Vice President Arce?

Here.

Commissioner Jamdar?

Here.

Commissioner Leveroni.

Here.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Here.

You have a quorum.

Thank you.

Before calling the first item, I'd like to announce that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission acknowledges that it owns and are stewards of the unceded lands located within the ethno-historic territory of the Mawekma Alone tribe and other familial descendants of the historic federally recognized Mission San Jose Verona Band of Alameda County.

The SFPUC also recognizes that every citizen residing within the Greater Bay Area has and continues to benefit from the use and occupation of the Moekma Alone tribes aboriginal lands since before and after the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's founding in 1932.

It is vitally important that we not only recognize the history of the tribal lands on which we reside, but also we acknowledge and honor the fact that the Mawekma Ohlone people have established a working partnership with the SFPUC and our productive and flourishing members within the many greater San Francisco Bay Area communities today.

Item three, annual election of officers, discussion and possible action to elect the President and Vice President of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, each to serve a one-year term in accordance with the SFPUC, City and County of San Francisco Rules of Order, Rule 6.

Uh Commissioners and members of the public, I'd like to just go through the process for the election.

Step one will be public comment on nominations for both President and Vice President.

Following public comment, we'll take nominations and a vote on the President.

And then once we have a s have selected and I've passed on the gavel to the new president, we'll take nominations and a vote on the new vice president for the Commission.

So if we could start with public comment, please.

Yes.

So we were advised that they are having technical difficulty with the remote public comment call-in numbers.

So I will say the number aloud.

It is 415 65501.

Again, 415655-0001.

The access code is 2661-4402.

The code again, 2661-440-0002.

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item three for the annual election for Commission President.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment on this item?

Ms.

Lanier, we are taking testimony both on President and Vice President at this time.

Is that correct?

Actually, they are separate.

Oh, they are.

Okay.

I misstated it then.

So we'll take only public comment on President now.

After we act on the President, we'll then take public comment on Vice President.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised?

Ms.

Lanyard, there are no callers that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

Commissioners, uh would anyone like to make a nomination for Commission President?

I'd like to make a nomination for Commission President.

Um but before I do that, I would like to thank our current president profusely for this being my first year for all your guidance, all your leadership.

And whenever I had a question, you answered it, uh making me feel like it was a good question.

So thank you very much for your leadership.

Thank you.

That being said, I'd like to nominate uh Josh Arcee, our Vice President, to step into the President's seat.

Could I have a second, Commissioners?

Seconded.

Thank you.

President Stacy?

Aye.

Vice President Arse?

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Leverone?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

The item passes.

Thank you.

And I will now turn the gavel in the meeting over to our new President Arce.

I just also want to say what a what an honor and a pleasure it's been being President of this Commission.

I so value the intelligence and expertise that you all bring to the Commission.

And you make the job easy.

And I really appreciate that.

So thank you.

Well uh thank you, Commissioners, and thank you, President Stacy.

You've you have led us through such an important time of re I think constituting, let's say the Commission, there was there was you were the sole Commissioner up until about a year ago, and then Commissioners Laveroni, Jamdar, and myself were honored to join you and our amazing general manager and staff.

And I've learned so much from watching and benefiting from your leadership.

I hope to appropriately and hopefully follow in your shoes and footsteps in leading us into the the next year of the work of the Commission, the important work we do here.

So thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So I think Tiffany, at this time we take public comment on the position of Vice President.

Is that correct?

Yes.

Would you like to uh describe the process for the Vice Commission?

I understand that the process is substantially similar to that of the process for President in that which we would take public comment from those of you who may be here wishing to comment, then followed by a virtual public comment, and then we would take nominations.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Yes.

Thank you.

The number for remote public access is 1415 655-0001.

That's 415-655-0001.

The access code 2661 440 000.

2661 440 000.

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item three for the annual election for Commission Vice President.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment on this item?

Seeing none, moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised?

Ms.

Lanyard, there are no callers that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

All right.

So at this time, colleagues, I would request a nomination for Commission Vice President.

I would like to nominate Commissioner Leverone as Commission Vice President.

All right.

Thank you.

Commissioner Stacy.

And I don't know that we require a second, but we do require a second.

Get a second for the nomination, colleagues.

Seconded.

All right.

From Commissioner Jamdar, we've got a nomination.

Can I uh construct that that's a motion?

Or shall I formally request a motion?

All right, we've got a motion and a second to approve the nomination of Commissioner Lavarone to serve as the Vice President.

Can we get a roll call, Tiffany?

President Arcee?

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar?

Aye.

Commissioner Leverone?

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

The item passes.

All right.

Congratulations, Vice President Leverone.

Thank you.

Thank you, honored.

Item 4, approval of the minutes of September 23, 2025.

Okay.

Before we go to public comment, I would like to ask if there is any corrections to the minutes for September 23, 2025.

President Arseh, if I may.

I my screen isn't set up to request to speak, so I'm just going to have to yell out.

I uh would like to ask for a continuance of the minutes.

I would like to have more complete record of the Commissioner initiatives that occurred at the last meeting, and I'd like it to uh be clear exactly what happened.

So if the Commission doesn't object, I would like to move for a continuance.

Thank you, Commissioner Stacy.

We can I kindly ask that we wait for public comment before taking a motion and a second on continuing the item.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Tiffany, can we please call for a public comment on approval of the minutes?

Absolutely.

The call in number is 415-655-0001 415-655-0001.

Access code 2661 440 000 2661 44002.

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item 4.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment on this item?

Seeing none, moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised?

Ms.

Lanyard, there are no callers that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Tiffany.

Am I correct to understand, Commissioner Stacy, that you've made a motion to hold the minutes of September 23rd, 2025 to our next scheduled commission meeting?

Yes.

And can we have a second on Commissioner Stacy's motion?

Second.

Vice President Leveroni, all those uh can you call the roll, please, Tiffany.

Absolutely.

President Arce.

Aye.

Vice President Leverone.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

The item passes.

Thank you, colleagues.

Item five.

General public comment.

The call-in number is 415-655-0001.

That's 415655-0001.

Access code 2661-440-000261-440-0002.

Members of the public may address the Commission on matters that are within the Commission's jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda.

And Tiffany, as we await any members of the public that might wish to speak here in Room 400 or online, we just want to remind everyone that the Commission values civic engagement and encourages respectful communication at the public meeting.

We ask that all public comment be made in a civil and courteous manner and that you refrain from the use of profanity.

Thank you.

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to comment on item five.

Mr.

Bob Hall.

Hello, I'm Bob Hall from Keep Crocker Real.com.

San Francisco Wreckin Parks, Crocker Amazon Baseball Field Renovation Project will destroy 124 mature trees, many of which should uh meet significant trees criteria under city law.

It will also replace 17 acres of open natural grass with artificial turf and cut off access by fencing with uh from the community.

This is being justified as a drainage solution for baseball fields yet.

RPD has a 45 million dollar budget for this project, enough to install SANCAP natural grass systems like those used in professional sports.

Those field these fields combine layers of soil, gravel, and sand to allow fast drainage and safe play after rain.

There is no engineering reason to uh for this part to be covered in plastic.

Beyond the unnecessary destruction of trees and habitat, this project raises serious environmental justice issues.

This is the environmental justice map where you can see most of the soccer fields are.

Again, the southeast side of the city, home to working families and communities of color is being asked to bear their burden of the environmental hazard.

Artificial turf is a plastic carpet made from petrochemicals and releases chemical toxins such as uh PFAS, forever chemicals, and sheds microplastics like you see here and nanoplastics directly at our watershed.

These particles don't disappear, they persist, travel through soil and stormwater and eventually to the bay.

The California Department of Toxic Substances has already proposed listing microplastics as a chemical of concern because of their persistence and mobility in the environment.

And SFPOC's own contaminant reports recognizes microplastics as an emergent threat, recommending that where simple low-cost actions can reduce plastics, plastic inputs to the environment, it would be sensible to implement them.

The simple most cost-effective solution is to protect San Francisco soil and water.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next we have Susan Mullaney.

Hello.

My name is Susan Mullaney.

I am born and raised in the Ingleside district.

Both my father and my grandfather were civil engineers for the city.

And at some point they each stayed in dormitories in Maucan while working on projects related to Hatchethi.

