Commission will now come to order.

Ms.

Lanier, can you please call roll?

President Arce.

Vice President Leverone.

Here.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Commissioner Stacey.

Here.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Here, you have a quorum.

Thank you, Ms.

Lanier.

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 Moekmaalone tribe and other familiar descendants of the historically federally recognized Mission San Jose Verona Band of Alameda County.

The SAPUC also recognizes that every citizen residing within the Greater Bay Area has and continues to benefit from the use and occupation of the Moek Maloney 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 Moek Maloney 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, approval of the minutes of March 10th, 2026.

Colleagues, are there any corrections to the minutes of March 10th, 2026?

No.

Can we please take public comment, Ms.

Lanier?

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

Are there any members of the public president 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.

Colleagues, can we get a motion to approve the minutes?

So moved.

Motion by Commissioner Stacy.

Second.

Second from Commissioner Jamdar.

President Arce.

Aye.

Vice President Leverone.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow?

Aye.

Item three passes.

Item four.

General public comment.

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

Members present who wish to speak are encouraged to complete and submit to the Director of Commission Affairs a speaker's card located on the table to the left of the public gallery seating area.

Please note that each member is called to the podium to speak in the same order.

Cards are received.

Thank you, Ms.

Lanier.

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 provide general public comment.

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

Mr.

Francisco De Costa.

My name is Francisco de Costa.

It's very easy to make general statements about respecting and whatever, whatever.

But those who make such comments have to have standards.

I saw a video that they'll spend some money talking about our sewer and our water.

Just in general terms.

I have very deep relationships with the first people, including the Muakmaalone.

What have you all done with the Tuolame River?

When have you all spoken to the Piotz, the Mivaks, the Pomos.

Why don't you bring them over here?

The resources that they preserve for thousands of years, y'all destroyed in 150 years.

The pristine waters that come from Hatch Hachi.

Y'all mix it with groundwater.

And more, y'all flush the toilets in the year 2026.

Having said that, I need y'all to audit on assistance that we have.

About 170 or so that came under the fire department, which was transferred to y'all, and y'all did a I don't know what y'all are doing.

I don't want to say anything too much.

And I want an audit on the reservoirs to see whether the water that is stored in the reservoirs are fit to drink.

And tomorrow, at from 10 to 11, my team will meet the San Francisco Inspector General.

That's stage one.

Stage two will be the RICO Act.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

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

Ms.

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

Thank you.

Caller unmute your line.

You have two minutes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Peter Dreckmeyer with the Assembly River Alliance.

I've been working on the Urban Water Management Plan, the draft that was released last week.

And there's a lot of good information in there.

It's well written.

But it's tainted with a bias in support of the SFPUC anti-Bay Delta plan narrative.

And an example is you're supposed to create a look at a five consecutive dry year sequence.

So every other water agency, they're looking at the first five years with the driver record 87 to 92.

And basically show that we could get by and maybe we have a little bit of rationing.

What the SFTEC does is they use the design drought, which includes the drive-to-year period record, 767 years where the SFPUC would have to be giving up water out of storage.

So the design drought actually has less water available than the drought of record.

But then you have to squeeze uh out of that five years.

And so there's very it shows very heavily heavy rationing, which is totally unnecessary because at the end of that five years, the SFPUC would have more than 600,000 acre feet left in storage.

And as a reminder, 200 million gallons per day is 225,000 acre feet.

So basically it's holding on to the water, hoarding the water in case we might experience the drought that might be expected once in 8,000 years.

The design drought is 19 times less likely to occur than what Valley Water is planning for or East State Might.

So I'm going to ask you once again, can we please have a workshop on the design drought while we still have time?

Thank you.

Thank you, calling for your comments, Ms.

Lanyard.

There are no more callers that we should be recognized.

Thank you.

Item six.

Pardon me, item five is the report of the General Manager.

Thank you, Ms.

Lanier.

Commissioners, as you are uh well aware, uh Dr.

Chris Beezu uh left uh the PUC in October, sorry, Chief uh diversity equity and inclusion officer.

But nevertheless, diversity and inclusion continue to be pillars at the SFPUC, and we've made great progress in cultivating a workplace culture where everyone can thrive.

This is central to how we innovate and lead as a public utility.

So today I'm excited to introduce to you Dr.

