 Service Request #202000123500 requesting a Public Works inspection of the current parking restrictions.
I fully recognize that replacement of aging water and sewer infrastructure is necessary and that significant construction inevitably creates temporary inconvenience. My complaint is not about necessary construction. It concerns a pattern I have observed for approximately eight months in which substantial portions of neighborhood parking remain restricted during prolonged periods when there appears to be no corresponding construction activity.
I have been home from my job as an RN at Stanford, during the overwhelming majority of weekdays since January 26, 2026, because of a back injury. As a result, I have had an unusually consistent opportunity to observe when crews are—and are not—working in this neighborhood.
The recurring pattern has been striking. Extensive No Stopping/Tow Away zones are established throughout the neighborhood. Basset then performs periods of intensive work involving excavation, concrete demolition, drilling and heavy equipment, frequently throughout the workday. Work subsequently stops, sometimes for extended periods, yet the parking restrictions remain. New dates are then posted or the restrictions otherwise continue despite no observable active work in substantial portions of the restricted areas.
This has occurred repeatedly over many months.
I have photographs documenting Basset No Stopping restrictions associated with Permit 25EXC-02300 at multiple points during this project, including:
• Grand View Avenue between 24th and 25th Streets: April 27-May 15, 2026, 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Monday-Friday.
• Grand View Avenue between Elizabeth and 24th Streets: July 7-July 17, 2026, 7:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., Monday-Friday.
• Grand View Avenue between 25th and 24th Streets: September 23-October 16, 2026, 7:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m., Monday-Friday.
These are only examples of the restrictions I have documented; they do not represent every period during which construction-related parking restrictions have been posted in the neighborhood.
On September 30, the cumulative restrictions resulted in my being unable to find parking for more than four blocks surrounding my residence, despite there being no observable active construction that explained much of the restricted area.
This has a significant impact on residents. Grand View Avenue and the surrounding neighborhood are exceptionally steep. I routinely return home late at night and leave again very early in the morning for my job, which I am newly returned to. Extensive parking restrictions can require me to park several blocks from my residence and walk alone through steep residential streets late at night, including when the curb space appears to be restricted despite no active construction.
SFPUC’s own construction notice for this project states that No Parking signs will be placed where construction will take place and that parking is prohibited in the work zone only during construction hours.
The conditions I have repeatedly observed raise serious questions about whether the scope and duration of these restrictions are consistent with those representations and with the applicable permits.
There are additional concerns regarding the overall management and duration of this project.
The original SFPUC 30-Day Construction Notice stated that construction was anticipated to begin June 16, 2025 and be completed by Spring 2026, while noting that weather and construction issues could affect the schedule. SFPUC’s current project page now lists the construction end as Fall 2026.
This represents a substantial extension beyond the originally communicated completion timeframe. Given the cumulative effect of prolonged parking restrictions, repeated excavation, utility interruptions, construction noise, and access impacts on residents, I am requesting a clear explanation of the causes of this delay and the current expected path to completion.
I have also personally observed the portion of Grand View Avenue between Elizabeth Street and Clipper Street undergo substantial excavation/work and subsequent restoration on at least three separate occasions since February. Current SFPUC project information again identifies work involving trench compaction and concrete road base in this area. I recognize that separate phases of underground utility construction can require multiple excavations.
However, after months of repeated disturbance of the same roadway, residents deserve an explanation of the sequencing and purpose of this work.
Residents have also experienced multiple water service interruptions during the project, at times with little advance notice. SFPUC’s construction notice states that residents will receive at least 24 hours’ advance notice of temporary water interruptions associated with water-main connections.
Most seriously, during this project a pipe was damaged and substantial flooding affected nearly my entire building. I would like clarification regarding that incident, including whether an incident report was prepared and which agency maintains that record.
I have also documented construction materials/debris being left in and around the project area, adding to broader concerns about management of the construction site.
Given the duration and cumulative impact of these conditions, I am requesting the following:
1. An immediate Public Works inspection of the No Stopping/Tow Away restrictions currently posted throughout the affected Grand View Avenue area.
2. Written confirmation of the permits authorizing the current parking restrictions, including the precise locations, dates, hours, and authorized purposes of the restricted curb space.
3. A review of Permit 25EXC-02300, including its scope and the locations and time periods for which Basset has been authorized to restrict parking.
4. A comparison of the parking restrictions registered or requested under this permit against Basset Engineering’s daily construction logs and City inspection records to determine whether parking has been restricted during periods when no construction, staging, material storage, or other authorized activity occurred.