They both revered our water system, and from them I learned that the SFPUC is an organization of integrity and ethics.

Ethics is what I'm here to talk about.

The ethics of knowingly and willfully allowing toxins to leach into our water.

The San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department intends to install 17 acres of plastic artificial turf at Crocker Amazon Park.

Crocker Amazon Park is located on land owned by the PUC called the Amazon Reservoir Tract.

As custodians of our water, which blends groundwater into Hatch Hetchy Water, it's your duty to strive for its safety.

I would like to draw your attention to a report released in March of this year by the California EPA.

It's called the synthetic turf study.

It includes a list of chemicals detected in biofluid extracts and air samples attributed to synthetic turf, not to other environmental sources like industrial facilities and traffic.

To rephrase that, the EPA found chemicals in our bodies and in the air that are from TERF.

I was researching these and I only got through the first six.

Here's three that are noteworthy.

A potential carcinogen.

The documentation of 123 trimethyl benzene says do not let this chemical enter the environment.

Do not wash away into sewer.

The substance may have effects on the central nervous system.

Thank you for your comment.

If you have additional uh documents you like to submit, we can receive those as well.

Okay.

But please have a moratorium on artificial turf in our city.

Thank you.

And especially this one.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Demetrius Williams.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

First of all, congratulations, uh Brother Josh.

I'm super excited that you became president.

And uh to the commissioners, thank you for uh uh having this meeting and and listening to the community.

Um I was here last week.

First of all, my name is Demetrius Williams.

I'm the president of the San Francisco Hyperlocal Building Trades Contractors Collective.

We're a group of contractors that meet every Tuesday over at 1550 Evans at 8 a.m.

and discuss uh projects and uh um projects that we are interested in and making sure the community knows about them.

Last week we're here discussing the uh sewer treatment plant, the new biosolids sewer treatment plant, and we had questions and we were was concerned after answers if you found out about the answers.

We haven't got uh uh nobody's returned the phone call or gave us any information on uh national disaster or something happened of how we can actually uh be able to make sure that Raw sewage doesn't flow in the streets of Bayview Hunters Point and how we would address it if it did.

Um also learned about the community benefit package with the SIP program, the social impact program that has resources there to train the community and supposed to give back to the community to make sure that we are in compliance of understanding how to facilitate a national disaster if that shall happen.

Also to educate the community and put together uh some programs in the community to help teach the community how to become some of these uh operator engineer opportunities that's about to come in our community, especially knowing that we have a new true sewer treatment, state of the arts sewer treatment program plant in our community.

We definitely want to have the community able to work there also.

So if we can get some training involved, so uh I know that's my time, so thank you uh for listening to me again.

Congratulations, Josh.

Thank you, brother.

Thank you.

Next we have Oscar James.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Oscar James.

I'm a native resident of Baby Hunters Point 79 years.

Also served on the Model Cities Commission, or the commission and along with uh coordinating council who put together the community benefit package for the sewer treatment plant, uh, both for them to get the property on um Oakdill and Phillips that was supposed to have been the Baby Hunters Point College, the first off-campus college in the community.

Now uh as a commissioner, and this is before you guys uh took over the uh the Southeast Hill Center.

We were a model cities commission there.

We were the ones that was over that uh along with the honorable um George Buscone and Honorable Miracle, George Busconi was with the state at the particular time.

That was a part of the community benefit package.

But my whole thing of it is our community benefit package says anything that the sewage treatment did, any extensions or what have you, so much money comes back to our community for our different programs out there.

One of the programs was Baby Hunters Point College, like I was saying, that has San Francisco State, City College, and Berkeley courses all in one three months prior to that building being built, they defunded model cities.

So we lost B.

Which would have become self-sustained if they had a three-month uh extension where they would have been the ones who ran the uh city college out there in the in the community.

I have pictures and have some other dates.

I do not have the uh the original uh memorandum, but uh uh uh when it everything was finished, uh became mayor at that particular time.

So him, Claude Everhardt, who was his assistant at that particular time, have those.

Also, the state of California have those uh uh programs also, but what I'm saying, you guys have the records for the the community benefit package.

I'm still looking forward.

I'm talking with Thor at the redevelopment agency because they were a part of that too, and maybe he can research and bring that uh thing in.

It was a 1970 program.

So we do we do have the uh the uh agreement.

I do not have it at hand because I got into other things in politics in the last person, Mr.

Alex Pitcher and Ms.

Shirley Jones, who was the representative at that time, they since passed.

So we'll still try and get the that that uh we're on it community uh benefit package, but it guarantees money comes back to the community to help some of the nonprofits and also help minority contractors and persons in that in in that particular project and engineering.

We have a community benefit package.

But we I have a copy of that of MOU at home, so uh we we're on it.

Okay, appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr.

James.

Thank you.

Please approach the podium and state your name.

Oh, that was Oscar, and this is James.

Good evening, everybody.

How are you doing?

Uh I I feel like I had to come here to congratulate one of my good kids in this whole process, Mr.

Jason.

Uh welcome to becoming the president of the Public Utilities Commission.

Uh I just want to make a couple of points.

Um, I would uh want to say that I want to make sure that what's being heard is real.

If you look at this creek and what could happen if Isis Creek actually came tumbling down into the community, it'll it'll be Bay Shore like it was once, you know, existing.

And a whole area at one point was all water from the bottom of the freeway all the way all the way across to to uh third street.

Um I I want to also emphasize that uh there was a uh agreement that was uh recognized, and I think uh even our director in his former days probably heard about it many times, uh authorized by the community for actually presenting the community with 80 percent of the wastewater responsibilities.

And I want to make sure that you all understand there was a connection to that, which was to uh make sure that there was a continual uh training services of operating engineers.

So I want to just remind you all, and I want to thank you.

Um, you know, this is like a family of me.

I heard somebody say Malcasin, and I was probably the first African American representative for the union to ever go up to Moccasin, and they treated me with honor and respect.

Uh and I want to say for the last thing, brother R say, I don't think we've had a first a Hispanic man or second, a union leader like yourself leading this organization, and I think that you deserve a good hand from the people.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised?

Ms.

Lanier, there's one caller that we should be recognized.

Thank you.

Caller, I have a mute at your mind.

You have two minutes.

Hello, caller.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Oh, good afternoon.

This is Peter Dreckmeyer, policy director for the Tuolamy River Trut.

I'd like to congratulate President Arthur on his new role.

You got off to a good start.

I can tell there's not going to be much of a learning curve.

And I like the sound of uh Brother Arsay.

Uh want to congratulate uh Vice President Leveroni.

And I want to thank uh Pat President Daithy for her year of service and service before that.

Also, great to see members of the public there commenting.

The uh first two express concern about artificial turf.

Uh I'd like to associate myself with those comments and encourage the FFUC to avoid problems by banning the use of artificial TRF on FFC land.

My main purpose for calling in is to comment on the scientific basis report for the Tuamy River Voluntary Agreement.

Um I'm working my way through it.

It's a long document, but it's looking pretty good.

And I want to encourage you to have a workshop to hear about it.

Um my guess is unless any of you have done research on the side, you're probably not very familiar with the voluntary agreement.

Uh most of the conversations were quite a bit before your time.

Uh but I also want to encourage you to include the State Water Board in the workshop and to hear from them.

So I hope you will do that, and I wish the new leader leadership well.

And again, thank you, Pat President Stacey.

Thank you, caller, for your comments.

Ms.

Lanier, there are no callers that we should be recognized.

Thank you.

The next item is item six, report of the general manager.

Thank you, Ms.

Lanier.

Um Commissioners, uh you'll notice I'm gonna call up uh Steve Ramson to do um item 5A.

And just by way of background, I know.

It's working.

Yeah.

Uh I know that at the last meeting that I was not here, you made a number of requests about items that you'd like to have um some uh information on over the course of the next year.

And I've talked to President, well, former President Stacy about it.

And there are certain items that um uh uh we can do up front, and others that uh because of legal issues and the like have to wait some time.

But I thought that um uh we we could get some of the ones out of the way early that uh quickly that we could give you a primer on things that you requested.

And this uh uh Mr.

Robinson here, this represents the first one.

So that's item 5A.

I just wanted to have some background on that.

And this has to do with our SFPUC capital project delivery methods, because I there was some this is something that we've talked about with other commissioners uh previously.

