I'd like to call to order today's meeting of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission.

Ms. Lanier, can you kindly call roll?

President Arce.

Here.

Vice President Leverroni.

Here.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Here.

Commissioner Stacey.

Here.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Here.

You have a quorum.

Thank you, Ms. Lanier.

And 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 Muwekma Ohlone 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 Muwekma Ohlone tribe's 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 Muwekma Ohlone people have

established a working partnership with the SFPUC and are productive and flourishing members

within the many greater San Francisco Bay Area communities today.

Item 3, approval of the minutes of December 9th, 2025.

Colleagues, are there any corrections to the minutes of December 9, 2025?

None.

Ms. Lanier, can we take public comment?

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item 3.

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

I have Ms. Susan Mullaney.

I'm sorry I called you too early my apologies and just making sure that your

comments are on the minutes yes I did that's what I'm saying I called you early

my apologies all right so are there any remote comments moderator miss Lanier

there is one caller with their hands raised okay for the minutes yes okay

thank you caller your line has been unmuted you have two minutes no I think

I messed up I it's not for the minutes this is general comment okay okay thank

you miss Lanier there are no more callers who wish to be recognized thank

you so with that can we get a motion to approve the minutes move to approve from

From Commissioner Stacey, is there a second?

Seconded.

Commissioner Jamdar, roll call please, Ms. Lanier.

President Arce?

Aye.

Vice President Leveroni?

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar?

Aye.

Commissioner Stacey?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow?

Aye.

The item passes.

Members of the public may address the commission on matters that are within the commission's

jurisdiction and are not on today's agenda.

Thank you, Ms. Lanier.

And as we prepare for general public comment, I'd like to remind all of us 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 calls, please raise your hand if you wish to provide general public comment.

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

Ms. Susan Malaney.

Hello.

I don't know if you want to turn that on.

I was gobsmacked when I opened this calendar and saw that for July.

The PUC is promoting artificial turf.

The state of California does not recognize artificial turf as drought-tolerant landscaping, and artificial turf does not reduce water use because it takes 1,000 gallons of water per meter squared to produce it, from, of course, the crude oil to this vinyl plastic state.

And it also goes to landfill because it cannot be recycled.

It can only be burned in pyrolysis, which uses more fuel than it gets out.

So also, San Francisco's on Franklin Square sent its—we sent 27,000 pounds of their turf to Malaysia for their infill when that was removed in 2019.

um wreck and park has elaborate drainage systems under all of their fields so that their toxic

runoff can be diverted away from soil and into the sewer for treatment before it's released

back into nature private homes can't do that the bis-2 ethyl hexyl phthalates that are leaching

from the plastic grass blades, not the infill, are going straight into the ground, and they're

going to poison all of the wildlife up through the food chain to the birds, the gophers,

the coyotes.

So I wonder if Rec Park put you up to putting this in here so that they can say gotcha when

the PUC comes out against turf, as it should do.

So I hope that PUC will throw out the rest of these calendars, maybe recall them, and replace this July page.

Thanks.

Thank you. Mr. Bob Hall?

Hello.

So on December 18th at the Rec Park Commission meeting on artificial turf standards, we heard artificial turf presented as a water-saving solution.

That claim collapses when you look at the full water and pollution footprint of plastic grass.

Independent life cycle data shows that nearly 1,000 gallons of water are used to manufacture just one square meter of artificial turf.

For a single soccer field, that's about 7.5 million gallons of water consumed before the field is even installed.

One study found that making a turf field uses as much water as maintaining a natural grass field for four years.

This is not water conservation.

But the bigger issue is contamination.

Every gallon of water that touches artificial turf becomes polluted from rainfall to irrigation to stormwater.

That picks up microplastics, PFAS, plasticizers, dyes, and flame retardants, and sends them straight into our storm drain and the bay.

A single turf field is estimated to leach PFAS each year to contaminate roughly 800,000 gallons of water.

These are forever chemicals.

Routing this water to the sewer does not solve the problem.

SFPUC has said there is no technology capable of removing PFAS at the needed scale.

and wastewater plants only partially remove microplastics and plastic additives.

SFPUC's own strategy is to stop pollution at the source.

Expanding artificial turf moves us in the opposite direction

and permanently turns water into waste.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mr. Francisco da Costa.

Commissioners, I want to speak on the indigenous people.

And you always read this thing about the Mu'akma Ohlone.

I've been with the Mu'akma Ohlone for a long time.

And whether we like it or not, we have to respect the first people.

And we have to respect this land.

Just like you say in what you read.

and then you know when it comes to our presentations

we need to have some empathy for everybody

and yesterday you heard a lot of the people commenting from out

and they seem to know more than what the commissioners know

so

when we the people

like Peter, myself, others

we always talk, we discuss

we work with groups

so we're not coming here

to just make noise or something

you heard the two speakers early on

this land

was looked after the indigenous people.

They call it Mother Earth.

And we have to take it serious, San Francisco.

We have to take it serious.

We don't seem to listen to the people.

So let's clean our reservoirs.

Let's stop this artificial turf.

Don't need to be a rocket scientist.

Let's not talk about climate change and do exactly the opposite.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

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

Ms. Lanier, there are two callers with their hands raised.

Thank you.

Caller, your line has been unmuted.

You have two minutes.

Hi, everyone.

Thank you.

This is Martin Gothberg, and thank you for your service

and for acknowledging my right to comment at the meeting.

I meant to speak yesterday at the finance meeting,

but I probably screwed up on the star three.

So my comment today is that SFPC has an excessive amount of debt

as if someone was maxing out their credit cards.

And I know the financial staff was kind of dismissive at that comparison.

That's fine.

But financial staff also said that keeping the bond rating agencies happy has been a significant challenge in the planning process.

Okay, so that's a likely indication of too much debt.

When more than 50% of the PSC's expenses are going towards debt service in a declining sales environment, that's a recipe for disaster or future affordability issues.

The debt service is projected to go higher as a percent.

It's hard to cut costs.

So Los Angeles has 27% of expenses going to debt service, as does the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, San Diego.

Water Authority is even lower, 24%.

When is debt service too much?

And when the rating agencies say so, is that when we react?

Lastly, what is the impact of the artificially constructed design drought on the SFPs and budgets?

How can the public better understand that?

SFPC loves to brag about their awards, financial planning, but the public, it looks like a broken process.

And contrary to claims by the finance department, there is no transparency on what costs are being driven by the design drought.

Please hold SFP staff accountable.

Thank you.

Thank you, caller, for your comment.

Caller, your line has been unmuted.

You have two minutes.

Good afternoon.

Denise Louis speaking.

Yesterday I mentioned that the very expensive emergency firefighting water system was missing

from the presentation.

Today I implore you to look into the system and to propose expansion to the residential

area between 30 acres of dense flammable eucalyptus of Mount Davidson Park and 16 acres of dense

flammable eucalyptus at Glen Canyon Park.

