tv Government Access Programming SFGTV December 13, 2019 9:00pm-10:01pm PST
the mission of the healthcare services master plan. we demand the board of supervisors support the legislation to force institutional cooperation with identifying and collecting data on all out-of-county transfers of san francisco in hospitals including residential care, sro and behavioral health acute sub-acute and residential settings. there is inadequate availability of safe post acute treatment placementments in san francisco. by collecting this data we can determine the real gap in services in san francisco to those in need. there is no way -- i know when research was done at the dph on out-of-county transfers for long-term care, the cooperation
was voluntary and not all of the hospitals would cooperate. this would support the mission of really identifying the gap and filling it. i think hillary ronen is willing to carry the legislation. she is pre-occupied with mental health sf, which is a lot of work. i see the february 6, 2020 discussion of supporting the legislation. the legislation on collecting data for out-of-county discharge should be included in this list of legislation. i talked to the health commission about this. i e-mailed clara lindsey to send copies to you all. i have copies. we need to go forward on this. thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? with that public comment is
closed. commissioner koppel. >> question for staff. i heard you mention that we are at zone capacity. >> i don't know that we have a zone capacity. >> is that enough to get us where we want to be? >> if we think we need 4.3 do 4.7 we have zone capacity to make that. we don't need additional zone capacity to get there. do we need that much. >> what is the strategy for people on treasure island? what are their options? we have plenty of parcels with healthcare and hospital facilities in the city. what do you do if you live on treasure island? >> right now there aren't any health facilities there. i can do more research to find out if they plan to be part of future development. >> thanks. on that point as you recall the
plan for treasure island calls for ferry service when there are a number of certain units on the island. they are looking to move that up so it happens sooner. they realize they need access for the early tenants not just five or six or eight years downn the road. >> commissioner fung. >> question for staff. you made an interesting point of the metric related to amount of medical facilities available to the population of the city. a couple of things occurred to me on that. any idea how long it takes to
develop a hospital? >> how long it takes to develop a hospital? we can look at that specifically but i imagine a long time. >> a long time. so the need for that type of facility, i think the department is saying that it is pretty well filled by existing facilities. >> the hospital specifically? >> in terms of beds and everything else. skilled nursing. >> it is best to frame in terms of populations that are lacking access to care. >> that is my point. when you showed the slide on at risk vulnerable communities in the city. can you summarize what i asked the question i asked you via
e-mail as to what obstructions are in the zoning? >> what specific obstructions are in the zoning? yes. >> that would affect those at risk areas? >> we don't see a lot -- there are marginal things to do around the edges to make the process of healthcare approved. overall the issues to providing more healthcare are economic, not related to land use. it is tied to work force, tied to the combination of public and private insurance that we have and the decisions to provide healthcare are made on a large national scale. >> that is not what we talked about. that is all right. i will summarize what i thought we talked about. in quite a few of our districts, the obstruction is the can use process and the prohibition of
medical facilities. i think it is incumbent upon the commission to revisit that, especially when you look at the areas at risk. they are the areas that don't have the hospitals. what is likely to go on that is probably outpatient facilities primarily and if there is preventative components, that is great. so would you send me back with which districts have prohibitions and which districts have it as conditional use, which takes forever in our city. >> there aren't many. i have a table. i can pull it up if you would like. >> so there are few districts, i think there are seven where conditional use is required on the first floor and a handful
more on the second floor. one thing that is easy is to make healthcare permanent on the second floor. there are access issues for a lot of facilities, they can't get the wheelchair up to the second floor. >> there are four commercial districts that prohibit. >> i have a table. i can't remember them off the top of my head. we are going to pull it up for you. that is another thing to do is decrease limitations in the neighborhood commercial areas. >> i would look at them as they are principally permitted. >> we talked about that, sheila and i talked about the fact we would do that when we come back to you in the spring with those kinds of recommendations.
we agree it makes sense. i think hospitals are permitted anywhere in the city as conditional use. what we are talking about are the smaller healthcare facilities for some reason are banned in four districts in the city. >> so here is the table on the first floor where medical uses are either not permitted or condition and then on the second floor. it is not a huge number. this is a relatively minor tweak that could make it easier to get services into some of the neighborhoods. >> it is a differentiation nonprofit versus for profit medical providers. >> we can look at that. it is how we enforce and understand that. most are nonprofit.