Uh and I know that sometimes when you get items that um come there's maybe not you don't have the context.

So this is to provide you some of that context.

Steve.

All right.

You item six A.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, President Arsay, Vice President Lavrone, and Commissioners, congratulations.

Uh yeah, Stephen Robinson, Assistant General Manager for Infrastructure Division of PUC, responsible for capital delivery.

So this was one of the topics that was raised last week, and it's uh easy-ish for me to come back and give you uh at least a highlight, an overview of what those contracting methods are.

Um I want to say thanks to the team for helping to put this together relatively quickly.

Um you may have seen some of it before.

And I'll I'll flag that some of the slides are a little wordy, but I thought that it's still helpful to give you those as a reference material to use in the future.

So what I'm intending to do is relatively simple, firstly, just to really look at how we screen and then select the methods that we have available to us, and then I'll just walk through each of those in turn.

The bottom three on the agenda here um are what we might call alternative delivery methods.

That means they're alternative traditional design bid build.

Now more commonly referred to as collaborative or integrated delivery methods.

The main point I want to make at the very beginning here, though, is that it's not a one-size-fits-all.

Um we're really not trying to replace any particular method with another.

I've personally been to a few conferences and try to keep up with this.

I've worked on a few projects.

I'm not perhaps a subject matter expert, but the best advice that I've heard is that it's really important to carefully evaluate those methods when you come across a major project and select it based on the right um thinking around complexity, that we're using it in the right place at the right time and with the right team, because everything changes from one project to the next.

So some projects are more suited to certain methods, but as the technology changes and the market changes, the sophistication of these methods has also evolved over time, and it's important to consider all the different tools that we have in the toolbox.

On the left here, I've flagged that we need to consider what our objectives are, what the characteristics of the project are, and how complex the project is.

Is it a new build or is it a rehabilitation of an existing facility?

There are technical engineering considerations, including the utilization of our own city engineering staff, and how we can best develop those projects.

And so on the right, there are a number of desired outcomes that we may need or perhaps want to achieve.

Whoever owns the risk is likely to pay for it.

Is it affordable?

Is it deliverable?

How much certainty are we comfortable with?

How does the project interface with the economic development world?

That might mean workforce or small businesses or the availability of prime contractors.

Ultimately, PUC, we propose an alternative delivery method.

We draft a memo then for the general manager to approve and sign off on.

So this is uh data showing PUC construction contract awards.

It's broken up by the six main types that I've flagged.

On the left by the number of contracts that we see, and on the right, you'll see by the dollar value of those same contracts at the time of initial award.

I'll note that it doesn't then include amendments that you see to those contracts over time.

And with those alternative delivery mechanisms, um, like CMGC and design build, the initial award is typically a lot smaller, and then we intentionally increase that over time.

So that can skew how we look at that right hand chart a little bit.

You see the majority of design build in orange, about two thirds by number of contracts that we do.

We also do a lot of work by as needed shown in blue and JOCs or job order contracts shown in green.

You'll see a lot of those on commission agendas from time to time.

Even today there are a number of JOCs.

On the right, I've highlighted a few single projects which change the perspective.

Some of those larger, more complex projects have been awarded with these collaborative delivery methods and for good reasons.

Umager mentioned coming before the commission talking about previous um contract methods.

Back in January of 24, I last presented, and I also talked about how we've how we're doing from a performance perspective.

Um I'd pulled at that time about five years worth of data as well, and that was right through the pandemic, if you think about it.

And I used a threshold of 10% over both schedule and budget for how we were doing from a performance perspective.

Um because that 10% is when we come to you as the commission, then if we're doing anything above and beyond that.

It's considerably or considered a manageable percentage in the industry.

So, how did we compare to the industry at that time?

Um, I did find a couple of studies that all um seemed to be pointed at from lots of different resources, and it showed that about one third of capital projects came within 10% of budget.

By comparison, SAPC, at least for the data that I looked at for five years, we were at about two-thirds, meaning we were double what some of the industry studies were showing at that time.

From a schedule perspective, the study showed that about 25% of projects met their original schedule, and we were at about 40%.

So, again, roughly double of what industry was showing.

So it's worth pausing and saying thank you to the team.

This is a big success, especially during those pandemic years.

Um it's not just our infrastructure staff but our partnership with the enterprises and the contractors that we work with.

So let's now look a little bit more detail in some of those types of contracts.

Um let's start with our first of our six methods, JOCs or job order contracts.

These are indefinite quantity contracts with predefined bid items.

It means there's a menu of options that really we get to pick with.

Um the work is limited to a million dollars, contracts are five million in total, but they may be modified an additional 50%, which we do regularly.

It's an intentional planned strategy.

About 15 to 20% of our contracts are JOCs by number, but less than 10% by dollar value.

It's really meant for very small items, anything from replacing doors to entire mechanical systems at some of our facilities.

Similarly, the as needed construction contracts are larger and they also authorize work by task orders.

They're limited to five years, and we do also intentionally increase these when needed.

You see a lot of these again, routine horizontal work for sewer and water mains, inspection, repair, replacement, that kind of work.

About 20 to 30% by number of contract, but again a little bit lower, 10 to 20% by dollar value.

In the traditional design bid build method, if you look at the graphic on the right, the owner holds separate agreements with the construction contractor and a design professional.

That is, if the design professional is needed to be hired as a contractor because we have the ability to design in-house.

So we first lead design, then we bid it out competitively, we award and we construct.

It's a very linear approach, and it's set up really with the owner right in the middle.

Remember that about two-thirds of our work is done by this method.

To some extent, we accept that the cost and schedule is subject to quality of the design, together with the contractor's abilities and the field conditions that they're met with.

We ultimately accept the low bid.

I've bulleted some notes here on the selection, the cost and the schedule, but also want to draw your attention to risk at the bottom.

When we think about risk, there are different strategies to consider when we compare each of these methods today.

Generally, we can accept that risk, we can avoid it, we can mitigate it, or we can transfer it.

The best quote that I have on this is that risk really should be best owned by the entity that's in the best position to mitigate it in some way.

So in this case, for a design bid build, the risk is held by the owner, but ultimately transferred to the contractor, who then builds it into their price.

It's quite normal, and we're very accustomed to working this way.

It's the majority of the work that we do, but it does result in a very traditional transactional arrangement between the two parties.

Next is CMGC or construction management general contractor.

We have a smaller number of awards of these, but some of our largest projects to date.

Think about the Southeast Community Center, Headworks, Biosolids, more recently, CDD's headquarters.

Similar to the design bid build, the design may be in-house or contracted out.

We still have separate agreements, but the construction contractors brought on much much earlier in the process.

Ideally between 35 and 65% design.

When they can really add some value to think about constructability, scope, schedule, and budget.

Once construction gets going, those trade packages are then bid out over a period of time.

There are benefits then to cost and schedule with early involvement and increased transparency through this process.

The risk though is that those packages, as they're being bid out, the project is subject to market factors, and so there's less cost certainty.

And we certainly saw that happening with our CMGCs during the pandemic.

For design build, there is one agreement with a design builder that provides both services.

We have a relatively small number of design builds, less than 5% by dollar number, but again, some larger projects that I showed earlier over the last five years.

Treasure Island wastewater facility is an example, and our Southeast plant biogas utilization project.

There are a few different ways to do design bill, but in general, there are benefits to having a single point of responsibility that we transfer that risk to, with the contractor then ultimately accounting for in their price.

A risk worth noting is that we all we do still ask the contractor for a hard bid or a lump sum dollar amount to do both the design and the construction, so you can appreciate there's still maybe issues with quality and cost.

Progressive design build is a variation of design build, and as the name says, it's progressive over time.

This means that uh as the contractor comes on even earlier with more performance-based approach, they can help us move through it.

They finish planning the project, they design it, and then they build it.

Similar to CMGC, trade packages are bid out over time.

We have a pretty small number of progressive design builds, and we're starting to add this tool into our tool belt.

One example we've recently completed is the O'Shaughnessy Dam Outlet Works, which was a smaller project but a good fit.

This method has an increased potential to accelerate schedule and flexibility in order to stay that make sure that we can design to budget.

The risk here though is that although we have least certainty when we bring the contractor on, when we award to them because it's so early in the process, it does provide the earliest involvement for them for a real-time cost and schedule approach to adjust scope.