There aren't even any far hydrants for a mile along the Osanasi border of the Glen Canyon

eucalyptus. So my neighborhood will be less defenseless when those trees burn.

Do consider that the National Weather Service issued red flag wildfire warnings for San Francisco

in October and November 2024. And remember, eucalyptus fueled the Oakland and Brookings Hill

wildfires. Secondly, regarding affordability and the design drought, I suggest setting it up and

any expensive solutions aside because chances are only one in 8,000 years that we've run out of water

because the PUC should prioritize the emergency firefighting water system.

I doubt we've even ever run out of water because in a pinch, people can conserve a lot.

My household averages only 13 gallons per day per person.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak.

Thank you, caller, for your comments.

Caller, your line has been unmuted.

You have two minutes.

Thank you.

This is Peter Dreckmeyer with Policy Director for Yosemite Rivers Alliance.

I wasn't planning on speaking today.

I assume you're probably sick of hearing from me.

But just listening to the other people call in,

the audio is very, very choppy.

I don't know if that's what you hear in the chambers there,

but I think there's a lot of room for improvement with the call-in system.

And also yesterday I was just curious,

so I timed the lag time between the video and telephone,

and it was 48 seconds.

And so that concerned me because if someone's watching online

and they decide, hey, I want to make a comment on this,

and then they switch over to phone.

Unless someone else has been commenting, they lose that opportunity.

So I really hope you prioritize the online system

and make it a lot cleaner and smoother.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, caller, for your comment.

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

Thank you.

Item 5 is the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Annual Citizens Advisory Committee update.

And the CAC Chair, Douglas Jacuzzi.

Douglas Jacuzzi Good afternoon, President Asir, RCA, excuse me, and commissioners.

I'm honored to be here this afternoon to present our highlights from last year's CAC and what we expect to do this year.

Although I will start a little bit unorthodox way here by plugging ourselves.

in October of 2025, we submitted a resolution asking not to be sunsetted as a group

and asking our term limits not be reduced and the members of our group not be reduced.

And I hope that when and or if this topic comes to the commission,

that in your eyes you give us not only a positive but a glowing report as a commission.

Thank you.

Secondly, I would like to just say, as a group, we commiserate with all of you here.

You're in a tough position.

I really don't need to expound on that too much.

You're in a rock and a hard spot with declining demand and increasing costs,

all under the restrictions of umbrella of massive amounts of regulation.

We as a group recognize that.

We lose sleep over the same items and the same reports that you listen to

and trying to come up with solutions of which we can present to you, in our opinion,

to help make this entire three-part enterprise run more smoothly.

Today, I'm pleased to present to the Commission and to the Citizens Advisory Committee annual report

and provide a summary of the priorities of the fiscal year 2025 through 2026.

I'm going to skip right down through the paragraphs here, right to the actual topics.

Our full committee, our committees are broken into three parts.

We have a full committee, a subcommittee for wastewater, a subcommittee for power, and a subcommittee for water supply.

Our full committee hopes to focus on PG&E reliability and power outages, and with a particular attention to Treasure Island.

We've heard from Treasure Island many, many times over the last many years about the many power outages on Treasure Island.

We just recently experienced power outages across the city, which gained a lot of media attention all the way across the country.

The power outage that we experienced across the city really pales in comparison to what Treasury Island has to put up with routinely.

We will be focusing on contracting and infrastructure, capital improvement projects, environmental justice, stormwater, and water supply.

I want to stop just for a moment, and the stormwater and water supply falls under number five.

And as a group, we would like the commission to fully understand the nexus between water supply and stormwater,

and we will be getting into that in future discussions.

We also want to focus on understanding the commission's attitude towards artificial turf,

which we heard about already in the beginning of this session today.

Communication methods and customer outreach is a part of our focus.

The Southeast Wastewater Treatment Facility we hope to tour later this spring,

and then planning field trips or other field trips to learn more about very specifically intimately about our infrastructure facilities.

The water subcommittee will be focusing on alternative water supply in the discussions that we've heard yesterday about the costs of our design drought and so on, which we can all get at and voice our opinions in future meetings.

but we really want to focus on what we can do with alternative water supply to

help lessen the focus on the Hetch Hetchy system which would include

groundwater and sustainable yield. We want to focus on environmental

stewardship, the Tuolumne River flow regime, the watershed, and by doing so

tour our watershed center I don't have that typed out but that's okay facilities our urban watershed

management plan and our SF PUC affordability policies and our power supply we want to look

at our evidence-based impact on AI data centers use of power and for local customers and that

includes water, SFPUC's power transparency and accountability, climate change impact

and weatherization, and public power. Wastewater will be focusing on touring our

wastewater facilities, looking and learning more about our biosolids and

headworks, and our Treasure Island plant that we are learning are coming on

online soon if not already. We'll be focusing on green infrastructure and

trying to untangle the funds that are tied up in the green infrastructure

grant program and help smooth those out so we can help those funds get out to the

public and increase the amount of greener sugar that we have across the city.

Outcome impacts from litigation and capital plan update and renewal. Those

Those are items that we want to focus on.

I would like to wrap this up with a small additional commentary

that we think about as a body, we work on flow.

We work on the flow of water, we work on the flow of wastewater,

and we work on the flow of power and energy and electricity.

All those things flow, so we are thinking about flow continuously.

All of the items that we grapple with have been grappled with before.

We can go all the way back to the societies of the Romans

and know that when they talked about the compluvium and the impluvium,

that they were collecting rainwater,

and they were directing it to a cistern in the impluvium,

which is the impluvium, which is their drinking water.

That system of compluvium and impluvium predated the Romans' aqueducts

by a few hundred years and worked very well for them to grapple with the same things that we grapple with.

I would like to just put out there what we identify as a group,

and I personally identify, is in the flow.

It's not just the flow of all this water and this power.

It's how we actually all work together.

I'd like to try to see the CAC work more closely with the commission,

and in so doing, I'd like to invite you all, please, to come to any one of our meetings

whenever you feel you have the time.

Also, I'd like you to reach out to any one of us when you might be grappling with any situation

and trying to find an answer, and just simply ask,

how is the CAC dealing with the same exact issues on these same presentations.

I'd also like to encourage the commission to flow with the outside groups,

the Sierra Club, the Yosemite River, the previously Twalman River Trust,

all of these folks, we all have the same goal in mind,

And we really need to work together on common solutions to these problems and not in a divisive manner of us versus them.

That closes my presentation.

And I would like to ask if there's any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your presentation, your hard work, and that of your colleagues.

I am turning to fellow commissioners to see if you have feedback questions

Commissioner Stacy thank you and thank you for the presentation your list of

topics for next year is impressive they are really challenging topics and really

important topics I just I wanted to hear a little bit more about how do you go

about approaching these issues.

I assume you get a lot of information from PUC staff.

You may do your own research.

You've got experts on the CAC.