5. An explanation of why No Stopping/Tow Away restrictions have repeatedly remained in place or been extended during prolonged periods when no corresponding construction activity was observable.
6. Immediate removal or narrowing of restrictions wherever curb space is not currently required for an authorized construction purpose.
7. Confirmation that future restrictions will correspond as closely as reasonably possible to actual construction needs and will not remain in effect unnecessarily during periods of inactivity.
8. A written explanation of the work performed during the repeated excavation/disturbance of Grand View Avenue between Elizabeth and Clipper since February, including the approximate dates and purpose of each phase and whether subsequent excavation represented planned sequencing, additional work, changed work, or corrective work.
9. Confirmation of the notification requirements applicable to planned water shutoffs and whether those requirements have been followed throughout WD-2875.
10. Information regarding the construction-related pipe damage and flooding affecting my building, including the responsible entity and any corresponding incident or inspection report.
11. A written explanation of why the project has extended from the originally anticipated Spring 2026 completion into Fall 2026, including the principal causes of the delay, whether the delay was attributable to planned sequencing, unforeseen site conditions, changed work, corrective work, utility conflicts, contractor performance, or other causes, and the current anticipated substantial-completion date.
12. An updated schedule for the remaining work under WD-2875, including a block-by- block estimate where available.
13. Identification of a designated City contact to whom residents can report ongoing parking, access, water-service, site-management, or safety problems associated with this project.
Again, I am not requesting that necessary infrastructure construction cease, nor am I objecting to reasonable parking restrictions while work is actually occurring. I am asking the City and its contractor to ensure that the considerable burden imposed on this neighborhood is limited to what is actually necessary and authorized to complete the work.
After months of repeated disruption and a project timeline that has extended well beyond the originally communicated completion period, this warrants substantive review rather than another extension of the same conditions.
Please confirm receipt of this complaint and SF311 Service Request #202000123500. I am requesting a written response addressing the issues above and confirmation that Public Works will inspect the current parking restrictions.
I have photographs documenting the signage, permit number, restricted locations and dates, and conditions within the project area and am prepared to provide additional documentation if requested.
Thank you,
Megan Bone
630 Grand View Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94114
This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: T Rutledge
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; RidgeTrail; Commission; Info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: A constituent request: people crossing Skyline Blvd on foot to reach the new trail — one example of a problem repeating corridor-wide
Date: Thursday, October 1, 2026 7:29:19 AM
To Caltrans District 4, Midpen, and San Mateo County:
Running pedestrians, racing drivers, parking on every shoulder — the new normal on the roads to the coast.
The trail is welcome and should stay open. What needs to change is the road outside it, and some of that can change immediately.
What residents report from the opening weekends: cars lining both sides of SR-35 and SR-92, pedestrians sprinting across the highway, people standing in the centre turn lane while traffic passes at 50 mph on both sides, and cars parked over the fog line.
This hill was designated scenic for exactly what people are now coming to do here — walk it, ride it, look at it. The access simply has to catch up. Please do not let this wait for the next planning cycle.
ASK 1 — CALTRANS: post the no-parking restriction at 35/92.
The cars alongside the highway are what create the crossings. Restrict that parking and most of the pedestrian exposure disappears the same weekend. We are asking Caltrans to use the authority it already has, now, rather than after a collision makes it obvious.
ASK 2 — CALTRANS: publicly commit to fast-tracking this permit.
This crossing has been in planning since 2020. The last procedural hurdle is a Caltrans encroachment permit. Caltrans reviewed the consultant’s findings, asked for more information, received it, and had no further comments. There is no reason this permit should take years.
ASK 3 — CALTRANS: lead Add Safe Corridor Crosswalks on SR-35, SR-84 and SR-9.
This corridor has trailheads, pullouts and vista points where people already cross on foot, and one designed crossing among them. The difference is not need — it is which agency filed paperwork. Under SB 960 Caltrans already owes pedestrian and bicycle facilities on state highway work. Please apply that corridor-wide and proactively, not project by project. One list should cover both: every trail crossing that needs building, and every stretch of verge where parking is unsafe.
A word to SFPUC and the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council, who are copied here: thank you.
Opening this hill to the public and funding a safe crossing of Highway 35 are both genuinely good work. What you should not have to do is carry the highway half of it alone — that is Caltrans’ job, and Caltrans should be backing you far more than it is.
ASK 4 — MIDPEN: prioritise the Purisima crossing for safety, and build it sooner.
The partnership agreement dates from October 2020. Kings Mountain was consulted in July 2021, 2022 and again in 2022. The preferred design was adopted in November 2023. There is still no construction date. Midpen’s plan already contemplates opening some components earlier than others. Please use that provision here.