It has a much more collaborative and shared risk approach, so it really demands a high trust among the team, and some might say that industry is heading this way, especially for complex public infrastructure utility projects like ours, uh, when we're working with limited room and on active facilities.

But I'll remind us at this point that there is not just one size that fits all.

So, in order to compare some of these ones, let's look at the four major delivery methods, an increasing order of early contractor involvement.

The dollar sign indicates when we have some cost certainty, but it can vary across the yellow bar as trade packages are bid out.

In design bid build, the cost is fixed at bid, but there can always be change.

In CMGC, there's a bid for the work, but those trade packages are bid out.

In fixed price design build, the risk is transferred to the design build entity when the price is locked in so early in the process.

In progressive design build, we uh award the earliest, but the price evolves through design and construction as trade packages are bid out.

From a schedule perspective, one benefit of that increased collaboration and parallel working, you'll see a reduction in schedule and overlapping of the design and the environmental and construction phases.

So just a last slide to highlight a few things.

Um, this is a selection of some of our collaborative delivery projects.

You might recognize some of those flagship CMGC projects.

Um I've added some more of our recent ones to the right, which are still in development.

Um for example, for design build uh on that row at the far right, you'll see an RFQ for the Southeast Plant secondary clarifiers is on the street at the moment.

For a progressive design build at the bottom right, our nutrient project is a very large, complex project.

The RFQ is complete and we're expecting proposals soon.

The award, of course, um will intentionally be small initially as progressive, and we're planning to come back to you with that in due course and explain more about how that governance structure will work.

The main point I'll emphasize again to finish is it's not a one size fits all, and we're trying to make sure we have all the tools and the toolbox to be efficient with our work.

Happy to take some questions.

Thank you, A.

G.

M.

Robinson, thank you.

Colleagues, questions, discussion?

Bless you.

And let's see.

I uh I just want to double check with your screen there, Commissioner Stacey.

Do you have a question?

Did you have a question?

Commissioner Jandar.

Thank you for that.

That's very helpful.

I'm curious if uh how sort of uh on the construction side uh and sort of the contracting side, how this works out.

Uh so do any of these models result in uh more inclusive procurement?

Uh or is that just a just dependent on other factors and not on how you set up this process?

Can I ask you to elaborate on what you mean by inclusive broader pool of contractors for certain demographics?

Yes.

And you know how we are trying to do local businesses to do the work and sort of train them and bring them into the biplate.

Is there a better chance of that happening with any of these one models, or is that the same?

Yeah, there is some variety between.

I mentioned economic development is one of the things we think about.

Um traditional design bid build, we're giving a package to a a pool of contractors to bid on.

And they get to choose basically who what team they put together.

There are city goals, of course, around um workforce and LBEs and how they come to the table.

Um we have some you know ability or influence in that as we work with the contract monitoring division in the city.

Um CMGC, though, is an example, I'll flag or mention our big flagship projects like Biosalth and Headworks.

Within that, there is more room for PUC to work with our contractors to have some direct negotiations with firms.

Um and we can certainly emphasize the importance of the work and have more a little bit more involvement about how we make sure the work is is parsed up.

But as we develop the contract, we're thinking carefully about the language and making sure there is the inclusivity, especially around hyperlocal or local community involvement in order to build those facilities.

And just so you know, Commissioner John Rub, we'll have a separate session on sort of divorce and the mechanics of this, but on LBE hiring and like that will also be presented.

And we appreciate the partnership with the communities in order to build the projects.

We've got some good statistics and positive results recently, but there's more that we can do always, and we want to make sure we partner and open and listening to how best to do that.

That sounds good.

And I think what I heard is that the more progressive models are also give the the PUC more leverage to have more control over local contracting.

Thank you.

Commissioner Stacey, did you have a question?

I love it to third Commissioner.

Okay.

Vice President Leverone.

Thank you very much.

It's uh great outline.

Um I know one design doesn't, you know, one method doesn't fit all.

And I I agree with that a hundred percent.

Is there one that fits do you look at it from smaller contract or the type of work that's going to be done, whether it's small or large, to select one of the methods to go by?

Yeah, I've I've flagged uh a few different reasons or things that we look at or the outcomes we're trying to achieve.

So it does vary between the routineness, I would say, of a certain type of work, linear work in the streetscape, for example, where we know it's routine for a water main replacement.

We kind of have a fair idea what that's going to be.

Um other work inside the fence line, I would call it at one of our treatment facilities where we're demolishing something and then rebuilding it again in a confined space, like our headworks project, for example, is a very different kind of uh approach.

And then think about size, like you said, a smaller project.

I mentioned JOCs and as needed where we can quickly mobilize and do work compared to a very large investment for a new facility is a different mechanism.

So each of those different types of delivery methods apply in different ways, yes.

And is the progressive design bill say more of a direction that we are going to be maybe entertaining going forward if if we had to pick one of the various methods?

Yes, in the sense that we've probably utilized it the least, because it is quite new, at least for us.

Um but I feel on behalf of PC, it's important that we have the ability to meet the market and do our work.

Um there's some expectation that industry is heading that way, but it doesn't just mean that it's a one-size-fits-all, and we're going to replace some of the other methods with it.

They all have their merits.

Um, and we want to carefully select the right method at the right time.

It's good for us to get experience using progressive design build and some of the smaller jobs that I mentioned.

And some of the larger ones coming, like nutrients will be progressive design build.

And staff wise, do we do we have the in-house expertise to to do that and manage it, or is it something that we would look at for outside consulting?

Both.

We do have some expertise.

Some people in the room behind me are certainly expert, I would say, in this field.

But that said, because it's a new method, there's a strong culture change that's needed as well.

I mentioned a high to trust environment in the team when we're working so collaboratively and engaging a contractor so early.

And we partner with our consultants when needed for owners advisor contracts or programmatic consultant teams that help us think about choosing the right methods and making sure that we're executing them well.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

It's great.

Commissioner Stacey.

Thank you, uh President Arce.

I I have a couple questions just to make sure that I understand what you've told us.

So starting with the job order contracting and as needed.

So JOCs seem like they're more typically maintenance repair, maybe some emergency help that's needed right away that we may not have the ongoing capacity to address.

So we hire some uh a firm to to respond to those kinds of situations.

It sounds as though as needed contracts tend to be more for construction projects.

Is that I I'm not sure how you decide one versus the other thing.

Uh yes.

Um internal in-house operations and maintenance staff can do certain amounts of work within their own facilities.

Um sometimes it's easier to use a standard you know predefined contract like a JOC to do some of that work as well, more maintenance type work, replacement of assets, simple systems, that kind of thing.

Um as needed construction contracts are perhaps more defined projects where maybe an improvement is needed or something is going to change.

Um but there's they're larger.

There's more capacity in that contract, and so you attract a different type of contractor and they bid out on the as needed work rather than a JOC that's a a preset menu of items where costs have already been defined.

I see.

And it those types of contracts are needed.

Not uh not necessarily for ongoing work, but for work that comes up that we don't have permanent staff in-house who can handle it.

Is it is it because it's sort of one off work or is it a capacity?

You just said that we sometimes we can handle it in-house, sometimes not.

It's probably probably a bit of both.

Um, I when I think about contracting artwork, think of peak demand, um, certainly from a volume perspective, um, you know, times when work comes in waves, but also from a technical specialism perspective.

If they're one-off type improvements or projects that need to happen, it doesn't make sense to have that skill set practiced in-house.

Um so that's when we tend to go out either for construction work or professional service support.

Does that help?

And then uh on the construction management general contract or CM GC contracts.

Initially, as construction management, the firm would be more in an almost oversight role, is that right?

But bringing their expertise as contractors and management experts early on in the process.

And hopefully that means that costs are managed along the way.

And then they really step into the more active role of being the general contractor, is that right?

So they're responsible for the work, even though they're subbing out a lot of the work.

Is that do I understand that correctly?

Yeah, I said typically between 35 and 65 percent, the earlier they come on board the better to give that perspective, I would say, rather than oversight on on the ability, the ability to meet the design that's being developed at that time.

So they can provide great feedback on constructability that you wouldn't normally think of when you're deep in a design.

Um the ability to meet schedule and cost if those if those expectations are going to be met.

Um then they do pivot, yes, into construction.

