Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pierce Street Outfall topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents, advocates urge SFPUC to restore Pierce Street outfall after repeated Marina flooding
Summary
Several Marina residents and advocacy groups told the SFPUC commission that decommissioning the Pierce Street outfall has contributed to recurring sewer and storm flooding in the Marina and urged the agency to reopen or otherwise restore outfall capacity.
Multiple members of the public urged the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission on May 20 to revisit the decision to decommission the Pierce Street outfall, arguing the closure has worsened flooding and sewer backups in the Marina neighborhood.
Bill Clark, a Marina resident with a boat near the former outfall, told commissioners he believes the outfall's closure contributed to flooding during the 2022 and 2023 storms and that new harbor work tied to a PG&E settlement prevented proper tidal flushing. "Relief from 5-year storm flooding... can only be solved by the reactivation of the Pierce Street outfall," Clark said.
Other callers recounted homes inundated with sewage after the outfall was taken offline, said they had sought city assistance and records through public-records requests, and asked the PUC for a public hearing. "We were not warned. There was no mitigation... We were just left to have sewage in our homes," caller Ashley Westinger said, describing long-term residence in the Marina and requests for follow-up.
David Hooper, speaking for the group Solutions Not Sandbags, said documentation available before the closure warned of negative drainage impacts. "This was because unnecessarily the Pierce Street outfall was closed," Hooper said. He urged the PUC to acknowledge an error and act to remedy the problem.
Several callers connected the outfall decision to larger permitting or remediation projects in the area. Clark said he suspected construction and permitting tied to harbor plans and PG&E remediation factored into the closure; public comment included requests for the PUC to investigate whether permitting or settlement arrangements contributed to operational decisions.
Commissioners did not take action on the outfall during the meeting; the remarks were offered during the public-comment portion of the agenda. The PUC did not make a staff report or response on the record during the meeting. The speakers requested further study, public testimony opportunities, and follow-up from PUC staff.
Ending: Several callers asked the commission to schedule a hearing or provide a written staff response; the meeting record shows the public comment was formally received and will be part of the meeting minutes.