Marco Baker Barker, who is SFPUC's new Chief Diversity Equity and Inclusion Officer.

Marco brings over 18 years of experience in driving inclusive cultures, talent development, and organizational transformation across higher education, corporate and nonprofit sectors.

Most recently, he served as the inaugural vice chancellor and senior diversity officer at the University of Nebraska Lincoln, where he developed policies and practices to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion across the university's 6,000 employees and 23,000 students.

He also held senior positions in similar roles at Westminster College, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Louisiana State University.

He holds a bachelor's degree in industrial engineering, an MBA, and a doctorate in educational leadership.

These early experiences continue to inform his discipline, systems-oriented approach to strategy operations, and organizational uh performance.

Marco started on earlier this month at the PUC.

We're lucky to have him.

Uh and I know he's going to build on the great work that our entire DEI uh ready team has been doing over the course of the last several years.

So I'd like you to uh welcome Dr.

Marco Barker and give him the opportunity to say a few words.

Marco.

Welcome aboard.

Thank you, um Dennis, for that uh very warm introduction and certainly good afternoon to all of you, Commissioners.

Um I don't have much to report or to add in my three weeks um on the job here, but I would just um like to say that I've been really busy meeting a lot of people, learning more about the PUC.

Um and what I can tell you is that it's been such a warm welcome as someone who is now a new resident of the West Coast and a new resident of the bay.

I'm very excited to be here.

Um didn't I will just also say that um I've been really busy just diving into some of the programs and special initiatives that we have um happening with the PUC.

And what is clear, and I want to echo what Dennis mentioned about our workforce is that it is clear that investing in our people is really important.

Um, and investing in in our communities is really important, and all of that work certainly ensures that we are able as a commission to meet our commitment to serving the people of San Francisco and certainly being good stewards to the environment.

And I absolutely see equity and inclusion as central to those um responsibilities.

So again, thank you for your time.

Thank you, Dennis, for your leadership, and I'm looking forward to the continued support of this group as well as being a partner in how we strengthen the city of San Francisco and our county.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

All right, welcome aboard, Dr.

Barker.

Thank you, Mr.

General Manager.

Do we have any public comment on the general manager's report?

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on the general manager's report.

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.

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

Thank you.

Item six, consent calendar.

All right, colleagues, is there any questions, comments, discussion around the four items on today's consent calendar?

Uh Commissioner Stacey.

Just a brief comment.

It's always nice to see a decrease in contract amounts on 6C.

That's it.

Thank you for the comment and observation.

Commissioner Sacey, is there anyone else that has comments, questions?

Can we take public comment on consent calendar, Ms.

Lanier?

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on the consent calendar.

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

Thank you.

Okay, can we get a motion to approve the consent calendar, colleagues?

Move to approve.

Motion from Commissioner Stacy.

Second.

Second from Vice President Leverone.

President Arce.

Aye.

Vice President Leverone?

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow?

Aye.

Item six passes.

Item seven.

Awarded lease for approximately 3.092 acres of parcel number 122, assessors parcel number 97-84-029, located in the city of San Jose to Tasman Zanchor San Jose LLC for an initial annual 348,152 dollars and 89 cent base rent in a term of 11 years, subject to approval by the Board of Supervisors under Charter Section 9.118.

Thank you, Commissioner Secretary.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Good afternoon.

Josh Keene, Assistant Real Estate Director.

I'm going to make this brief, and I will also kind of preemptively state this is more technical than substantive at the end of the day.

So if I too much jargon or anything, feel free open session when this is done.

But I'm going to talk through quickly the mechanics on this.

So first, some background.

So as many of you are aware, we own substantial property throughout the peninsula.

Where we have a 4.5 acre parcel, which is P SFPUC parcel 122.

So Cisco Systems, the tech uh organization we all are pretty familiar with, they have had their campus there prior to that, but ever since in full force since the mid-90s.

Um because we have the BDPL there, it's really limited to surface use.

But we entered into a 40-year lease in 1997 that's still in full force in effect.

It runs through 2037.

Um we don't do typically any more of those long-term agreements.

Most of you we see most of these are licenses or shorter term in nature.

Some of that came about from the sit uh from the WISIP and recognizing we want to have more flexibility.

Um but this is a pretty substantial lease.