Um and they maintain a CM GC role with a little construction management because they're doing a lot of trade package work and they're they're actually the ones that are bidding out the work and overseeing then how it then rolls forward.

So they do maintain a CM function.

That said, we still do construction management in-house ourselves, and if we don't have that ability, then we do consult out for that type of support as well, so we have more eyes on the project.

Okay.

And something that wasn't on your list, at least not explicitly, are these professional services contracts.

I notice we have a couple of JOCs on our consent calendar and one professional services.

Can you describe a little bit about how professional services contracts factor into your capital projects and budget and planning?

I focus today on construction contracts, which includes some element of professional services when you get into this collaborative delivery like design build.

Sure.

Professional service contracting is a totally different conversation.

Chapter 21 and Chapter 6 allows us to do that for capital delivery.

And we involve professional service contracts for a the agency as a wide range of different things.

When we think about capital delivery, sometimes that means may mean having a design contract.

Typically it'll mean having construction management contracts as well to provide professional services to help us deliver the capital investment.

But they're not actually doing hard concrete and steel work themselves.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Thanks, Commissioner.

Any other questions?

I just had two.

And one of them is I think something that you said at the beginning of your presentation, which is thinking about some of the different goals or different objectives might kind of drive the different option here with respect to getting the project done.

I I find myself as a ratepayer advocate, especially kind of going into the conversations we'll have in the first year, thinking about how the function of capital costs is one of the real kind of important considerations with respect to rate setting.

And when I think about progressive design build, I feel like you're going to tell me if I'm right or wrong.

But is progressive design build an opportunity to have a little bit more control over costs at an earlier phase in order to hit certain targets that might be milestones or objectives within our capital plan that we've kind of determined up or down with respect to some other kind of resulting considerations downstream, like namely rates.

And so that progressive design build, as you and your team are adopting this as more of a tool that we're going to use, that part of your thinking there is to have a degree more to some extent over control over costs and in respect to the capital plan.

Is that right or wrong?

I would say right.

Progressive design build, if I use my talking points correctly, I might have said it provides the greatest ability to design to budget.

So while we're in design, if we start to get early indication that a project is different from what it needs to be to meet that performance objective we're heading for, then we we can change.

We can adapt, pivot, do something different.

And progressive design build allows that to happen.

It's fairly unique out of the ones that I mentioned.

Others give some ability to tailor that, like the question about CMGC early on, you get a better perspective of the direction you're heading in.

Whereas in the least involvement from the contract of the traditional design bid build, you do a design and you put it out to market and the market ultimately dictates what you pay for the job in the end.

So that uh is very helpful for me and I think all of us to know, because I think we're all rate peer advocates at the end of the day as a function of what we do.

The other question I had was maybe something confirming something I learned with you and the team when we were doing the the tour of the of the Hedgehogi system and Mountain Tunnel, that we as commissioners, as we're presented more projects under progressive design build that we and potentially members of the public or others who kind of weigh in and see us approving contracts or modifications to contracts, and we sometimes get communications, whether it's public comment or or emails and such, that you've and the team have, I think, appropriately advised me and probably others of us commissioners that as we get used to more use of progressive design build, it can give the first appearance of being a change order, but it's absolutely not.

These are phases of a project and phases of a contract that are coming to us in a fully expected and planned and coordinated fashion.

And if I'm right there, what are some cues and some things that we can learn as as a general manager and in you as our AGM and others present these items to us?

How can they be differentiated so that they don't give a first impression to one of the members of this commission or someone from the public that it's anything less than a fully anticipated phase of a progressive design build contract?

Thank you.

At the last meeting I mentioned we were intending to come back and walk through what would be progressive design build specifically, since it is relatively new and one of our largest projects in the capital plan will be developed by that method.

Um there are a number of gateways or phases that we will break down and explain what happens when you initially bid out the work and then different gateways before we get into construction and bring on the trade packages and how that will incrementally change over time towards what we what we might call a a and guaranteed maximum price or a GMP towards the end.

So each one of those we want to be very clear that you are at certain phases of development and delivery of our project.

Yes.

All right.

Well, thank you.

Thank you, AGM Robinson.

The only thing I could think of is maybe at the next time we do get a uh item in front of us with approval of a progressive design build, just to kind of flag it as this is here here we go as we start to use this tool more and more.

Here is an example of how it looks when it is presented to us so we can adapt to that new way of approaching, which I think is important.

As you said, designing to budget feels like a real key part of our approach that uh we're going to be employing with respect to rate setting in the spring.

Thank you.

All right.

Unless there is other questions, comments, perhaps we can go to public comment.

Tiffany, thank you.

Thank you.

The call in number for remote public comment is 415-655-0001.

That's 415-655-0001.

And the access code is 2661 440, 0002, again, 2661, 440, 000 two.

Remote callers, please raise your hand.

If you wish to provide comment on item 6a, are there any members of the public present who wish to comment on this item?

Seeing none, moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised?

Ms.

Lanier, there's one caller that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

Caller, I've immediately in line.

You have two minutes.

Hi, how are you doing?

My name is Melande Sherlin, Vice President of the Bay View Hundred Coin Coordinating Council and a member of San Francisco Hyperlocal Ben and Chai Contractor Collective.

My concern uh appreciate the presentation and everything that you did.

But uh my concern is I'm hearing a lot about goals and everything.

So is there any requirements for micro-LBE and uh minority contractors?

Because what our experience is when there are goals, they never did excuse me.

I'm at work, but uh they they never go through with the goals.

So is there any language that where we can bring in requirements rather than goals?

Collar, this is the time to provide comments.

There is no dialogue at this time.

If you have additional comment, please continue.

Oh well, yeah, what if that's that's uh that that'll be my comment in.

I would like to I would like to keep go.

I mean I would like to hear requirements rather than go because we've been hearing both a long time, and that doesn't work for micro LB contractors that are in San.

So I would like to see uh requirements that they go.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, caller, for your comments.

Ms.

Lanier, there are no more callers that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

Thank you, colleagues.

Tiffany, can we hear item six B?

Could I just thank the General Manager and Mr.

Robinson for getting started on this informational hearing so quickly?

I appreciate it.

My pleasure.

Uh that concludes my report, Mr.

President.

Thank you, GM Herrera.

Thank you.

Item 7, consent calendar.

All right.

We have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 items on the consent calendar.

Colleagues, there is there any discussion of the consent calendar today.

Oh, uh apologies.

Vice President Leveroni.

Just a question.

Um there is two items.

I forget the um I don't have my computer up right now, but there were similar con uh consulting anvil, I think it was in Fortnoi, where the two uh where we're increasing on the consent calendar the from 2.5 million to 7.5, all within the constraints of the contract, and going from two years to five years.

I think it was E.

Was it E in?

Commissioner might be C and D.

C and D.

JOC contracts?

Yes.

And just my question on those two.

They were very similar, just uh, you know, um as far as the description of what these two companies do.

Um and is that just uh do we have others that we follow along with that?

I mean, I I could see all the use of it and I can see how beneficial it is.

I was just curious that they they do expire at two different times, but it it seems that that's a kind of maybe an ongoing type um contracts with those.

I may not be tracking exactly the ones we are talking about, but in general with the JOCs, if we score with a couple of those at the same time to do similar work, it provides more options for us to contract with.

And then depending on the nature of the task orders they receive, we may extend one more or less than the other.

But there is some flexibility there.

That might I think answer your question.

You mentioned my question.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, AGM Robinson.

Any other questions, discussion?

And if not, Tiffany, can we take public comment on this item?

Yes.

The call-in number is 415-655-0001.

That is 415-655-0001.

Access code 261-440-000261-440-0002.

Remote calls, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item 7.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment on this item?

Seeing none, moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised?

Ms.

Linny, are there no callers that we should be recognized?

Thank you.

All right.

Commissioners, unless there is any other questions, discussion, can I get a motion to approve the consent calendar, please?

Motion to approve the consent from Vice President Leverone.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second from Commissioner Stacey.

Can we have roll call, please, Tiffany?

President Arce.

Aye.

Vice President Leveroni.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

The item passes.

Item 8.

Authorize the General Manager to consent on behalf of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to the to the development agreement between the City and County of San Francisco and Prolagis LP, a Delaware limited partnership as it relates to matters under the SFPUC's jurisdiction, and adopt findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and a mitigation and monitoring and reporting program.

