San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Meeting - April 14, 2026

The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) held a regular meeting on April 14, 2026, addressing a range of topics including approval of minutes, a public hearing on a new state-mandated turf irrigation ban, extensive discussion of the draft 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), water supply assessments for two development projects, a bond refunding, and a contract amendment for the emergency firefighting water system. The meeting began with a land acknowledgment and roll call confirming a quorum.

Consent Calendar

• Item 3: Approval of minutes from March 24, 2026 – passed unanimously.
• Item 6: Consent calendar comprising six items, including expansion of the point-of-sale EV incentive program (Item 6C) and a contract closeout (Item 6F). Approved unanimously after staff clarified that the $4.2 million for 6C includes $3.3 million in direct customer incentives.

Public Comments & Testimony

• General Public Comment (Item 4):
  • Francisco de Costa criticized the Commission for lack of standards, alleging that reservoirs have not been maintained, sludge contaminates drinking water, and the budget has grown from $6 billion to nearly $15 billion. He stated that he had presented this to the Inspector General.
  • Eileen Boken (Coalition for San Francisco Neighborhoods) showed an image of the Pacific Palisades fire aftermath, warning that without adequate infrastructure, San Francisco could face similar devastation.
  • Judy Lee (San Francisco Chinese Chamber of Commerce) expressed strong opposition to proposed rate increases of over 12% annually, beginning as early as July. She stated that small businesses, especially restaurants and retail, already face rising costs and urged phased increases, expanded financial assistance, and greater transparency.
  • Peter Dreckmayer (Yosemite Rivers Alliance) raised concerns about earlier runoff due to climate change, the design drought (8.5 years, 72% more severe than the worst drought on record and 19 times less likely to occur), and inflated demand projections. He questioned spending on alternative water supply planning and the lack of transparency regarding legal fees.

Discussion Items

• Item 7: Adoption of Rules Restricting Potable Water for Non-Functional Turf (AB 1572)

  • Presentation: Julie Ortiz, water conservation section manager, presented the new permanent ban on using drinking water to irrigate non-functional decorative grass on public and commercial properties, as required by California AB 1572 (signed in 2023). Compliance phases begin in 2027 for public properties, 2028 for commercial, and 2029 for large HOA common areas. The SFPUC does not anticipate extensive non-functional turf within its retail service area. Public comment included support and concerns about implementation on SFPUC-owned pipeline easements.

• Item 8: Draft 2025 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) – Presentation and Discussion

  • Presentation: Jennifer Lee, project manager, detailed the state-mandated plan, which must be updated every five years and submitted by July 1, 2026. The plan includes three demand scenarios based on different population and job projections. The UWMP scenario (using Planning Department projections) shows retail water demand rising to 73.4 million gallons per day (mgd) by 2050, while combined retail and wholesale demand is projected at 215 mgd. Per capita usage is expected to decrease to 60 gallons per day (19% decrease from today). Local supplies (groundwater and recycled water) will grow from 3.5% to 9% of retail demands by 2050. The public comment period runs until April 20, 2026, with adoption scheduled for the June meeting.
  • Commissioner Questions: Commissioner Stacy clarified that the UWMP represents an “outside envelope” of potential demand, not a binding planning document, and that the two additional demand scenarios are not required by state law. Commissioner Thurlow asked about variability in wholesale customer projections; staff noted that each customer prepares its own projections and plans are updated every five years.
  • Public Testimony (in-person and remote, 3 minutes each): Many speakers opposed the plan as drafted, citing consistently inflated demand projections, the use of an 8.5-year design drought (with a return period of once in 8,000 years), and the negative impacts on Tuolumne River flows, Bay-Delta ecosystem, and rates. Key speakers included:
    • Tom Smeagle (BAWSCA) supported adoption, noting that BAWSCA coordinated demand assumptions and that failure to adopt would disqualify SFPUC from state grants.
    • Eileen Boken opposed the plan due to outdated population projections and inflated design drought.
    • Lane Fajou (Sierra Club California) stated that SFPUC has overestimated demand by 45-50% over 15-year horizons, driving unnecessary capital spending and rate increases (projected wholesale rate hikes rising from ~1% to >7% annually). He argued that opposition to the Bay-Delta plan is based on flawed projections.
    • Mary Butterwick, George Cattlemel, Christina Bertie, Mark Shahinian, Dr. Jacuzzi, and numerous remote callers (Judith Kirk, Alex Barrett, Hillary Hugg, David Schramm, Ann Schneider, Martin Gothberg, Les Kishler, Peter Dreckmayer, Julianne Frizzell) echoed concerns about the design drought, overprojection, ratepayer burden, ecosystem collapse, and requested a workshop or independent audit. Several noted that the SFPUC has never been required to provide a probability analysis for the design drought.
  • Commission Response: President Arce thanked participants and noted the process will continue with a formal adoption vote in June.

• Item 9: Water Supply Assessment for 536 Mission Street

  • Approved unanimously. The assessment is a CEQA tool to ensure the project’s water demand fits within SFPUC projections.

• Item 10: Revised Water Supply Assessment for the Flower Project (Brannan Street area)

  • Approved unanimously. The project was originally assessed in 2018; this revision accounts for post-pandemic changes.

• Item 11: Authorization to Issue Bonds to Refund 2015 Power Revenue Bonds

  • Approved unanimously. CFO Sklarov presented a plan to refund up to $30 million in 2015 Power Revenue Bonds (Series A) with 2026 bonds, generating over $400,000 in annual debt service savings. The refinancing is possible because the 2015 bonds became callable in late 2025.

• Item 12: Amendment No. 1 to Contract for Emergency Firefighting Water System (PEFS) and Water Distribution System (LAMP)

  • Approved unanimously. The amendment adds $5 million (a 62% increase from the original $8 million) with no extension of the 8-year contract term. The additional funds are needed due to upgraded seismic design criteria (from 975-year to 2,475-year return period) and geotechnical findings. Vice President Leverone questioned seismic resilience; staff confirmed use of earthquake-resistant ductile iron pipe. Public comment from Eileen Boken opposed the modification as a “novel concept” not yet tested.

Key Outcomes

• Unanimous approvals:
  • Minutes of March 24, 2026 (Item 3)
  • Consent Calendar (Item 6)
  • New rules restricting potable water for non-functional turf (Item 7)
  • Water supply assessments for 536 Mission Street and the Flower Project (Items 9 & 10)
  • Bond refunding authority (Item 11)
  • Amendment to PEFS/LAMP contract (Item 12)
• No action taken on Item 8 (UWMP): Public comment period continues through April 20, 2026; final adoption scheduled for the June 2026 meeting. Commissioners committed to reviewing comments and holding a workshop if needed.
• Closed session: The Commission asserted attorney-client privilege and reported that it recommends Board approval of the item discussed.