Committee forwards Mission Rock recycled-water deal after questions about cost and scale

The Budget and Finance Committee on Feb. 1 voted to forward to the full board a 30-year water-purchase agreement between the Port of San Francisco and Mission Rock Utilities for nonpotable water to serve Mission Rock parks and open space. The agreement carries a not-to-exceed estimate of about $44.7 million.

John King, the Port’s waterfront development manager, said the agreement would let the port purchase water produced onsite by a black-water recycling plant built by the project developer. King described the project as aligned with the Port’s sustainability goals: treated onsite, the nonpotable water would supply irrigation and toilet uses in park and open-space areas and reduce reliance on SFPUC potable withdrawals.

The Budget and Legislative Analyst’s office noted two policy trade-offs. Nick Menard said the water produced at the Mission Rock plant will cost, on a unit basis, roughly three times the comparable SFPUC potable water rate but is being used to comply with the city’s nonpotable water ordinance. "The cost of the water is 3 times more than the comparable rate for PUC potable water," Menard said. The BLA recommended approval given the compliance goals but flagged the higher unit cost and that a developer-built facility will serve Mission Rock rather than a larger, PUC-run plant.

Supervisors asked why a larger district-scale facility was not built and why SFPUC was not more involved. Deputy Port director Rebecca Benesini said the approved project footprint only allowed a plant sized to serve Mission Rock and that developer and SFPUC negotiations did not produce a larger solution; the developer had already issued debt and was building the facility. Mission Rock Utilities representative Maggie Caden explained that black-water treatment differs from gray-water systems because it includes solid wastes that are filtered out and returned to the SFPUC wastewater system.

Supervisor Asha Safaie pressed the Port on how costs would be apportioned to tenants and whether below-market-rate units would be affected; port staff said contingent special service taxes would be triggered only if the port bore the cost and that those taxes would not be passed directly to residents.

Public comment included one remote caller critical of supervisor decisions and urging stronger climate action. The committee voted 3-0 to forward the agreement to the full board with a positive recommendation.

What happens next: The full board will consider the lease and purchase agreement. The port and developer will proceed toward park acceptance and related lease negotiations; the committee record notes contingency mechanisms and that most costs are expected to be covered by vertical parcel assessments or a park operator rather than the general fund.