Is that how you sort of collect your information

and then you make a report to the committee

and then have committee discussion about it?

Yes, Commissioner Stacey, thank you for your question.

We do listen to the same staff reports on the various items that you hear in this chamber.

We then hold discussions over the course of multiple meetings on those topics.

And if we feel fit, and one of the things I will be working on as the new chair of the committee

is to up the number of our resolutions,

literally come up with what our opinions are

and send them forward to you.

So in process, yes, it's committee-based.

Starts with the subcommittees.

The subcommittees will then elevate a topic

up to the full committee.

The full committee will adopt that topic

and have a resolution and pass it on to you as a commission.

Got it. Thank you.

I hope that answers the question.

Yeah, and thank you all for your service.

It's a lot of work.

That's it.

Is there any other questions?

I was just curious about you've got a meeting soon in January,

and I think, Mr. General Manager,

are we preparing to present a budget overview to the CAC

just as part of our kind of sharing of information?

Is that a yes from Ms. Bush?

Okay.

Okay.

Is that on the 20th?

Next Tuesday night.

Okay.

That will be our first full committee meeting.

Okay.

All right.

Well, thank you very much again to you and your team.

And is there a public comment on this item, Ms. Lanier?

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?

Ms. Lanier, there is one caller with her hands raised.

Thank you.

Caller, your line has been unmuted.

You have two minutes.

Thank you.

Peter Drekmaier with Yosemite Rivers Alliance.

I really like what I just heard from the chair.

I think that we have an impressive CAC.

There are a lot of really sharp people, and I think it could be better utilized.

So I hope that will be the case.

So we really do need to be working together, and we need to agree on basic facts, or at least know what the differences are, and work together on solutions.

I think the solutions are actually very, very easy.

We used to have workshops.

We need to have those again.

I feel like I've been working on these issues for 18 years.

I have so many facts and figures off the top of my head.

I feel like I really understand the system and the environmental needs.

And, you know, I get two minutes and, you know, we used to be able to do presentations at workshops, but that hasn't happened.

And it makes it look like the SFPUC doesn't really care, that decisions have already been made.

And, you know, facts and science are inconvenient truths.

So I hope we can, you know, with the new year, we can start over and, you know, workshops are really important.

You know, one great success story was when Ed Harrington took over as general manager

in 2007.

He approached us right off the bat, and he proposed a compromise on the water system

improvement program.

The demand projections for 2018, 10 years later, were 285 MGD.

And he capped them at 265.

The actual was 196, 31 percent lower.

So much has changed since the design drought was put into effect in 1994, and yet it's

never been revisited.

And I appreciate the fact that the Commissioners asked, you know, when it was last revisited,

how do we do that?

But the answer was, it's just locked down, and that's wrong.

So let's work together this year.

And thank you to the CAC.

Thank you for your comments.

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

Thank you.

The next item is item 6, report of the general manager.

Nothing to report.

Thank you.

The next item is item 7, consent calendar.

Thank you, Ms. Lanier.

Colleagues, is there comments, questions with respect to the items on our consent calendar?

Commissioner Stacey.

Thank you.

I just had a question on 7E, the stormwater management system contract.

I was wondering whether there is any intent to take that work in-house eventually.

Is it always something that we're going to have to contract out,

or is it something that the PUC could take over internally?

Thank you for the question.

I'm Rajesh Prasad.

I'm the project manager.

At this point of time, for the next five years,

we have the skills.

There are two problems with the work required for this project or this system.

One is that it's a very ad hoc, intermittent type support

that staff has to provide.

And we don't have that kind of role.

It won't be feasible to keep supporting that way.

And then the second is the current workload in the next few years.

We are doing a lot of projects.

So finding time for the staff to do that is going to be hard.

After five years, we will reassess.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions, colleagues?

All right.

Ms. Lanierkin would take public comment on the consent calendar.

Remote callers, please raise your hand.

if you wish to provide comments on the consent calendar.

Is there anyone present who would like to speak?

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

Ms. Linnea, there are no callers with their hands raised.

Thank you.

And with that, can we get a motion to approve the consent calendar?

Move to approve the consent calendar.

Commissioner Sacy moves.

Second move.

Second from Commissioner Jamdar.

Can we have a roll call?

President Arce?

Aye.

Vice President Leverroni?

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar?

Aye. Commissioner Stacey? Aye. Commissioner Thurlow? Aye. The item passes. Item 8.

Approve the terms and conditions and authorize the city and county of San Francisco's director

of real estate to execute an easement deed with Pacific Gas and Electric Company for the

conveyance of an approximately 2,944 square foot easement for a natural gas meter station on

property located at 1-800 Gerald Avenue, San Francisco, subject to Board of Supervisors and

mayor approval. Good afternoon, Commissioners, President Arce and Vice President Leveroni.

I'm Dina Brazil, right-of-way manager for our Infrastructure Division. The item before you

today is pretty straightforward. It's a grant of easement to PG&E for a natural gas meter station

that will serve the SFPUC exclusively. The SFPUC is in construction on its Biosolids Digesters

Facilities Project, which replaces and relocates the existing solids treatment facilities at the

southeast plant. The new biosolids facilities require an increased supply of natural gas,

which requires a new connection. The new connection needs a new gas meter,

which consists of above-ground piping enclosed by a perimeter fence.

There is no public utility easement or any area within the public right-of-way

where this meter station could be sited, so we agreed to locate it near the existing meter station that will be replaced through this process.

Because the Southeast Plant is a secure facility, it's important that it be located somewhere with direct access from the street.

And because the facility will be on what is effectively private property and not within a public utility easement or right-of-way,

PG&E requires that it be granted an easement before construction can begin.

The proposed site of the PG&E meter station is adjacent to Gerald Avenue near its intersection with Quint Street, which you're able to see in the location map that I included in the commission materials.

PG&E requires approximately 2,944 square feet for its meter station, as well as the right to excavate for, construct, reconstruct, replace, remove, maintain, inspect, and use the meter station facilities.

We worked with the real estate team at the city attorney's office to negotiate the form of easement deed before you today, which is, to the best of our collective knowledge, in its final form.

It will need to be fully executed and recorded prior to construction.

In March of 2018, the San Francisco Planning Commission certified the biosolids project EIR, and on November 11th of 2025, the planning department issued a minor project modification for the installation of the meter station facilities.

The SFPC's Environmental Management Group determined that the facilities and activities

to be authorized by the easement deed are within the scope of the project authorized

under the final EIR and minor project modification.

At this time, I'd be happy to take your questions about this item.

All right.

Thank you, Ms. Brazil.

Is there any questions, comments?

All right.