Um, and it's actually still brings the water enterprise about 500,000 a year.

Um so basically, and Cisco's been a full performing good tenant the entire time.

They had up at one point they had nine buildings directly adjacent to the right-of-way.

So in fall of last year, Cisco approached the SFPUC and basically indicated it was going to sell a portion of its campus, so four of the buildings.

And they basically said we would like to enter and you know have the buyer would would be the preferred person to lease this property from you, which policy-wise, to the extent possible, we always prefer to lease to the adjacent property owner rather than not that it always happens, but if you get the chance, it's good to do so.

It's easier to deal with the direct property owner.

Um, so and this, so they identified their potential buyer's South Bay Development Company.

Um, and so they talked to us and figured out what are some mechanisms that we could do to facilitate this.

It's a large area, it's four and a half acres.

Um didn't really make sense to sublease this, which would be a way to facilitate that because we don't have the direct agreement.

There's no direct overlap, there's no reason to keep these leases together.

So we worked and we amended the agreement to keep all the terms in place, split it effectively, 75% for the new buyer, 25% plus or minus to the new tenant, which is or the buyer.

So Cisco retains still 25% of the agreement.

Um again, as I mentioned, despite that amendment, the lease still functions.

The rent remains unchanged.

It's just got two kind of entities there.

So we consider this lease, which was a concession we got from the buyer.

We basically said, well, you have this 1997 lease.

We will give you, we will approve this, but we want you to enter into our new form of lease.

So they basically agreed to do that as a post-closing condition.

So at least functions now, but what we're here today is to effectively put the new tenant, who's our current tenant, uh the South Bay development company onto its own lease.

So we're gonna have two independent leases that will run coterminus with each other through 2037, but splits the obligations, so we're dealing with individual tenants here.

Um I say that's because mostly a technical document that we're doing here.

Um it's not a new tenant.

It's it's putting them onto a modern form of agreement, so we have all the current city attorney requirements.

We actually do get some We didn't change the rent.

It's still unchanged.

We did negotiate favorable as part of our new form of lease.

The new buyer is now under preferred uh annual increase of four percent per year versus a previous uh I think it was every five years, it could be up to 20 percent.

So it's it's actually materially advantageous to us as far as it goes.

Um but because this is technically a 11-year new lease uh with revenues over one million dollars, it does fall under Chapter 9118, so we're here today for that.

Does not fall under the GM's delegated authority, and it will uh require a board action later this year.

Um probably more like summer than spring, but we'll see depending on the timing of the board schedule.

Um that's all I have on this one.

Um we would, you know, upon your approval, we would relatively soon seek approval to the board, depending on when we can get through.

It will probably have to go to budget and finance.

So any questions on that?

A lot of real estate stuff in there.

Thanks, Mr.

Keene.

Questions?

Commissioner Stacy.

Not a question, just I wanted to say that makes sense to me, and it's um sounds like a slightly better deal for the PUC as well.

So thank you.

Appreciate it.

Other comments, questions.

I I uh I've had the chance to say before, I feel like whenever our staff of the PUC comes before us, we're we're looking at proposals and action items that are really well developed and fully baked.

And then if you add the fact that we have Josh Keene on the case as well, I feel doubly certain we're looking at a really solid proposal, so look forward to supporting it after public comment.

Thank you, Mr.

Keen.

Thank you both.

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

Seeing none, moderator, are there any calls that have their hand raised?

Ms.

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

Thank you.

All right, colleagues, can we get a motion to approve number seven?

Item seven, that is.

Motion to release.

Motion from Vice President Leverone.

Seconded.

Second from Commissioner Gemdar.

President Arsay?

Aye.

Vice President Leverone.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow?

Aye.

Item seven passes.

Item eight.

Approved modification number three to contract number DB-126.

Wastewater enterprise distributed control system upgrades with Emerson process management power and water solutions incorporated.

Hi, good afternoon.

Um please have the slides.

Good afternoon, Commission President RC and fellow commissioners.

Um my name is uh Maria Christel Cruz.

I'm the project manager for the wastewater enterprise distributed control system upgrade project uh DB126.

So for this progressive design build, uh staff recommends the approval of modification number three to increase the contract amount to 30 by 35.5 million, um, thereby uh resulting to a not to uh total not to exceed contract amount of 83 million fifty thousand six hundred with no change in schedule duration.

