PUC workshop lays out 25‑year sewer master plan, proposes nine 'levels of service'

Karen Kubik, introduced as director of the Sewer System Improvement Program, opened the commission’s special workshop by describing the system that must serve roughly “760,000 people in San Francisco,” and asking commissioners and stakeholders to help translate high‑level goals into measurable performance standards. The session explained the master‑planning process, guiding principles and three performance categories — regulatory/environmental, operational reliability and seismic reliability — and introduced nine proposed levels of service intended to guide project selection over a 20–25‑year program.

The presentation traced the plan’s origins to a voter‑approved charter mandate and a multi‑year public process that included surveys, more than 60 public meetings, a technical advisory team and a citizen‑advisory committee. Kubik said the master plan will remain a “living document” and that the commission is not being asked to adopt a final level of service at this workshop; instead staff will return with proposed metrics and project lists at future meetings, beginning with a metrics workshop in January and further program discussions in March.

Commissioners pressed staff for more specificity. Several members said the draft goals — which list items such as protecting public health, improving seismic reliability and providing community benefits — read as broad aspirations rather than testable standards. “It sounds sort of generic,” one commissioner said; another urged the explicit inclusion of environmental justice and local job opportunities in measurable objectives. Staff responded that those priorities are intended to be reflected in the projects the program ultimately selects, and that project‑level analysis will apply equity and community‑benefit principles where appropriate.

Biosolids, energy reuse and stormwater management drew sustained attention. Staff reported that the city produced about 86,000 tons of biosolids in 2008 and that only a small share is currently processed to Class A standards; the presentation noted roughly 11% of production was composted and a short‑term pilot generated about 1% Class A material. Karen Kubik and biosolids specialist Natalie Sierra described pathways to a Class A product — higher‑temperature treatment, pellets or compost — and discussed potential local uses and markets.

On energy, presenters described biogas captured in digestion processes as a source of on‑site power and heat; the commission heard that existing cogeneration equipment does not fully consume current biogas supplies and that short‑term operations fixes plus longer‑term capital work are options to increase on‑site energy use. Stormwater management and low‑impact development were presented as important tools to shave peak flows, reduce combined sewer overflows and create reuse opportunities; staff noted a municipal stormwater control ordinance is in development and will come to the commission for review.

Seismic risk was framed as a major planning driver for some Bayside assets. Staff singled out elements such as the Channel Force Main and Marina Box as single‑asset vulnerabilities and said redundancy, reinforcement or pressure rerouting will be part of resilience planning. Operational reliability topics included investment in real‑time controls, addressing grit and improving redundancy for critical assets.

Public commenters urged the commission to make the goals more explicit and pressed for near‑term community benefits such as jobs, nuisance odor reductions and groundwater reuse. Several callers also criticized past program management and warned that development pressures could increase system strain.

Kubik closed by reiterating the process and timelines: staff will model the system and return with measurable goals at the next workshop in January, and will present a program and recommended next steps in March. Commissioners and staff agreed the coming sessions will focus on translating goals into metrics, identifying project tradeoffs and clarifying rate and budget implications.

The commission took no formal action on the master plan at the workshop; staff were authorized in a separate consent/regular business item to execute a limited amendment to master‑plan work contracts so planning and environmental tasks can continue while details are finalized.