maybe not all of them. >> many are nonprofit like kaiser. it is not necessarily. perhaps you can tell me more about the distinction you want to make between nonprofit versus profit. >> some of the prohibitions that occurred was in response to the for profit taking up store fronts. >> commissioner diamond. >> my understanding is if number of facilities that can accommodate older adults decreased and the cost of care increased that we have a large number of older adults staying in their houses. i wonder if you are looking at what as the planning department and building department we are doing to help those older adults modify houses to stay there as long as they need to. people moving bedrooms down stairs, kitchen facilities down
stairs, changing banisters, changing the bathrooms, all of the physical changes necessary for older adults to stay in their houses. >> it wasn't part of this plan to look at modifying residences. i would have to do research to the existing. they would be subject to existing regulations. we have to see if the existing regulations are barriers to staying in their homes. >> given they have to stay in homes there is no other solution. it would be interesting to know if there are barriers we could remove. that should be part of it. >> commissioner koppel. >> i recommend addressing the supervisors in those districts if it is permitted. we heard from supervisor mandelman or his aid here. they were saying they are seeing
too many care facilities line upper market street. it is formula retail. iit is unfair competition for te local ground floor businesses trying to stay afloat. >> commissioner moore. >> i want to remind everybody this master plan has only been around for a relatively short time. it was written in reaction to the process of working on c.p.m.c. i am not sure if you remember how many years it took, probably 12 or more. it was very long. that is the timeframe it takes. i think it is an important tool to bring forward all issues and creates a clear overview how we look at every aspect of
healthcare planning that did not exist before. if you participated in the c.p.m.c. you would understand what tool it is. i want to acknowledge the tremendous work you have done and the clarity with which you are presenting. it forces us to take every decision under the microscope. these things are not isolated. the location decisions but they manifest in the plan. i am appreciative this tool exists. >> i am appreciative of the plan and your tremendous work. it b umbs me out. healthcare is profit driven. we live in the segregated city. racially segregated. even though we have zone
capacity. the truth is if you live in the bayview or silver avenue or, you know, the valley or treasure island, you don't have access to healthcare. when we did the c.p.m.c. project, part was rebuilding st. luke's. that was a hard fight. that had not had happened without a lot of organizing. it bumbs me out. i wish we had tools to build healthcare facilities, obgyn, in those neighborhoods where the disparity in health outcomes because of socioeconomic and environmental factors make it that people need more healthcare. that would make sense in an ideal world. that is not the world we live in. i wish as a planning department
we would consider that in terms of recommendations to the supervisors to have incentives. i was curious in your presentation you mentioned about now there being new subsidies for long-term care facilities. i would be interested in hearing that. as commissioner diamond suggestion suggesting, the numbers dropped. the population is getting older. proportion to children to seniors in the city. i think it is a legitimate public policy issue. i would be interested in knowing what that looks like by race and income. i know that people are struggling. if you are my age where you have kids at home and also parents aging, it can become an intense
>> i want to verify. i should definitely verify that first. >> that is interesting. we have lost so many. to me, you know, increasing the, you know, subsidy is important to stabilize. any barriers, i have heard about all kinds of smart things. i am worried about this aspect. >> i want to echo and thank you for bringing that up. the plan also does help us with trends assessment. it brings up those factors outside of city control that we can push for, we can make recommendations at a higher level to help garner more support at another level for these types of care facilities.