Good afternoon, President Arce and Commissioners.

I am Ron Flynn, Deputy General Manager of the SFPUC, and I am here to request your authorization and consent to certain aspects of the San Francisco Gateway Project Final EIR and Development Agreement.

May I have the slides, please?

I am going to continue as we as we um do this.

Are the slides before you?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

We add those.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, yes.

The city, through the Office of Economic and Workforce Development, negotiated a development agreement for the product project located at Tollin and McKinnon Avenue in the Bayview neighborhood.

The project will demolish four existing production, distribution, and repair building and construct two new mixed commercial PDR buildings.

Let me go through the infrastructure projects improvements and other requirements as to the SFPUC, but I want to show you a rendering of the project, which is the next page of the package before you, and unfortunately not on the screen.

If you go to the next page, that has the map of the site, and this is where I'm going to spend most of my time with you.

As you can see, this project site is just west of our Southeast treatment plant, and it also is not identified on there, but this is very close to our CDD yard on Newcomb Street.

Ordinarily, a development agreement comes to this board because a development agreement involves an agreement by the city to develop a new area of town, and that often includes creating new infrastructure, utility infrastructure in the right-of-way that is going to be dedicated to the to the city, and the PUC takes ownership of that.

So that's the primary role that we normally have.

So I want to talk about what that is included in the infrastructure plan, which is part of your package, which is a exhibit to the DA.

The IP provides that the project will install low-pressure water mains to create a looped system around the project site.

The IP provides that the project will install low-pressure water mains to create a looped system around the project site, upsize and install new combined sewer lines, submit a feasibility study so that the SFPUC can determine if we can serve the electricity, install new street lights, and comply with the stormwater management ordinance, non-potable water ordinance, and recycled water ordinance.

In addition, there are a couple things that are in this development agreement that pertain to the PUC.

The first is there is there is calls for a vacation of rights in LaSalle Avenue.

LaSalle Avenue runs down the middle of the site.

The city received rights to an existing sewage alignment under LaSalle from Selby to Rankin in the 60s.

There is no existing sewer facilities in that.

It's not clear if the city even gave those rights over to the PUC, but they exist somewhere between these, the city and the PUC.

This is why the project owner, if needed to be for funding, will want those rights declared vacant.

So this is why we are asking for those non-existent facilities and our rights to them to be declared surplus, should it be needed.

The other thing that is unusual about this particular development agreement is that there are many nonconforming uses in the area.

If you have driven around there, you can see it is it has been built over the years into the right-of-way.

The infrastructure plan describes plans to deal with what it calls the existing off-site conditions.

Those are all the nonconforming conditions.

And the city agrees to remove any of its own nonconforming conditions.

This is where the PUC comes in.

As to the PUC, it involves the removal of a fence at the back of the CDD yard.

The entire street at the back of the CDD has a fence line that is in the right-of-way, the public right-of-way, a few feet beyond the property line.

And so when this project begins, that entire fence will have to be removed, and the individual property owners, be they public or private, will be responsible for removing their own fence.

So PUC's agreement in this is to remove the fence at the back RCD yard.

I want to come back up to the infrastructure because that's usually the meat of this presentation.

By approving this agreement, we are approving the infrastructure plan.

But that does not mean we are done with our review.

This happens once the permitte submits plans.

That is part of the IP plan.

So we will be looking at the stormwater runoff plans.

We will be looking at the storm capacity.

We will be looking at the actual sewers and make sure they meet our plans to sign off on the street improvement plan that is forthcoming.

And after they get built, they will come to us.

The plan does not become effective until the Board of Supervisor has approved the DA and the attached documents.

Can I have the slides?

Now this is the slide I've been talking about.

But now I can go to the rend the renderings of the changes that are going to happen to the area.

It is going to be a facility that is going to be near near our Southeast Treatment plant, but a few blocks away.

And with that, I ask for your approval of the EIR and the development agreement, and of course, I am happy to take any questions.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

Flynn.

Questions, comments, discussion from Commissioners, Vice President Leverone.

Sounds like a great project.

I was just curious, wondering all the work that needs to be done that we do approve like the different low-pressure water mains, sewer those.

While we approve it and it meets our standards, the project developer is doing all of that work.

Under the terms of the development agreement, the project proponent is required to do the work and pay for the work and then dedicate it to the city without cost.

Okay.

And then once it is dedicated to the city, it then becomes our responsibility for maintenance.

Once it's correct.

We then own and maintain those facilities once they are dedicated to the city.

The Board of Supervisors accepts the streets, so that at that point it everything below it, which are utilities, the street itself, DPW takes on, you know, so it it is it becomes an area or an acceptance of the infrastructure in the streets by the board, and that's when the um ownership in the utilities best to us.

Okay.

And then in the contracts, is there then a clause or something that, let's say, if something does happen within a 10 or 15 years, say, let's say a 10-year period to the work that they did that they deeded to us, do we have rights to go back against the contractor, the developer to re do those repairs?

In the actual, I don't I haven't I don't know the actual agreement, but it or in ordinary circumstances when we have a DA and when we have infrastructure that is being dedicated to the city, it comes with warranty rights.

Those warranty rights are going to be different, but those are those are embedded in the material when they actually dedicate it to the city.

But they're they usually come with a set of warranties and we you know inspection along the way in that, yeah.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Thank you.

Um I have a question about the stormwater, kind of as a case study for how this plays out as the as the project progresses.

So it sounds from the infrastructure plan like this is an area that is prone to flooding, um, and that the sort of specific plans for remediation of the potential for flooding are kind of vague in the document.

And so I am wondering to what extent has the PUC been engaged in advance of this development agreement draft?

And then how does the PUC kind of follow up and have agency on the management and approval of the flooding management?

And it also seems like there isn't a big change in the amount of overall permeability in the infrastructure being planned in that region.

So I'm just wondering where are the levers from here?

Thank you for that question.

So you are correct that it um the infrastructure plans as this area is do um um prone to flooding, that is overground flooding.

Um but there are mechanisms already built into the infrastructure plan that deal with that.

In particular, the project site is going from 100 percent impervious to it the it is going to reduce the amount of impervious space with planters, bioretention planters, street trees, and other landscaping.

But in particular, as a stormwater runoff, the stormwater components need to comply with the subdivision regulations.

And the hydraulic modeling report is going to be prepared in collaboration with this PUC staff and submit it to us for approval during the design stage under the I under the terms of the infrastructure plan.

So that's earlier, that's on page 18.

The project is also going to consign combined install new combined sewer lines about 30 inches in diameter and associated cash basins.

That is going to catch more runoff than is now.

And it is going to have new sewer lines again constructed with adherence to the subdivision um regulations.

All of those under our analysis are pieces that are going to help that area with stormwater runoff, but again, it is the hook to the subdivision regulations and the and the hydraulic modeling to the specifics once they do it that are going to have to be, they have to do the modeling, give it to us, we have to review it to ensure that this is going to meet the subdivision regulations.

So our lever is in the approval of the street improvement plan, which requires hydraulic modeling to get that approval.

All right.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Thank you, President Darcy.

Um just curious.

So the infrastructure referred to is just the water and sewer and not electric infrastructure.

So power would be run by the city, by the PUC, or would that be.

So under a develop the ordinary course in a development agreement is that when once it gets to a certain paid um stage, the developer submits enough sufficient information so that we can do a feasibility plan to see whether or not it is feasible for the city to reasonably provide that electricity.

So their obligation in here is to, at that stage, is to provide that information to our satisfaction.

We then do a feasibility study and tell them whether or not we can serve that.

That is going to go back and forth with PG ⁇ E sometimes on primary and secondary, but we have that feasibility study, and then we come that we bring that back.

And if we can serve it, then we serve it.

If we can't, then PGE serves it.

So the the unlike the sewer and the water infrastructure which is being built in, that first piece has to be made a determination of once you design your project and we see its needs, is it feasible for us to study?

So their obligation is at that point the feasibility study, or to provide us that information.

They are also going to be providing streetlights as part of the infrastructure.

So that that component of power is also in there.

Commissioner Stacy.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you for all that detailed information.

I just want to sort of summarize and confirm my understanding of the PUC's role in in this development agreement and project.

The big lift is really the new infrastructure.

