Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
SFPUC holds land‑use policy workshop to weigh revenue, public benefit and compatible secondary uses
Summary
At a workshop the commission considered how to manage SFPUC land: options included prioritizing revenue for ratepayers, supporting community benefits such as gardens and recreation, or keeping parcels for future utility needs; staff proposed a 'triple bottom line' framework and will return with a more developed policy draft.
The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission used a workshop format Oct. 11 to discuss a land‑use policy framework for properties the PUC owns across San Francisco and beyond.
Deputy General Manager Michael Carlin presented categories of PUC land — sites with primary utility purpose that could host compatible secondary uses, sites whose natural environs suggest open-space uses, and parcels with no identified utility purpose. He asked commissioners to consider three core questions: what key factors should guide secondary uses; how to prioritize when multiple secondary uses are possible; and how to treat property that has no primary utility purpose.
Carlin emphasized compatibility with utility needs, avoiding liability to ratepayers, and planning for permanence or an exit strategy if the property must be retaken for utility purposes decades later. "If you need to retake this property for a utility purpose sometime in the future … do you have an exit strategy?" he asked.
Commissioners debated whether the commission should aim to generate revenue from surplus land or prioritize community benefits. Commissioner Kane argued site‑by‑site review is necessary; Commissioner Moran suggested using a triple bottom line approach to make tradeoffs transparent; other commissioners proposed creating broad principles with a process for deviations or a scoring rubric.
City Attorney Norine Ambrose reminded the commission that Prop E (the Charter amendment) requires any surplus determination to assess needs across enterprises (water, power and wastewater) and that staff must design an appropriate process to support any future 'surplus' determinations.
Public comment urged clarity about clustering services and coordination with other city agencies; David Pilpel and others urged community engagement in Southeast sites and suggested small plots near residents may be more useful than large distant parcels.
Carlin said staff would check peer agencies' policies, prepare parcel descriptions and maps, and return with a more concrete proposal (targeted for December 13 or earlier). Commissioners agreed to continue the discussion and to consider a combination of triple‑bottom‑line principles and case‑by‑case analysis.