ASK 5 — MIDPEN: you have standing with Caltrans. Please spend it on this corridor.
Midpen is a public agency that already partners with Caltrans on highway crossings, with engineering staff, a traffic consultant and a track record. When residents write individually we are filed as neighbours. When Midpen asks, Caltrans takes a meeting. The ask is straightforward: more safe crossings, and no parking along the highway. Please carry it to Caltrans as a matter of public access. The corridor was designated scenic for the users Midpen serves. Making it work for them is also what makes it less inviting to race — and quiet enough to experience the place with more than your eyes.
Please make safe crossings a programme rather than a favour, and let this hill become what it was designated to be.
With thanks,
Theodore Rutledge Jr — Woodside
I’m among the residents pressing for a safe corridor on these highways.
Everything behind this — the data, the map, the specific fixes:
https://safecorridorinitiative.com/?
utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=crossings This Message Is From an Untrusted Sender
You have not previously corresponded with this sender.
Report Suspicious
From: Steve Foy
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; RidgeTrail; Commission; Info; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Before someone is hit: is this the new normal for Highway 35? — one more example of the corridor problem Date: Monday, October 5, 2026 11:02:37 AM
To the agencies responsible for Skyline Boulevard and its trail crossings:
The status quo on this corridor now: people running across the highway, people racing along it, and parking everywhere there is a verge.
The Skyline Watershed Ridge Trail opened on August 24, 2026, and it is a good thing — six miles of hill the public had never been able to walk. What has happened on the highway outside it since is not.
The conditions reported in the first weekends include roadside parking on both highways, pedestrians in the traffic lane, vehicles stopped on blind curves, cars parked in flammable brush, and no room left for an air ambulance to land.
The community’s summary of how these three highways are run is blunt — no crosswalks, and a highway for racers. The new trailhead is simply the newest place that shows. The window to act before someone is hurt is now, not after the next holiday weekend.
ASK 1 — CALTRANS: you can do this one now. Restrict parking alongside the highway.
A posted no-parking restriction at the SR-92 pull-off and the SR-35 shoulders is the quickest thing anyone can do here, and it addresses the cause rather than the symptom. This is squarely within Caltrans’ ordinary authority over state highway right-of-way, and it can be done in weeks rather than years.
ASK 2 — CALTRANS: expedited review for the Purisima Highway 35 crossing.
Midpen cannot build this crossing without a Caltrans permit, and the permit process has not started. Caltrans reviewed the consultant’s findings, asked for more information, received it, and had no further comments. There is no reason this permit should take years.
ASK 3 — CALTRANS: back an Add Safe Corridor Crosswalks programme.
Add Safe Corridor Crosswalks is the alternative to what we have now: waiting for each land agency to apply, one trailhead at a time, which is what produced a corridor with no crossings on it. One corridor-wide plan for trail crossings, built with the agencies that manage the land, would achieve more than the current permit queue ever will. Please inventory the dangerous verges too. Roadside parking that forces walking in the traffic lane or costs drivers their sight distance is the same problem repeating along all three highways.
Credit where it is due: SFPUC opened this trail and the Bay Area Ridge Trail Council is funding a safe crossing of Highway 35. Please back them. They cannot build in Caltrans right- of-way, and they should not have to wait years for permission.
ASK 4 — MIDPEN: the crossing cannot wait for the whole plan to finish.
The partnership agreement dates from October 2020. Kings Mountain was consulted in July 2021, 2022 and again in 2022. The preferred design was adopted in November 2023. There is still no construction date. We are asking for a date, publicly stated, and for the crossing to be prioritised ahead of the elements that are not safety-critical.
ASK 5 — MIDPEN: take the lead on crossings and on parking alongside the highway.
Residents can report what they see. Midpen can put it in front of Caltrans as an agency with a design team behind it. Please do that. Midpen’s visitors are the people at risk here. Please advocate for the crossings and the parking restrictions that would let them arrive safely.
Accommodating hikers well and reducing the pull for racers are not separate aims. Crossings, lower speeds through them and clear verges do both — and give visitors a place they can hear as well as see.
A corridor built for everyone who uses it is far less appealing to anyone who came up here to race, and far quieter for everyone on the trail.
Respectfully,
Steve Foy — Redwood City
[email protected]
I’m one of the residents behind the Safe Corridor Initiative for Highways 35, 84 and 9.
Everything behind this — the data, the map, the specific fixes:
https://safecorridorinitiative.com/?
utm_source=email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=crossings