Can we take public comment, Ms. Lanier?

callers please raise your hand if you wish to comment on item 8 are there any

members of the public present who wish to comment seeing none moderator are

there any callers who have their hand raised miss Lanier there are no callers

with their hands raised thank you all right with that can we get a motion to

approve item 8 move to approve item 8 seconded motion from Commissioner Stacey

with a second from Commissioner Jamdar president Arce aye vice president

Leveroni? Aye. Commissioner Jamzar? Aye. Commissioner Stacey? Aye. Commissioner Thurlow?

Aye. The item passes. Thank you. Item numbers 9 and 10 will be presented together and voted on

separately. Item 9, approve the forms of Third Amendment to the reimbursement agreement together

with the original reimbursement agreement for Series A-1 with Bank of America, BANA,

in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $125 million, and an amended and restated fee

agreement, first amendment to the reimbursement agreement together with the original reimbursement

agreement for series A2, with mana in the aggregate principal amount not to exceed $125

million, an amended and restated fee agreement, and forms of the supporting letters of credit

and bank notes for each agreement, and authorize the general manager to execute any other necessary

agreements to execute the documents.

Item 10, approve the forms of original reimbursement agreement and Third Amendment to the original

reimbursement agreement with Bank of America BANA for Series A2, reimbursement agreement

with BANA for Series A3, and reimbursement agreement with Truist Bank for Series A5 in

aggregate principal amounts not to exceed $150 million, $100 million, and $125 million,

respectively, exclusive of 270 days interest, BANA and Truist fee agreements, together with

the BANA and Truist reimbursement agreements, collectively the bank agreements, related

forms of the letter of credit and bank notes exhibited in the respective bank agreements,

amended and restated issuing and paying agent agreements, and form of offering memorandum

and authorize the general manager to execute any other necessary agreements to execute

all of the documents.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Nikolai Sklarov, Capital Finance Director.

Let me begin by apologizing to our Director of Commission Affairs for having her read so much.

And it isn't lost on me as well that for each of you,

had you printed out the stack of documents before you, it would be about a three- to four-inch pile.

Fortunately, we do everything electronically.

But as we discussed during yesterday's budget hearing, one of the important ways that we, if I could have the slides, please,

one of the important ways that we manage the cost of our capital program is through our interim funding program,

which consists of a number of credit facilities and liquidity facilities.

These facilities allow us to reduce the cost of our borrowing.

We came before you at the October 28th meeting for a new facility of $150 million with BMO Bank for our wastewater enterprise.

At that time, we promised we'd be back before you with five more facilities.

These are those five facilities that we promised to bring back to you.

So that is why it is such a long agenda item.

We have five facilities before you.

I also want to point out that you should have each received changes to the resolution.

They are non-subsidive changes, but they are simplifying the language on designees.

But, of course, each of these agreements would be signed by our general manager.

One of the important ways that we reduce the cost of capital, as we discussed yesterday,

is that rather than borrowing bonds when we begin a project, we first are authorizing contracts using these credit facilities.

We don't actually borrow funds.

We simply are able to demonstrate to the controller that we have the resources to enter into these contracts.

That costs us approximately a quarter of 1% or less than half a percent,

depending on the length of the respective facility.

Then some of those facilities are also used when we actually need to borrow funds

through our commercial paper program.

And again, instead of borrowing the full amount up front,

we issue small amounts of commercial paper,

typically in amounts of $30 to $50 million at a time.

But what we're doing is basically borrowing

just what we will need for the next quarter

against those facilities.

And then when we've exhausted our capacity

or are approaching exhausting those facilities,

then we will issue our long-term bonds and fix those rates in the future.

So it's a very powerful tool for reducing the impact on our rate payers of the large capital projects that we're undertaking.

Currently, typically these programs cost 3% to 4% for commercial paper.

Right now, in January, rates are particularly low.

I mentioned yesterday that we were just able to lock in six-month commercial paper for our water enterprise at a 2.72 all-in rate.

So very, very low interim borrowing costs.

So we are before you today with five facilities, two or four power.

As you can see, the two power facilities are B of A facilities due to expire in March.

When we went out for the RFP in conjunction with expanding the wastewater program, we also solicited bids from the street.

We received very strong bank proposals for these renewals, and so we are prepared now to renew these facilities.

So in this particular case, although we went out to all of the banks, B of A provided the best terms for these two facilities,

and you can see those on the screen.

Again, each of these facilities are rated not based on our credit as the SFPUC, but based on the bank's rating,

and that's how we get the low short-term rates.

Then for our water enterprise, we had one renewal.

It also happens to be with B of A,

and we're entering into two new facilities.

So renewing the B of A facility, again, as the incumbent,

they provided strong pricing and terms.

We also selected B of A for another facility,

and then the final facility is with Truist Bank.

They are new to our program, and as with BMA in October,

we're very excited to be able to diversify the banks that are in our program

because that strengthens the appeal for investors

as particular investors get full up on the different banks.

These facilities are typically three to four years in duration.

So the packages before you would call for two separate votes,

two separate staff reports.

First one for power for series A1 and A2 under the power interim program.

And then three facilities under wastewater, A2, A3, and A5,

to adopt those documents and authorize the general manager to execute those.

And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Sklaroff.

Is there any questions or comments from the commission?

All right.

Vice President Leveroni.

Just to try to, I know there's a lot here to try to digest,

but it looks as though some of these are being renewed

or all of them are being renewed,

and what would be the new money, if any?

So for power, both of those are being renewed with the same bank.

So those are existing facilities, and they will remain with B of A in those cases.

For wastewater, we have one renewal and two new facilities.

One of the new facilities is with a bank that's familiar to our program,

and one of the banks, Truist Bank, is entirely new to our program.

And the dollar amounts, what is the overall increase in all of the programs?

One big number, is there of an increase of asking for the credit facilities?

So these particular facilities will now use all of the $950 million.

We've now completed the process of using the entire $950 million expansion that the Board of Supervisors authorized last year.

And our total program across all three enterprises is $2.45 billion.

And effect on our, it sounds like we don't use these unless needed, or they will be needed.

In other words, a much better way of financing, because we'll take it in smaller increments and then build to a number.

And then depending on when we do the bond issue to take us out of these.

effect on our bond rating,

is there any effect on it at all

or because of these type of facilities,

the way you're structuring it?

So just as we diversify among the banks,

we also diversify among the types of facilities

that we enter into.

Some of the facilities are revolving lines of credit

that are not used for our commercial paper program at all.

They simply are available to us and are used principally

for releasing funds on controllers reserve.

By contrast, for our commercial paper program,

we use a combination of credit facilities,

so the letters of credit that you saw today,

Those derive their credit from the bank.

We also have in our portfolio liquidity facilities where the rating also derives from our credit, but these are letters of credit.

And there's a cost to do this, as you mentioned here.

that cost versus our savings.

I mean, there's a cost, but if we went in and started to do the funding of 100% now,

what we thought it might be,

is there a savings that you might estimate by doing it this way

versus just going out and getting bonds now?

So, Vice President Leveroni, certainly it depends on the size of each of the projects.