thank you for bringing that up. >> commissioner moore. >> could you perhaps answer the question on capacity for mental health? i saw a report just yesterday in the paper which pointed out there are quite a fuelty under-utilized beds that is? contradiction to what we encounter where people through homelessness or other results of poverty seem to show more and more signs of needing mental healthcare which seem to be not quite available to them. would you comment on that? >> it tells us where in the
system for whether or not somebody has a behavioral health concern there is an open bed so a provider who sees somebody in crisis is able to get them where they need to go. our city is making those improvements. i acknowledge what you just asked about. >> commissioner diamond. >> my understanding one of the biggest costs issues is the availability of labor pool where the cnas are coming from. i don't know if the master plan looks at that. i know everything seems to tie back to lack of affordable housing for workers and people commuting two hours in each direction. is the scope of the work encompassing the problems the institutions face in finding labor supply? >> yes in terms of acknowledging
that challenge, the salaries for providers and the cost of living here that our professionals are having to live very far out of county, especially nursing staff. that is all assessed and covered in the healthcare services master plan. we have had discussions with community members and institutions themselves how in our guidelines and recommendations we can also be inclusive of providing housing and systems like that to make those challenges alleviate them as well. [please stand by]
do you have a question? >> that will place us on item 12 for the water supply informational presentation. >> good afternoon, president melgar and commissioners, i'm chris, the purpose of this presentation is to provide an overview of how the utilities commission and planning department work together to coordinate the city's water supply system. first, steve richie with the sfpc will address the urban water management plan, the water supply assessment process for large projects, recent amendments to the state plan and how the city plans for droughts. then i'll discuss how the planning department addresses water supply in our ceqa and federal review documents. and following the city staff
presentation, peter will present on behalf of the river trust. so i would like to start by introducing sfpc assistant general manager steve richie. >> good afternoon, commissioners. steve richie, assistant general manager for water, the san francisco public utilities commission. if i could have the slides please. i'm going to review the legal requirements we need to follow for water supply planning in our actual practical approach based on our experience and where we see the future taking us a little bit. >> first, a background for a couple slides. our water system is depicted here. this is a schematic that spans the width of california. we put it to fit on a slide. 85 percent comes from those reservoirs. the area outlined in gold is our
service area for the entire system. this is our map of our wholesale customers and san francisco. based on the depth of the blue color it shows how much of a community's water supply depends on the san francisco regional water system. the darkest blue on the east bay gets 100 percent of its supply from san francisco from us and just below that the alameda county water district only gets 20 percent of its water supply from us. most of the peninsula are dark blue colors, so a lot of people depend on our system from water supply. one-third of the supply from the system is used in the city of san francisco and about two-thirds is used outside of the city of san francisco. in terms of water supply planning, i'm going to talk about the urban water management
planning act and development of urban water management plans and water supply assessments. then i'm going to talk about our water supply planning approach we use for the system based on our experience. what is the urban water management planning act? it was enacted in 1986. it's referred to as the show me the water act, because at that time, there were a lot of developments proposed around california, and there was no relationship to water supply planning, and folks were concerned that we were not connecting these two vital decision-making processes. so the purpose of the act was to assure long-term supply reliability and efficient use of water supplies to meet existing and future demands. requirements of the act is that plans need to be prepared by urban water suppliers that have more than 3,000 connections. plans need to be updated every five years. our last plan was developedd in 2015 and issued in 2016 so we are looking forward to a new
urban water management plan in the next year, year and a half. the plan needs to cover a 20-year planning horizon. we rely on san francisco planning for population and job projections. the plans are submitted to the california department of water resources for review and verification that we have met the legal requirements. so what's in the urban water management plan, a description of the system and service area, supplies and demands over the next 20 years, compliance with the water conservation act of 2009 which called for all urban areas to produce their demands by roughly 20 percent, and we already comply with that, so we have done a good job there. our supply reliability, demand management or constant vacation plans demonstrate we are -- conservation plans demonstrate.
obviously in california, droughts are a great concern to us. on the front of the retail water conservation plan, it's a document that summarizes our program and how we plan to achieve water savings over the next five years. we do this every five years as part of the urban water management plan. it describes specific measures to be implemented and how much water savings costs and effect on-demand from that and explains other factors that explain what measures are implement and criteria used to evaluate measures. one of the things we found is changing out the fixtures is the most effective way to achieve conservation savings, so we've invested in that to achieve savings that are going to be required by the code. what we've seen over time is a steady decline in the per capita water use to gallons per capita per day, and that we meet all
state requirements. we've done lots of different things in terms of evaluation, fixture replacements and other things. what you see is a graph showing the decrease in per person water use over time, the darker line there, the darker bars are the per capita water use on a gross basis, that's the total water use in san francisco divided by the population of san francisco and the lesser bars which are below them represent the residential per capita use, and you'll see the last bar on the chart there is about 41-gallons per person per day which is san francisco's residential use now which is among the lowest in the state. you see that as population has increased, residential per capita use decreased. what we expect to see is as the per capita use decreased that that will eventually flatten out. there will be a point of diminishing returns that we would expect population growth to then take over in terms of
what the future water demand looks like. water supply assessments, they are required by state law as well. and we have to document the retail supply and demands for the next 20 years. it's a very project-specific assessment, not an overall service area. it does reference the most recent urban water management plan. and we need to determine if the water supply is sufficient for the proposed project and if it's insufficient, identify a plan to acquire additional supplies. it's prepared by the water supplier, the public utilities commission at the request of the lead agency, the planning commission. the assessment is included in the ceqa record. as we always remind our commission, because they have to approve the water supply assessments, that approval of the assessment is not an approval of the proposed project. it's merely delivering that document to the planning commission.