And although we may be agreeing to standards now, we retain the ability or we need to retain the ability to review the work and make sure that it adheres to the standards and that it is workable for the system.

That's correct.

Okay.

And the and then another role for the PUC is this energy role that we will determine whether or not the PUC can provide energy at a certain point to this project with this feasibility study.

That's correct.

And then sort of the upfront responsibilities for the PUC are to remove the fence from the that is in the public right-of-way along the CDD property.

I noted also that some of the other on-site or existing improvements might involve fire hydrants, downspouts.

Those are not PUC responsibilities, is that right?

It's just the fence?

It is just the fence.

And so would you describe it as upfront?

That actually will come at the tail end of after we have the street improvement plan, the design and the approval of the street improvement plan, then they will get a permit.

At that point, they can start doing the infrastructure.

At that point is when the right-of-ways get cleared.

In the meantime, they're going to be working to see which of those other encroachments they can clear.

And that's the portion with primarily DPW.

Are you going to be giving us minor encroachment permits?

Are you going to be legalizing these and so that our infrastructure can still fit?

So a lot of that work with all the private property owners is going to take place between now and then.

But as to the city, we all agreed that once the work begins post-SIP, we will remove our encroachments.

And for us, that's the fence.

Got it.

Thank you.

And the last question I had, when I reviewed the infrastructure plan, it appeared that the only surplusage or surplus determination that the PUC needed to make was this area of LaSalle Avenue between Selby and Rankin, and you have articulated that today.

The language in our resolution is quite open-ended and does not specify that it's just this area of LaSalle Avenue.

And it wasn't articulated in the staff report at all.

So I just want to confirm that the Commission, in spite of that very general language in the resolution, what we are declaring surplus today is just that area of LaSalle Avenue that may have been set aside for sewer lines but doesn't actually contain sewer lines.

Yes.

I'm sorry, that is that yes, that is clear.

If there is, we are declaring it surplus, we don't know whether it is going to be that those rights in the city are going to be vacated or not.

But traditionally we get all teed up the rights to be able to do that transfer should it be necessary, but the the rights that the PUC has outside of that in this area that are being dealt with are these pre-existing rights that came in the 60s to a sewer facilities, which we do not have those sewer facilities and no one has used them.

So we are you saying that we may or may not have to declare them surplus, or we we will declare them.

We are we have to ask to have them declared surplus here, and the board will do the same as the project continues its due diligence in putting together all the projects.

Should funding require a remove removal of those pre-existing rights, then we will be in a position to go forward and do that.

They so far have not sought to perfect those, but this is to allow the project to move forward in funding in other ways, should it need be.

Okay.

What I am really trying to confirm is that there is no other unidentified areas at this point that we're asking to theoretically declare surplus.

No, it's all in the infrastructure plan and the only surplus in the infrastructure plan is that item is.

That was my understanding from the infrastructure plan.

But that I just wanted to confirm because the resolution language is very is very general.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Any other questions, comments?

I know a lot of work has gone into this project by the sponsors, the team that put us together.

Obviously, you and your team, I think it is in a great place.

I look forward to supporting this item, but not before taking public comment, Tiffany, please.

Thank you.

The call in number for remote public comment is 1415-655-0001.

That is 415 655-0001.

And the access code is 2661 440002, 261 440 000 two.

Remote college, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item 8.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment on this item?

Good afternoon again, Commissioners.

My name is Oscar James.

I am a property owner.

And uh as the Commissioner, we knocked out eminent domain.

So if that's a part of our community where you're going to block out somebody's home or what have you, we knocked out intimate domain, so we have no eminent domain in our community.

Uh the other thing I want to to uh to mention, when you have uh public uh proposals like that, you should have enough information on the desk for public to pick up so I can look at the schematics and other people can look at the schematics.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon again.

My name is Demetrius Williams.

I am uh residence of Bayview Hunters Point of 54 years.

My father, uh Clarence Williams, is uh was uh there six uh seven eighty years of his life.

My grandkids live in Bayview Hunters Point, my kids live in Bayview Hunters Point.

So we are concerned that why these issues, uh even though we have a relationship with Pelogics with the gateway and understand uh the new uh and and we encourage, you know, that the Bayview have been under served and under have not been developed in a while, and we need uh the services, but why the community isn't involved in this uh just conversation that they are having about bringing in new sewer lines, new all this is new to the Bayview residents that reside there and want to be a part of the project.

So I we meet every Tuesday, 8 a.m.

Um in the uh Bay View at the Community College 1550 Evans, uh and we encourage everyone to come and support uh and and work with us because we want to work, especially building up the Bayview with all these new technologies and new uh projects that's coming in, and we encourage uh everyone who is uh thinking about doing something new in the Bayview to come and work with the community contractors.

Uh thank you again.

Thank you.

Moderator, are there any college who have their hand raised?

Ms.

Linier, there are no colors that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

The next item is item nine?

Um Tiffany, oh I apologize.

No, no problem.

No problem.

All right, colleagues, thank you to the members of the public, colleagues, we have in front of us item eight, which is to authorize the General Manager to consent to the development agreement with respect to this project as it relates to matters under our jurisdiction adopt findings under CEQA.

Can we get a motion?

So moved.

And the and can you kindly state the motion?

Uh Commissioner Jandar?

Motion to approve the general manager to sign on to the development agreement.

Thank you, Commissioner.

We got a motion.

Is there a second?

Second.

From Vice President Lavarone.

Can we please have a roll call?

President Arce.

Aye.

Vice President LeBroni?

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item 8 passes.

Thank you.

Can we please hear the next item, Tiffany?

Item nine.

Approve the revised terms and conditions and authorize the General Manager to execute a purchase and sale agreement and easement deeds with Sanoa Glenn Unified School District for the acquisition of a 4,008 square foot easement for an underground water pipeline and associated appurtences and a 34,834 square foot temporary construction easement on and across a portion of Alameda County Assessors Parcel number 096-0155-00401, located at 11601 Main Street, Sunol, California for 35,000.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

President Darce.

My name is Dina Brazil, and I am the right-of-way manager for the SFPUC's infrastructure division.

I'm tasked with acquiring property rights to deliver capital projects.

The item before you seeks to correct the terms of a purchase and sale agreement that was previously approved by this Commission on September 10th, 2024 and subsequently by the Board of Supervisors on November 5th.

The purchase and sale agreement covers the acquisition of easements for a water pipeline across property owned by the Sunol Glen Unified School District for the SFPUC's Town of Sunnol Pipeline Project.

The Town of Sunnol Pipeline is a critical asset that feeds both the potable water line and non-potable fire suppression line to the town of Sunnol.

The SFPUC has replaced most of the pipeline system, and this current project will complete the effort by replacing the section of the pipeline that crosses the Arroy de la Laguna and Sunol Glen School.

The SFPUC already owns an easement for the existing pipeline across the school property.

However, the new pipeline needed to be installed just north of the existing alignment to avoid removing a mature tree that lies within the existing easement.

The SFPUC staff had worked with the superintendent of the Sunnol Glen Unified School District to negotiate an agreement for the purchase of the easements.

We worked together to craft an agreement that would schedule work around the academic calendar when students would not be on site, and our temporary areas of disturbance were designed to preserve as much as possible the outdoor education and play areas.

The school superintendent with whom we'd worked retired in 2024, and the district brought on a new superintendent.

At around the same time, the school district experienced a change in leadership at the school board level as well.

So when we reached out to the new superintendent to move the agreement forward and close the transaction, she re-engaged the school district's council and school board, and the school district requested that certain changes be made to the forms.

Unfortunately, one of the requested changes resulted in a material increase in the city's obligations under the in under the agreement, which requires reapproval by the commission and board.

In the materials I provided with this item, I included a draft of the revised agreement redlined against the draft that had been previously approved.

For transparency's sake, I included all the changes to the form.

However, only the change to Section 8 regarding indemnification requires the approval of this Commission and the Board of Supervisors.

In the original agreement, this section only included a seller's indemnity.

In the agreement before you today, the proposed revisions narrow the seller's obligations and include a mutual obligation on the city's part to indemnify the other party.

We consulted with our risk management team and concluded that the changes to indemnify or to the indemnity are reasonable and they fall within the range of our normal practices.

It's customary that such agreements contain indemnification provisions that benefit the landowner.