But I think the best way to visualize this is that before we can enter into the contract, we need to demonstrate to the controller that we have funding available.

In this case, we enter into these facilities.

The price of those facilities ranges from 21 basis points, which is 0.21% to 0.42%.

So quite low.

And that allows us to begin the process.

Other entities might issue bonds at that point.

bonds in this current environment, 30-year bonds for a highly rated entity such as ourselves,

would be about 4.25%.

So you can see it's a very substantial savings.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Commissioner Stacey.

I just had a quick question.

You said there was a revised set of resolutions.

I didn't see the revisions.

but you said they were non-substantive changes,

sort of a simplification?

Yes, and let me describe them.

The way the resolutions have historically been set up

was subject to confusion.

They described that the commission

was authorizing the general manager or the general manager's delegate

to enter contracts, comma, designee.

The designation was done in Section 10,

and then each of the sections also included additional designations.

What we've done is simply moved, with the advice of general counsel,

simply moved all of those to Section 10 so that it's much cleaner and clearer who's being authorized.

Great. Thank you.

And I just wanted to make sure that I understood the terminology in your PowerPoint slides.

In seven and eight slides, you talk about some facilities being dormant.

I assume that means we just haven't drawn on them. Is that right?

So that is that that series designation didn't have any facilities assigned to it.

And so sometime in the past, those series designations had been used.

Those facilities went away.

I know I can recall in my time here with the PUC, we've merged facilities before, things like that.

But it's simply a series designation that hadn't been used that we are now using for these new facilities.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Thank you, President Darcy.

I have a follow-up on a question from Commissioner Leveronis.

So generally speaking, short-term credit facilities have a higher interest rate than long-term takeout financing in sort of common parlance.

So this is the other way around.

Am I just getting that wrong?

Or the credit facility has a much, much lower interest rate than the bond rate.

And is that just the way it works in interest structure finance?

So let me pause for a moment and describe that when we have a commercial paper program,

as we do for each of these enterprises,

We pay a facility fee that ensures for the investors that when the bonds are remarketed, funds are available if they can't find other investors.

That's the intention.

So we pay for a facility fee.

We pay an interest cost.

That interest cost is much lower because we are marketing those bonds anywhere from one to 270 days.

We typically roll our paper 30 to 60 days.

But as I described, right now we're in a very low environment, a lot of liquidity in the market.

So we've been able to lock in low rates for six months on some of our recent paper.

But because it's all very short-term paper, the coupon that we're paying is quite low compared to a 30-year bond.

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Sklaroff.

And unless there's any other questions from colleagues, can we take public comment, Ms. Lanier, on these items?

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on these items.

Is there anyone present who wished to make comment?

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

Ms. Lanier, there are no callers with their hands raised.

Thank you.

All right, colleagues, as Ms. Lanier mentioned, we're going to take these items up separately.

Can we get a motion to approve item 9?

Make a motion to approve item nine.

A motion from Vice President Leveroni.

A second.

A second from Commissioner Stacy.

President Arce.

A.

Commissioner Stacy?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow?

Aye.

Item 10 passes.

Item 11.

Accept work performed by Mitchell Engineering under contract number WD-2861 Auxiliary Water Supply System Clarendon Supply 2019.

Approve Modification Number 7 Final and authorize final payment to the contractor.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

This is Algie Collingmore, Construction Management Bureau Manager, standing in for Project Manager

Ada, who is ill today.

The item before you is just to accept the work performed by Mitchell Engineering and the

contract number WD2861, AWSS Clarendon Supply 2019 project.

This project provides an additional water supply to improve the city's post-seismic

event fire suppression capabilities, particularly for the western area of San Francisco.

The ask is to approve final modification number seven, which increases the contract amount

by $44,352, that's within the approved contingency amount, and increases the contract duration

by 1,027 calendar days, 896 of which were prior approved by the Commission and requesting

an additional 131 days for the final project, for the final contract amount to $2,784,504

total contract duration of 1,620 calendar days.

Available for any questions you may have.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Is there questions from the colleagues, from the commission?

Commissioner Leveroni.

Just a curious question.

If a dollar amount is within the approved contingency, is that we still need to approve

that even though it's a part of the contract?

and that we're actually approving here more of the extension of the days?

Correct.

Okay.

The increase in the amount is already approved.

It's within our contingency.

We're just asking for the 131 additional calendar days.

Thank you very much.

Any other questions?

All right.

Thank you, Mr. Collymore.

Can we take public comment?

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item 11.

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

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

Ms. Lanier, there are no callers with their hands raised.

Thank you.

With that, can we get a motion to approve, colleagues?

So moved.

Vice President Leveroni moves.

Second.

Commissioner Stacey seconds.

President Arce?

Aye.

Vice President Leveroni?

Aye.

Commissioner Jamzar?

Aye.

Commissioner Stacey?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow?

Aye.

Item 11 passes.

Item 12, approve an increase of 188 calendar days to the duration contingency for contract number WD-2840,

Southern Skyline Boulevard Ridge Trail Extension with Gordon Inball Incorporated.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Mary Tinkin, Project Manager for the Southern Skyline Boulevard Ridge Trail Extension Project.

I'm here today to ask your approval to increase the existing contract duration contingency by 188 days.

This project, the scope includes the construction of a six-mile trail as well as an ADA loop down on Peninsula Watershed Land.

The contract was originally awarded in September 2023 for approximately or for exactly $20,523,445.

NTP was noticed to proceed, was issued in January 2024.

And we have, I've been here before asking for an additional 150 calendar days.

That was due to some unforeseen environmental permitting, as well as the addition of time for some additive alternates that were added to the contract in early 2024.

Now these additional 188 calendar days are largely due to adverse weather, some issues with our signage package, and late hydro seeding, which we have a 180-day maintenance period.

And so when hydro seeding happens late in the contract, it means that the end date will be extended out accordingly.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IS THERE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION?

ALL RIGHT.

CAN WE TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT, MS.

LENIER?

REMOTE CALLERS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU WISH TO

PROVIDE COMMENT ON ITEM 12.

ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC PRESENT WHO WISH TO

COMMENT?

SEEING NONE, MODERATOR, ARE THERE ANY CALLS WHO HAVE THEIR

HAND RAISED?

MS. LENIER, THERE ARE NO CALLERS WITH THEIR

HANDS RAISED.

THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT.

CAN WE GET A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 12?

Move to approve.

Motion from Commissioner Stacy.

Seconded.

Seconded by Commissioner Jamdar.

President Arce.

Aye.

Vice President Leveroni.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy.

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item 12 passes.

Item 13, communications.

All right.

Any comments?

All right, we've taken note of the receipt of the communications.

Can we call item 14?

Item 14, items initiated by commissioners.

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

Okay.

Since no items were initiated, I understand there's no request for public comment,

and so can we move to item 15?

Item 15, public comment on matters to be addressed during closed session.

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

Are there any members of the public present who wish to comment on item 16?