and the law requires that the governing body for the agency, the water supply agent, do it so everybody is clear on the record what the water supply assessment says. and which prompt projects require an assessment? it's projects of a substantial size that require water supply assessments. now, we have had to change our water supply assessment approach in san francisco within the last year due to an action by the state water resources control board to adopt the water quality control plan, which in effect would require more water to be left in the river and it would have a significant impact on our supply. so that's something that we are working hard on now. we and other water agencies and the state are in discussion on voluntary agreements that may
need taking action on that but rather a different approach which we think would be more successful. but right now we don't know which of those actions will actually be the one that takes effect. so we analyze three water supply scenarios, the first is the status quo, which is basically what was in the 2015 urban water management plan, the second is assuming our voluntary agreement is approved and it's a qualitative analysis, but that's still under review. the third would be if the bay delta plan amendment takes effect, what the effect would be. those three scenarios are in all of our water supply assessments now. we assume the same total retail demand projections from the 2015 water management plan. we also reference our level of service goal which is no more than 20 percent system-wide rationing during dry years. and i'll talk more about that. but regular years are not a problem for us. it's droughts that are the big concern.
and we also identify additional water supply projects that we are working on now for our future. we do require that for these larger projects they use our non-portable water calculator to estimate the proposeed project demands, because they are in most cases required to deal with that nonportable demand with their own resources on-site, estimate the level of rationing in a severe drought and reiterate the proposed project by itself does not cause any shortfall as the overall system demands and the shortages in the system that causes that. so that's the coverage of the legal requirements. i'm going to talk now about what we actually do in terms of water supply planning. and i've got here for those to observe that's the reservoir in january of 1991 which was near the depth of the last very long drought that we experienced in
1987 to '92 drought. so our water supply system is very much storage-dependent. we have junior rights on the river to the industrial irrigation district. so that means in dry years, they get what water is left and there's none left for season fran. so we have to store water in wet years in a variety of places called the water bank so we have water that will last us through a long drought. again, our water supply planning is driven by drought conditions. there's plenty of water in normal years but extended droughts are the big challenge. our level of service objective for water supply, which the commission adoptd in 2008, is to have an area that we can survive a specific 8.5 year drought planning scenario, 1987-92 followed by 1976-77, which is a sympathetic drought we created for planning purposes, with no
more than 20 percent rationing at a total system demand of 265mgd. it is an assurance that we be able to provide them 184 million the billions per day if and when that demand materializes and the remaining 81 million the billions per day is allocated to san francisco. so this graph is intended to describe how that drought scenario would work. this shows storage on the left, total system storage in acre-feet there. so you see the line starts about 1.6 million acre-feet of water. an acre-foot of water is an acre of land a foot deep in water. so that is a lot of water. it sure feels good when it's full. not so good when it's not. and you see then what is recorded there with the fiscal years below us, '86/ '87, picks
up at '87. this is a sympathetic drought scenario to guide us when we have to get into drought conditions with. what you see here are bars showing our plan rationing that might have to take place in that system, at a demand of 264 mgd which shows a ten percent rationing in the second year of the drought and 20 percent in the fourth year of the drought. and then right now because we can't meet our full obligation at this time, we have to go as far as 25 percent, then about the seventh year of a drought. and then the last thing i circled here is basically getting into what's called dead pool in our system. that means you are at the level of water where you can't get any more water out. that's also if we got to that point that's the point where steve richie is shown the door
because he failed his job. and that's not a good thing. so what this really shows is somewhere earlier than that, we would need to take some emergency action to develop additional supplies in the event that a drought continues, and that's the problem we have, you just don't know for sure if a drought will continue or not. so about three years before we might get the dead pool is the point where we would have to take some action. we are always engaged in water supply planning, more prepared than all of a sudden just pushing the red button, but we need to take action before we get to that dead pool point. now i'm going to show our analysis the rationing through the design drought with the bay delta plan in effect at demand of 223 million the billions per day. that was our 2013 demand. we are not quite back at that level, but i think we can anticipate we'll get to that level. and to get through that, we