What you would be approving today, subject to the approval of the Board of Supervisors is a revised purchase and sale agreement for the conveyance of a perpetual pipeline easement comprised of approximately 4,08 square feet and a temporary construction easement comprised of approximately 34,834 square feet.

The total purchase price for the two easements would not change and is still $35,000, which is equal to the appraised value as determined by an independent third-party appraiser.

At this time, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thanks.

Thank you, Ms.

Brazil.

Questions?

Discussion?

If not, can we take public oh Commissioner Stacey?

Thank you for the presentation.

I think you said this, but the work is substantially complete or is complete already.

Is that right?

It's substantially, or it's complete on the school property.

It was critical for the school.

We also wanted to complete this work this year.

But it was critical for the school that it be done during this summer break instead of waiting until next summer break, because the school has its own capital improvement program ongoing.

They just kicked it off.

So by waiting until next year, we would be in conflict with their own projects.

Okay.

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on this item.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment?

Seeing none, moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised?

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Lanier.

Can we get a motion to approve this item?

Move to approve.

Motion by Commissioner Stacey.

Is there a second?

Second.

From Vice President Leveroni.

Can we have roll call, please, Ms.

Lanier?

President Arce.

Aye.

Vice President Leverone.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar?

Aye.

Commissioner Stacey.

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item nine passes.

Thank you, Ms.

Lanier.

Can we hear the next item?

Item 10, communications.

Any questions or comments, discussion?

And seeing none.

Item 11, items initiated by commissioners.

Commissioners, are there any items to initiate for future discussion?

All right.

Seeing none, Ms.

Lanier, can you please call the next item?

Item 12.

Again, the remote call in number is 415 65501, 41565501.

Access code 2661 440261402.

Remote college, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item number 13.

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment on this item?

Seeing none.

Moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised?

Ms.

Lanier, there are no callers that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Ms.

Lanier.

Without any public comment on this item, can we hear item 13, please?

Item 13, motion on whether to assert the attorney client privilege regarding the matter listed as Zurich American Insurance Company versus City and County of San Francisco.

Colleagues, may I please have a motion on whether to assert the attorney client privilege regarding the closed session matter listed under item 13 for conference with legal counsel?

I move to assert the attorney client privilege.

Motion from Commissioner Stacy, is there a second?

Second.

Second from Vice President Leverone.

President Arcee?

Aye.

Vice President Leverone.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

The item passes.

Thank you, Ms.

Lanier.

We'll now convene our closed session.

SF Gov TV.

San Francisco government television.

Everyone, uh, and thank you to Kletcha for uh hosting us uh today.

I'm Scott Weiner.

I have the honor of representing this community in the state senate, uh, and the honor of uh being the uh lead author of Senate Bill two seventy six, and we are here today to celebrate uh the governor's signing of SP two seventy-six, uh, to thank Governor Newsom uh for signing the bill, uh and to thank our entire coalition uh for the two year two years of work to get us uh to this uh point.

And this has been a two-year uh process.

We started last year, it didn't quite work.

We came back this year and came back strong uh and got it done.

Uh and first of all, I want to thank uh Mayor Lurie for partnering uh with us, him and his team uh for really just uh standing firm and and being just a great legislative partner.

Uh and I also want to thank um all of the community organizations, including Kletcha and Meta, Mission Neighborhood Centers, Galeria de la Rosa, uh Lavos Latina, uh, and others who supported the bill.

And I particularly uh from the bottom of my heart want to thank uh the mission street vendors um association.

Uh, we had um, I believe six over the last two years, uh, six policy committee hearings uh in Sacramento on this bill.

Uh, and the street vendors came up every single time.

Every time that there's a whole they they hauled up the Sacramento and sometimes spent a number of hours or even the whole day up there, uh, and they did it uh because they knew that it was important.

Uh, we also had great community representation from the tenderloin from Chinatown, uh, from Soma.

It was great to see the whole mix of the beauty of San Francisco, the tapestry of the city coming together and saying that we want safe streets and we want safe street vending.

And that's what this bill is about.

San Francisco has an amazing uh street vendor uh uh culture that's been around for so long, uh especially in the mission, but in other neighborhoods as well.

Uh people who are long-term residents of this city uh who have uh microbusinesses where they uh are selling on the streets, and that's how they support themselves uh and their families, and they are adding to our communities, they're selling items or food that people want to buy, uh, and we celebrate our street vendors.

And San Francisco is a model in terms of our permitting system because there are cities that do not have good permitting systems for street vendors.

San Francisco does.

Uh and what we started to see uh is that uh organized crime started pushing our legitimate street vendors out.

Uh retail theft uh that we then saw the sale of stolen goods on our streets here in the mission and elsewhere, obviously shoplifted goods uh that was creating an atmosphere of chaos and at times violence on our streets and pushing our legitimate street vendors out and causing fear among our street vendor uh community.

And what SB 276 will do, and again, thank you to the governor for signing it, will give the City of San Francisco, the mayor, the Board of Supervisors, San Francisco Police Department an additional tool uh to hold accountable and to address this issue and to put a stop to the sale of stolen goods uh on our streets so that we can uh get back to what we do so well, which is actual street vending, uh, which makes our city uh better.

So I am so grateful uh to everyone involved.

Uh y quiero agradecerles a losed de la mision uh y de otros uh barrios uh luchado uh uh muy duro uh um pasar este proyecto de ley dos setenta y seis enviajado a Sacramento uh seis veces uh no pasado y este año para testificar a mis colegas en el Senado y la Asamblea para que está pasando in la misión y otros barrios y que la situación no es aceitable y que San Francisco necesita este proyecto de ley para terminar esta actividad criminal para que los vendedores uhítimos puedan tener exitó.

Gracias al gobernador, gracias al alcalde, uh, y gracias a la comunidad y especialmente los vendadores.

Uh, with that I want to uh bring up uh Mayor Lurie.

Thank you.

Thank you, State Senator Scott Weiner, thank you all for being here.

We all have seen it.

People on our sidewalks selling goods in the mission and across San Francisco.

It's hard to miss, and for far too long, the city has been unable to stop it.

The truth is the illegal sale of stolen items makes it harder for honest vendors to do their jobs.

It drives hardworking people out of spaces where they've spent years building their livelihoods.

It leaves them exposed to threats, to violence, and to exploitation.

Nobody knows that better than the people in this room.

Many of the people standing with us here today know that to bring our city back, people must be safe, and they must feel safe.

That's why seven months ago, many of us stood right here at Kletcha to announce the Safe Streets Act.

And I'm proud to say that yesterday, thanks to State Senator Scott Wiener's leadership, Governor Newsom signed it into law.

To every small business owner, vendor, community leader, and advocate who stood with us through this effort, we did it.

Congratulations.

And I didn't know, State Senator, about six times.

I heard about two or three times.

So thank you very much for always going up there.

But now the work begins.

The Safe Street Act gives our city the tools to take action.

It allows law enforcement to issue citations, pursue misdemeanors, and confiscate stolen goods.

This law protects legitimate vendors.

It supports those who work hard and play by the rules.

And it ensures that honest businesses can operate without fear of intimidation.

This moment is the result of months of advocacy, trips to Sacramento, and persistence from the community that refused to give up.

To the mission street vendors, to Kletcha, and to everyone who raised their voice, thank you.

Senator, thank you for your leadership and for making this possible.

And I once and I want to once again thank Governor Newsom for signing this bill into law and standing with San Francisco at this critical time.

No.

Okay.

Oh, that's the motion.

Okay.

Got it.

Okay, following closed session.

Okay.

All right.

So we took the roll call vote.

We've approved our motion to assert the attorney client privilege.

Um can you please call item fourteen, Ms.

Lanier.

Item 14, announcement following closed session.

All right.

Thank you, Ms.

Lanier, and on behalf of colleagues, the Commission is recommending that the board approve the settlement reference in item number thirteen.

Can we please call item fifteen, Ms.

Item 15 motion regarding whether to disclose the discussion during closed session pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section 67.12A.

Can I get a motion, colleagues?

I move not to disclose the discussion in closed session.

Seconded.

Vice President LeBroni?

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

The item passes.

Thank you.

I think then we are at least at the end of my roadmap.

That means we're probably at the end of the meeting.

Okay.

The meeting is adjourned.

Thank you.