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

Ms. Lanier, there are no callers with their hands raised.

Thank you.

Item 16, motion on whether to assert the attorney-client privilege regarding the matters listed below.

Commissioners, can I have a motion on whether to assert the attorney-client privilege regarding the closed session matter to be discussed with legal counsel?

I move to assert the privilege.

Motion from Commissioner Stacey.

Second.

Second from Vice President Leveroni.

President Arce?

Aye.

Vice President Leveroni?

Aye.

Commissioner Jamzar?

Aye.

Commissioner Stacey?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow?

Aye.

The motion passes.

Thank you, Ms. Lanier.

We'll now move into closed session.

Thank you.

We'll be right back.

We'll be right back.

We'll see you next time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

There are a couple left. This is a very good morning. Welcome to City Hall and welcome to San Francisco.

today is a big day for our city.

We're here to announce that Vanderbilt University,

one of the great research universities in the world,

has chosen San Francisco as the home for a full-time academic campus.

beginning in 2027 Vanderbilt plans to bring students faculty and all the energy that comes

with academic life into the heart of our city chancellor Diermeyer we couldn't be more excited

to welcome you to San Francisco. When I took office, I made it clear that to restore confidence

in San Francisco, we needed clean and safe streets, and we needed to attract the businesses

and the institutions that want to invest for the long term. Early on, my team, led by Ned Siegel

and I, started exploring the possibility of bringing another world-class university to San Francisco.

We met with a number of university leaders to understand their needs and see who might be a good fit.

Vanderbilt quickly stood out.

We invited their leadership team here.

We walked them through our city and toured sites to help them think through what was possible.

We showed them our downtown and the surrounding area.

Not as it was described in the news, but as it is today and where it's going next.

We shared all the things that make San Francisco the center of innovation, a hub for creativity, and a city on the rise.

And we were honest about our challenges and opportunities and honest about how Vanderbilt could be part of the next great chapter in our city's history.

Most of all, we stayed focused on making this happen.

because we know that if we want San Francisco to lead the future,

we must compete for the institutions that shape it.

Vanderbilt's decision sends a powerful message.

It says that San Francisco remains one of the world's great places to live,

to learn, and to innovate.

It says that this city is still a place where new ideas are born, tested, and created.

We've talked a lot this past year about building a city where people can live, work, play, and learn.

This announcement brings the learn part of that vision into sharp focus.

Learning here means supporting the existing world-class educational institutions we have

and welcoming new ones to San Francisco.

It means drawing students, faculty, researchers, and creators into our city core, energizing our streets 24 hours a day, supporting our small businesses, and helping San Francisco stay at the forefront of innovation.

That's exactly what Vanderbilt plans to do.

Chancellor Diermeier, thank you for your vision.

Vanderbilt has been a terrific partner throughout this process and I can't keep can't wait to keep

working with you and your team as you launch here in San Francisco. Now I want to be very clear about

something. While today is a huge moment for Vanderbilt and for San Francisco it also means

a moment of transition for many in the California College of the Arts community. As part of

Vanderbilt University's plan to establish a presence in San Francisco, Vanderbilt and the

California College of the Arts have agreed that Vanderbilt will acquire CCA's campus after the

wind down of CCA's operations in 2027. CCA has been part of San Francisco's cultural and creative

fabric for more than a century. Its artists, designers, educators, and alumni have helped

define the Bay Area's global influence in art, architecture, and design. And that legacy really

matters. And honoring it will be an important responsibility for Vanderbilt and for us here

at the city. I appreciate Vanderbilt's commitment to preserving CCA's archives, supporting alumni

engagement, and continuing the Wadis Institute of Contemporary Arts as part of a new CCA

Institute at Vanderbilt. San Francisco has long been a place where breakthroughs happen

in technology, in music, in health care, and in solving problems others won't take on.

We are proving once again that this city can match its legacy with results. And let me tell you,

we're not just coming back to where we were.

We are working toward a more durable, lasting recovery

that will make this city better than ever.

That includes neighborhoods with students walking to class,

faculty collaborating across disciplines,

neighborhoods that are active beyond nine to five,

a city core that works for families, workers, visitors,

and our future leaders.

Vanderbilt's presence will bring a new energy, new ideas, and new opportunities to San Francisco.

It will help shape the next generation of thinkers, creators, and problem solvers,

many of whom will choose to stay, work, and build their lives right here in the greatest city in the world.

That's good for our economy, it's good for our culture, and it's good for San Francisco's long-term future.

future. I want to thank you once again Chancellor and the Vanderbilt team for

believing in this city. I want to thank David and the CCA community for

everything you have contributed to San Francisco. I want to really shout out Ned

for your incredible tireless work on this over the last year and I want to

thank city staff who worked alongside you to make this possible. Now I say this

all the time. We still have a lot of work to do in this city. But today, today shows what happens

when we stay focused, when we work together, and when we aim high. San Francisco is on the rise,

and we are just getting started. Thank you. Now, anchor down, and let's go San Francisco.

Chancellor, come on up here.

Well, thank you, Mayor Lurie, for these wonderful remarks.

And good morning, everyone.

A university with the ambition to come to San Francisco had better bring something innovative, something new.

something that bridges the best of higher education and the 21st century needs of this endless, creative, future-saving city,

something worthy of this great city by the bay.

That is exactly what Vanderbilt intends to do.

Vanderbilt will create in San Francisco a full-time residential campus for undergraduate

and graduate students that reimagines how we educate innovators, creators, and artists

in the age of technology.

It will be built from first principles.

It will combine Vanderbilt's academic standards and research excellence with San Francisco's

abundant entrepreneurial and cultural energy.

San Francisco stands for invention and discovery that changes the world.

That is our ambition.

We plan to pair world-class creative programs with technology and academic

rigor with entrepreneurial strategy.

The education of engineers and entrepreneurs will be integrated with the

education of artists and designers.

Our vision reflects the belief that technology is now inseparable from the most profound questions related to human experience and human flourishing.

How we design our technologies must take into account our understanding of what it means to be human.

integrating disciplines will enable students to develop new ideas and then design build communicate

and bring them to the world in ways that maximize their impact our goal in a sentence

is to create a place that creates creators san francisco's vibrant startup ecosystem

the concentration of global technology firms and talent,

and its deeply rooted arts and design communities

will enable our students and faculty

to engage in experiential learning, internships,

venture creation, and research.

In everything we do at Vanderbilt,

we are guided by clear, long-standing values.

We believe in academic excellence

without shortcuts. We believe in collaboration across disciplines rather than silos. We call

that radical collaboration, collaboration at the root of it all. We believe in free expression

and vigorous debate and that the idea that education should prefer students not only

for a meaningful career but for leadership in a free and democratic society. These values

central to what we intend to build right here in San Francisco.

Growth for us is not just about expansion for expansion's sake.