would have to ration earlier and deeper, about 40 percent at the end of the first year and about 50 percent about four years in to be able to survive this kind of a drought. and that 50 percent rationing would continue on. now, i'm going to show the river trust analysis. this shows a difference in how we talk about some things. we are concerned with this extended drought. and what they have looked at is if we rationed at lower levels and only said we have to survive a drought as long as the last one that we had, that we would be okay. but what that shows is their analysis ending at, again, dead pool, which is the place we can't end up there. so that's the way we look at this, and that's the difference in our viewpoints in this is we think we have to go to deeper rationing to survive a drought
potentially. so one of the things we are doing is we are looking at developing water supplies now, because we need alternative supplies for a variety of reasons, including the existing impending in-stream flow obligations on our different rivers including one that's very uncertain but could be very large, the existing shortfall we have in the supply insurance, san jose and san is -- santa cla are not permanent customers but they would like to become permanent customers because they need to be able to point at a permanent water supply. we are looking forward to the next projections coming out of the planning department as we move into the next urban water management plan, but that could be significant. we've modified our budget for this year to start accelerating that work but we all know projects will take time to develop. so this is just a listing of
potential water supply projects, some in the tuolumne river area, some purified area which is treating waste water. there are different projects we are working on and other projects that are reservoir expansions for storing water in wet years so we can take it out in dry years, so a number of different projects. and they are local projects looking at purified water in san francisco as well as some nonportable supply and looking for ways we can approach innovatively looking at potential growth from additional industries or developments moving in. and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> thank you, mr. rich. did you have more? >> yes, i'm going to now
complete the staff presentation and talk about planning department's role. >> okay. let's do it. >> i want to bring up my powerpoint. so chris with the planning department staff. and i would like to talk about how the planning department addresses water supply and our ceqa environmental review documents. so the ceqa environmental review for all projects, regardless of their size and whether or not they require a water supply assessment, do require -- does require that we evaluate the potential environmental impact with supplying the project with water. and specifically, the question that we answer under ceqa is would the project require the construction or relocation of new or expanded water supply facilities, the construction of which would have a significant
physical impact on the environment. and i want to emphasize that last part, ceqa is concerned solely with physical environmental impact. so, for example, the fact that a project would generate additional demand for water supply, even if that would contribute to a dry year shortfall, isn't under ceqa, an impact on the environment. rather it's the physical impact that might be required or that might result from supplying that project with water if expansion to the water supply system is required. and here's an example, a rather dramatic one, of what we are talking about when we think about physical impacts on the environment related to a water supply project. this is the dam replacement project while it was under construction. we dill i did prepare an e.i.r. for that project. so to evaluate whether a project
would require the construction and operation of an expanded water supply facility, consider the information contained in the t.u.c.'s urban water management plan and for larger projects in the project-specific water supply assessments. and because the water management plan and assessments depend on projections, both growth and population water demand, it's important that we understand and have confidence in those projections. so let's start with looking at the population projections. what this slide shows is the projected population in the blue line from the most recent water management plan update, the 2015 update, the orange bars are actual population growth. and then -- which, if you can
see the slide, you can see are tracking very well with the projected population growth. and then what this shows in the gray bar is the population level that we would reach if all of the existing development in our current pipeline was completed. and that would be the equivalent of the projected growth in the water management plan in 2030. so to achieve that level of growth, that rate of growth, i should say, we would need to complete a little over 7200 housing projects or housing units per year. 72,000 is the 2030 addition but per year on a average over the next ten years, we would need to complete 7200 in order to achieve that level of growth by 2030. currently over the last ten-year average, we produced 2076 units
per year. so based on the available data, it doesn't appear the evidence shows that there's any realistic chance we are going to exceed the growth projections based on the last update. so now let's have a look on the demand side. again, unfortunately, the closed caption is hiding part of the slide, but what the slide does show, and i believe you have hard copies, is that demand is also -- actual demand in terms of water deliveries is below the projections used in the 2015 urban water management plan update. so based on the data, we believe the projections check out and we have a high degree of confidence in them. ultimately, what also allows us to be confident in the demand projections they use for our water supply planning is the five-year update cycle.