It is about bringing what we uniquely do well to cities where we can collaborate with the local community to create something novel,

something unique, something that charts a new path.

With Vanderbilt New York City, our new quantum campus in Chattanooga,

and the campus we're developing in West Palm Beach,

our commitment to San Francisco is a major stride towards our ultimate goal.

An interconnected network of campuses and dynamic centers of innovation

where our talents and expertise contribute to the vitality of the places that have welcomed us.

And let me add a little personal note.

I have fond memories of living in San Francisco during three happy years as a young assistant professor at Stanford during the mid-1990s at the birth of the Internet age.

At the time, I lived in Noi Valley in an apartment for $475 a month.

Those were the days.

And at the time, commuting to Palo Alto via 1 to 80 was still an enjoyable drive, rolling down the hills and smelling the pine trees.

But during my time there, at the dawn of the technology age, I saw how the collaborative relationship between a university and a community aligned on purpose and values can create magic.

magic. That is the kind of magic we want to bring to San Francisco. By aligning Vanderbilt's

unique strengths, the city's many assets, and the possibilities and challenges of our

time. Vanderbilt University San Francisco will be a vital contributor, a source of first-rate

talent, a gathering place and center for learning for the community and for our students and

faculty and a driver of economic and social impact.

This morning, we celebrate.

This afternoon, the work begins.

In the months ahead, we'll finalize our academic programming

and seek to secure all necessary regulatory approvals.

We'll get to know our new neighbors

and build the community sites that are essential to our success.

And we will now launch a fundraising campaign

cultivate the donor support that will fuel our ambitions in San Francisco.

We are encouraged and hardened by the enthusiastic support that we have already received.

The vision is clear.

Now we need to build it together.

Mary Lurie, we are deeply grateful for your leadership and terrific partnership as we

take this step.

And a big shout out to Ned and the entire team for making this wonderful project possible.

The team has simply been incredible.

From our first conversation to this announcement, less than 10 months have passed.

That is working at innovation pace.

We look forward to being a long-term partner and working alongside civic leaders, cultural

organizations and community members to ensure this campus brings something valuable and

unique to the life and future of this city. Vanderbilt's arrival comes at a time of transition

for the California College of the Arts. We know its legacy is important to its students,

faculty, alumni, and the city itself. As Vanderbilt moves forward, we are committed to supporting

the Wynerf CCA's academic program and honoring its contributions. I also want to express

my deep gratitude to CCA's President David House and to its board for the collaborative process

that has brought us to this point. Today's announcement marks the beginning of a new

chapter for all of us. Vanderbilt's motto is Crescere Aude. If you're Latin is so rusty,

that means dare to grow. Creating something new takes not just imagination, but also courage.

commitment. More than anything it means working together in common purpose

guided by a transformative vision. We look forward to what lies ahead and to

what we can create together. Thank you very much.

I want to close this out with a great partner here in City Hall who has been a steadfast

ally in everything that we are trying to do here as a city.

And this campus is going to be in his district, Supervisor Matt Dorsey.

Thank you so much, Mayor. Thank you, Chancellor Diermeier. You have heard what this means

to San Francisco, and I think we have heard what this news means to Vanderbilt. I'd like

to share a little bit about what it means to the neighborhood. I will tell you, I was

delighted in this morning's announcement from Vanderbilt to see that San Francisco was described

as one of the world's leading centers of creativity, technology, and entrepreneurship. I think

among San Francisco's neighborhoods you could scarcely find a neighborhood that better describes

that than the design district in the Showplace Square. This is an area of San Francisco that

over the years has reinvented itself from an industrial production area to a design

district years ago I want to Marv seems like he's gonna be okay I would just get

him checked out I want to thank everybody who's in this room you've made this

possible and why don't we go gather right up there we'll give him some space

and if press wants to come ask the supervisor or the Chancellor or Ned or me

some questions and and to all the supporters that made this possible thank

you so much and Marv take care of yourself over there okay

Good morning.

We are here today because too many people in San Francisco are falling into crisis when

intervention could and should come sooner. Public safety and the behavioral health crisis are my

top priorities as mayor because when someone is in the grip of severe mental illness,

the consequences affect them, their families, and the public. Every day we see people deteriorating

in plain sight. They cycle through emergency rooms and jails. Families watch loved ones slip through

and slip farther away. Neighborhoods feel the impact when help arrives only after harm has

already occurred. Over the past year, we've made progress getting people off the streets and into

care. We've expanded stabilization and treatment options. The 822 Geary Stabilization Center has

help connect more people to treatment than any other facility of its kind in San Francisco.

And we've increased the number of shelter and treatment beds available across the city.

But as we all know, there are still gaps in our system, and those gaps have real consequences.

Under current law, a court can order someone to participate in assisted outpatient treatment,

but it cannot authorize the medication that is often necessary to stabilize severe mental illness.

As a result, treatment teams are forced to stand by while someone deteriorates,

even when the medical need is clear and the risks are obvious.

The legislation we are announcing today addresses that failure.

This bill allows a court, based on medical evidence and individual circumstances, to authorize involuntary medication when a person lacks the capacity to consent.

This approach is careful, it is measured, and it is grounded in clinical judgment and judicial oversight.

People retain full due process protections, including legal representation and ongoing court review.

Each case is evaluated individually.

At the center of this effort is a simple reality.

Stability is the gateway to recovery.

For many people with severe mental illness, medication is what allows treatment to work at all.

Without it, housing placements fail, care breaks down, and crises repeat themselves, often with greater harm each time.

We can do better, and we are.

I want to thank Assemblymember Catherine Stephanie for authoring this legislation,

and Rafael Mandelman, President of the Board of Supervisors, for advancing a resolution of support.

I also want to recognize Matt Haney, our Assemblymember, and Dan Tsai for their leadership.

This is what serious partnership looks like when the goal is real outcomes.

We will keep expanding treatment capacity, we will keep pushing for accountability,

and we will keep adding the tools that will allow us to save lives.

With that, it is my honor to introduce the author of this bill, Assemblymember Catherine Stephanie.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for being here. I want to start by thanking Mayor Daniel

Lurie and Supervisor Rafael Mandelman for their partnership and leadership on this extremely

important legislation. This is exactly what it looks like when the city and the state

work boldly together to save lives, actively rejecting the status quo.

A status quo that accepts people suffering from mental illness on our streets,

often dying out there, or cycling through hospital emergency rooms,

or stuck in overcrowded, dangerous county jails, ill-equipped to help them.

Today, with their support, I'm announcing legislation to strengthen

court-ordered assistant outpatient treatment because we know right now our system is not

working. Under current law, a civil court can order someone into assistant outpatient mental

health treatment if specific legal criteria are met, but what it cannot do is require the medication

that is often essential to treating that mental illness and preventing that individual from

suffering further harm. So we have a situation where courts can mandate so-called treatment,

but can't actually mandate treatment like necessary medication that provides the relief

that is desperately needed. And the result is predictable. People fall off their care plans.