so we are in the last year of our current urban water management plan update, and as steve mentioned, they have done the process of the next update. so now i would like to have a look at an example of how we apply these data and projections to the analysis, the ceqa impact analysis project. so the project at 655 forth street, which is commission approved this july includes 960 housing units, 38 hotel rooms, 21,000 of office and retail each. and because of the size and resulting water demand, the sfpuc prepared a water supply assessment for this project. according to the assessment, the project's water demand of .082 million the billions per day is accounted for in the 2015 urban water management plan's projections as we saw in the previous slides, and this demand
can be met in combination with all other projected growth and water demands through 2040. as such, the environmental review for this project concluded that it would not require new or expanded water supply facilities, the construction of which could have a significant impact on the environment. however, as steve discussed, if the recent amendments of the bay delta plan amendment is implemented, the city will face significant water supply shortfalls during drought years. the department has determined that rationing at the high levels required if the amendment is implemented during a severe drought could result on significant impacts on the environment. specifically those impacts would be high levels of rationing could pressure the city to accelerate the development of new or expanded supplies, prolonged restrictions on irrigation could lead to loss of vegetation cover, and high levels of rationing could result in developers and businesses
choosing to locate in other areas of the state with more reliable water supplies, encouraging development, longer commutes and conflict with the state's climate change policies. based on that, the environmental review for the project determined the project would contribute to a significant cumulative water supply impact if the amendment is implemented during drought periods. however, ceqa impact analysis is a multi-step process. the first step is to determine whether or not there is a significant cumulative impact, the project under review could contribute it. and if there is, as in the case of our example project, the next step is to evaluate whether the project's contribution to that impact would be considerable. the creamery project would account for .09 percent of total projected demand in 2040.
the additional water demand represented by this project would have a negligeable effect on citywide rationing under the amendment. steve showed the slide that the 2013 demand, with the bay delta plan amendment in effect during the last two years of our eight and a half year design drought, we would already be at severe levels of rationing, that's with no additional growth. so on that basis, the department concluded in the environmental review for our example project that the project would not have a considerable contribution to the significant cumulative impact resulting from implementation of the bay delta plan amendment. so with that, i would like to leave you with this process diagram of water supply planning process. and unless the commission has questions for staff now, i would like to recommend that you hear
next from peter with the river trust and the mayor's office has requested that afford him ten minutes for his presentation. thank you. >> okay. come on up. >> got a few slides i'm going to bring up here. i'm the policy director for the river trust. and our organization was established in 1981 to be a voice for the river. and we've partnered a lot with the sfpuc and sometimes we have different violents. i appreciate the opportunity to add to the dialogue today. so it was a year ago today that the state water board adopted the revisions to the bay delta
water quality control plan. that triggered the sfpuc revising ten water supply assessments that have come to you with each project. and if i could have my slides, please. so as mr. richie pointed out, they looked at three scenarios, the third being the implementation of the water quality control plan. and in those water supply assessments, it says during a single drought year, sfpuc could not reliably meet the projected demands of its retail customers. the sfpuc it would impose up to 50 percent rationing. the central soma plan program eir, which the projects there are tiered off of, says development of plan and proposed changes would not require a
result in the construction of substantial new water treatment facilities, and the city would have sufficient water supply available from existing sources. that plan was approved prior to the bay delta plan revisions. so everyone is agreement that the bay delta ecosystem, including the rivers that feed it, is in the state of ecological crisis. there are differences of opinion in what needs to happen. the bay delta water quality control plan was first approved in 1978. it was revised in 1995. and here we are 25 years later, still trying to update it. it's based on coequal goals of assuring water supply and restoring the bay delta ecosystem. and it was approved one year ago today was a 40 percent from
february to june but a sliding scale. so the water board can require higher flows. they can only incentivize measures and they do that by having this range of goals met. so there's incentive for the water agencies to have effect of habitat restoration projects. so sfpuc water supply, 85 percent in an average year comes from the river. hesp hespy makes up one quarter of the water supply. a couple other water supplies, elenore and cherry that provide water for hydropower generation and to meet obligations for the senior water rights of the modesto irrigation districts. they own and operate don pedro but the sfpuc pays for half of that in exchange for water bank which holds as much water as one
and a half hech hech -- hetc h hetcys. we have wonderful water rights, it's only in the dry years where they are not so good. in fact, in an average year, the sfpuc is entitled to three times as much water as it needs. this is an old demand. i'll be showing you demand has decreased quite a bit. storage is an important component of the system. you can see they have about 1.5 million acre-feet of storage. at the height of the recent drought, they still had three years of water in storage. the water bank went down but
they manage it in a way that there was all this water. following the five-year drought, the state was still in drought, we had the four-year period and an average year in 2016, 85 percent of the storage on the river was full. we had enough water to last five years, and the state was still in drought. in 2017, we needed 273,000 acre-feet to fill the storage that sfpuc was entitled to 3 million acre-feet, enough water for 12 years, but the storage can only store six years' worth, so much of it had to be dumped into the river. just last year, it was above average, the sfpuc was entitled to 1.7 million acre-feet. that is more than all the
reservoirs could hold, enough water to last seven years. we've done a great job at conservation and efficiency. and over the last five years, demand for the whole system, including bosco was under 200 million the billions per day. last year it was down from the year before. so we are seeing this climb out of the drought. and in 2016 and 17, water demand was lower than it was in 1977, despite population growth. i'm going to go through some demand projections, back when the water system improvement program was adoptedd in 2008, the projections were that by 2018, we would need 285 million the billions per day. there was a cap of 265 in 2013. predrought it was 223. last year in 2018 it was 196.
it was 31 percent lower than the projections. between 2010 and 2016, jobs increased by 27 percent, water demand decreased by 23 percent. a real driver of efficiency is the price of water that more than tripled to pay for the water system improvement program. the sfpuc's ten-year financial plan predicts that water demand, water sales are going to decrease by half a percent per year for the next ten years. you can see the graph here from that report last march. so we are seeing this trend of decreaseing demand. so we just did a little exercise to see what it would take to get through the drought of record, '87 to '92 with the bay delta plan in effect and mgd
demand. we found that an average of ten percent would get us through. it's not a recommendation, but shown that things have really changed. you heard about the design drought, eight and a half years, planning for demand of 265. also all the analysis done by the sfpuc assumes no new water is going to come on line, like recycled water. most agencies plan for a five five-year drought. a lot has changed since '87 and '92 when the sfpuc got nervous about running out of water. demand was 290 then, 38 percent higher than it is today. we have adopted a water first policy so not just flushing water down the river for hydropower but prioritizing water supply. a lake was drained for maintenance in 1989.
this slide, it's not an analysis that ends there. we have a model that looks at the full design drought. you'll see the six-year drought was the most severe of any length drought on water supply in the last thousand years based on tree ring data. the '77 drought was the second worst two-year drought. the design drought takes two of the three most severe droughts over the last thousand years, combines them and plans around them. santa clara valley water district is planning to bring 73 mgd on line in the next 20 or 30 years. the sfpuc comes up with numbers because they are planning on every year being the beginning or middle of design drought. if the record would repeat they would end up with enough to last
more than two years. everyone would question why you are rationing so hard. so really strong support for the environment here in san francisco. we did polling last year. all that water people conserved during the drought didn't benefit the environment. it was just stored behind the reservoirs. right now, flows are based on base flow, which are really low, and that's what the river got. so this slide here shows you what happens. there's a water year, and we start with the river from 2012 to 2016 for five years, the average flow was 12 percent. in 2017 it was 79 percent. so we had one good year at the expense of five terrible years. and i know i'm out of time. but i have this one last slide, which is a summary. >> it's okay. >> the design drought based on
265 mgd demand, demand has been under 200 for the last five years. financial plan projects half a percent decrease in demand and sales over the next ten years. so design drought is eight and a half years. the 87 to 92 part of that was the most severe drought on record. there have been water management plans required planning for five years. assumes no new water supplies will come on line. the sfpuc is far below every other major water agency when it comes to recycled water. santa clara valley, our neighbor to the south, they are planning for 73 mgd. so there are a lot of things that can affect the design drought. the length of it, demand, water supply, percentage of unimpaired flow. so the planning that the sfpuc does hurts the environment and makes your job tough because you are looking at approving projects when there might be
50 percent rations, but that's a choice based on policy. change the policy, and then we are not looking at that excessive rationing. we are happy to answer any questions. thank you very much. >> thank you. do we have more presentations? that's it. okay. we will now take public comment on this item. i have two speaker cards. ilene boken and fran this sew -- francisco decosta. anyone else who wants to speak on this item, come on up now. >> ilene, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods, here on my own behalf. last year the sfp