They deteriorate. They cycle again through our emergency rooms, psychiatric jail holds,

psychiatric holds, jails, and back out onto the street.

This is not compassion, it is failure.

And this bill fixes that gap.

It allows courts, when someone is already under

an assisted outpatient treatment order,

and clearly unable to make medical decisions

for themselves, to require medication

as part of that treatment plan.

So clinicians can do their jobs

and people can actually stabilize.

When people are on the medication they need,

they can actually recover and avoid the vicious cycle

of churning through our hospitals and jails.

And people have a real chance to stay housed,

connected to care, and to move forward in recovery.

This is also a public safety bill.

When the system cannot ensure treatment that works,

everyone pays the price.

families, neighbors, first responders, and the individuals themselves.

This bill allows us to intervene earlier before situations escalate into emergencies.

And it does all of this with strong due process protections, court oversight, and ongoing review.

This legislation reflects what we hear from clinicians, families, and people in recovery themselves

Treatment works when it is real, consistent, and absolutely complete, and that involves medication.

I'm proud to stand here with Mayor Lurie and Supervisor Mandelman to move this reform forward

and to say clearly that California can do better and must do better than waiting for people to hit rock bottom or even die on our streets.

I once heard a parent describe our current system.

He said it was like watching your child slowly walk off a cliff and not being able to reach them.

I'm going to do everything in my power to reach those who are in desperate need of this care.

This bill helps people stay well, stay safe, and stay connected to care.

Our systems are failing, and it's way past time that we fix those systems.

At this time, I'd like to introduce Supervisor Mandelman, President of the Board.

Thank you, Assemblymember Stephanie. Thank you for this important and courageous legislation.

I think everyone here knows San Francisco, indeed all of California, has struggled for decades with the challenge of meeting the needs of severely mentally ill individuals, many of whom are on our streets.

And since joining the board, I have missed no opportunity to push for appropriate interventions to care for people who cannot care for themselves.

I want to acknowledge Senator Weiner, who I think the first piece of significant legislation I introduced at the board was trying to allow San Francisco to opt in to a prior effort to get care to severely mentally ill people.

Through efforts of Senator Weiner and former state Senator Eggman and the governor, we have seen changes in state law around conservatorship standards, and notably SB 43 in 2023.

And in San Francisco, thank you Mayor Lurie, thank you Chief Kunal Modi, and thank you Director of Public Health Daniel Tsai, and Director of Behavioral Health Hillary Cunnings for all the work that you are doing to build out the bed and staffing capacity we will need to maximize our use of the tools that the state has given us.

Now, this law is not about conservatorship, but in an indirect way it is.

It helps San Francisco address two needs.

Some people are very, very sick, but cannot recognize their own illness

and do not recognize that they need to take medication to not descend into a spiral that will land them

on that relentless merry-go-round that Assemblymember Stephanie was talking about.

These folks may not need a full-blown conservatorship,

and we certainly do not have the beds or the staffing capacity

to provide full-blown conservatorships for all of those people.

So this is a lesser, less intrusive intervention to get medical care

through assisted outpatient treatment to people who could benefit for it.

It helps us address a second need as well.

I said we don't have the resources that we need at the county level

for all of the folks who would benefit for and qualify for a conservatorship.

That is just true.

My seven and a half years on the Board of Supervisors

show me that we are leaving people out there

who would meet LPS standards for conservatorship,

and right now they are rotting and in many cases dying on our streets.

Do we continue to say we're going to do nothing for these people,

or do we try?

Our mayor has talked about being relentless

in addressing San Francisco's most significant challenges.

This is one of San Francisco's most significant challenges, and it's one of our greatest moral failings as a city and a state that we have failed to address it for so long.

We have to try. We have to be bold. We have to be persistent. We have to experiment.

When things work, we should do more of them. When they fail, we should try other things.

And it's in that spirit that, again, I'm so grateful to Assemblymember Stephanie for taking on this legislation.

Now, I anticipate that we will hear the same tired and predictable objections that some raise whenever we broach the topic of caring for people whose illness prevents them from realizing that they need care.

As someone who witnessed my own mother's struggles with mental health for most of her adult life, I know that they are wrong.

We must get care to these people.

It's a moral imperative.

So thanks again to Assemblymember Stephanie, to Assemblymember Haney, and Senator Weiner.

And I really do want to thank the folks at DPH who have been so creative.

Director Cummins came to us from New York, where they have a law where assisted outpatient treatment can deliver involuntary medication.

And she is really the person who had the insight that maybe this is something that could work in San Francisco.

Dr. Angelica Almeida is another person who's been so helpful in trying to think this through.

And then I, of course, want to thank Eileen Mariano in the mayor's office for her work.

And you're going to hear from the city attorney, but Andrea Brass and now Judge Leanne Dumas were extraordinary as well.

And we have an extraordinary city attorney. Am I right?

and finally I just I really do want to thank all of the clinicians all of the firefighters the

doctors the nurses the case managers everybody who's out there struggling every day and is

frustrated that they can't get care to people who desperately need it who watch the same

sorry cycle play out over and over again and to the families of those people thank you for

for your stories for your advocacy thank you for being here I hope we can get this done

If we are, it's I know going to be through the effectiveness of our Assembly member Stephanie, but also the effectiveness of our compassionate and pragmatic representative for Assembly District 17, the great Matt Haney.

Thank you to the great President Mendelman and to our mayor and to Assemblymember Stephanie and State Senator Weiner and City Attorney Chu and all of the leaders who are here who simply want to help people.

A compassionate city is there for people who need our help.

People who are experiencing a severe mental illness by definition need our help.

they cannot care for themselves on their own.

They need us to be there for them with effective, ongoing treatment.

Right now, as you heard, the law gets in the way of it.

This is one of these things where, for those of us who are hearing this for the first time,

many of us are going to respond with, that can't possibly be the law.

We cannot possibly have a law right now that prevents us from helping people

who in many cases are wandering our streets without any assistance, without any care.

When we have something that will help them, right now we are prevented from doing that.

Treatment works, medication works, and it is required for effective treatment.

All right, we're back from out of closed session.

That's the announcement following closed session for item 17.

Ms. Lanier, would you like to call item 18 or would you like me to lead into it?

Sure.

18.

Motion regarding whether to disclose the discussion during closed session per

Surrent to San Francisco Administrative Code, Section 67.12A.

Colleagues, can we get a motion not to disclose discussions from our closed session?

Motion to assert the attorney-client privilege and not disclose our closed session discussion.

Seconded.

All right, motion from Vice President Leveroni and seconded by Commissioner Jamdar.

President Arce?

Aye.

Vice President Leveroni?

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar?

Aye.

Commissioner Stacey?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow?

Aye.

The motion passes.

Thank you all.

Item 19, adjournment.

The meeting is adjourned at 3.15 p.m.

Thank you.