The distributed control system, um, otherwise known as the DCS is the computerized system that connects and loops in uh field devices and various process equipment such as pumps, gates, and valves that are located at our wastewater facilities.

This enables our wastewater operators to conduct their daily operations and control management and monitoring of the overall uh combined sewer system of San Francisco.

This project's uh main objective is to replace the outdated computer uh outdated control system and to also integrate an interface with uh the various um uh upgraded process equipment that all the other sewer system improvement program projects uh that are that uh that's they're all bringing in.

Um an example is the uh Biosolids facility project at uh Southeast The Contract scope of work uh includes both pre-construction services and construction services.

Uh pre-construction encompasses uh DCS planning and pre-design.

Um also the development of uh new wastewater DCS technical standards, field verification of existing conditions, and also uh software programming.

Uh construction services entail uh fabrication of hardware, um, uh manufacturing, installation, field testing and commissioning of the DCS on site, and also providing the necessary training of wastewater city staff uh on the new DCS.

So when the when this progressive design build contract was first established, um it was intended to gradually expand the scope for implementation to all uh to all the wastewater facilities.

Um this was to be done through commission um approval, commission authorization.

So the original contract used to focus implementation at the Southeast facilities, and then um after subsequent commission uh approvals, the overall contract scope to date uh includes implementation at oceanside facilities, uh North Point, and uh all the other pump stations.

So to date, we have uh the project team has completed all of the new control system standards.

Uh the field verification of existing conditions is 80% complete for the overall system.

Uh we are 65% complete in design at Southeast Plant and 35% complete in design at Oceanside and at all the uh pump stations.

Construction or uh manufacturing, field testing and uh commissioning of the new DCS has been completed for the new headworks facility at Southeast, uh, Bruce Land Pump Station, uh, North Shore Pump Station.

Um we are currently in close coordination with the Biosolids uh project team, and we have uh completed uh 35% of uh field testing and commissioning uh of DCS with the with their processes.

Um as needed training uh for city staff is also uh ongoing.

So the scope uh for modification three, um the approval of this proposed modification will enable us to complete design, a system-wide design across all facilities.

It will also enable us to integrate uh the facilities, facilities located at Treasure Island and Yerbabuena Island.

Uh it will also help us start construction efforts uh at Oceanside and complete the field testing and commissioning that is necessary with the Biosolids project.

Um in addition to that continue providing uh training and support uh to uh wastewater staff.

So on December 2025, uh SFPC staff had presented um SFPEC City staff has presented the progressive design build process for SFPUC project shown here on this slide.

The proposed modification three falls under Action 3.3, modification three of the progressive design build uh process.

To recap our our the request, staff recommends uh the approval of modification three for this progressive design build contract uh wastewater uh enterprise distributed control system for an increase of uh by th of 35.5 million, which is uh resulting to a total not to exceed contract amount of 83 million fifty thousand six hundred um with no duration uh change of the contract.

Um thank you for very much.

Um that's the end of my presentation.

I'll be happy to answer any questions.

All right.

Thank you, Ms.

Cruz.

And before asking if there's questions or comments, just a reminder to commissioners that as a progressive design build project, when we got the overview from assistant general manager for infrastructure, Steven Robinson, just a reminder that this is not a change order, this is a modification.

This is the next phase in the design build process that we're utilizing to have more control over the design over the necessary uh necessities of getting us where we want to be and ultimately from a fiscal and important type of budgetary perspective.

This gives us, we believe, in the long-term savings because we are able to meet certain budgetary targets with each of these phases.

So this is a phase, this is a modification anticipated in front of us.

Any questions?

Commissioner Stacy.

Thank you, and thank you for the presentation.

I I just want to make sure that I sort of understand all the different modifications that happened.

We started at about 20.5 million in 2016, and then we added five million uh for North Point and North Shore, and then 19.9 million for oceanside and west side pumps and some other uh wastewater pump stations.

And this 35.5 million is mostly or entirely for Treasure Island and your Babuena Island?

Uh it isn't.

It is for the completion of the overall system.

Um so there is remaining work to be done at uh Southeast with uh biosolids.

Um there is um uh completion of the uh implementation for various pump stations and uh oceanside.

So we're not we're not adding any work at Treasure Island and your Babuena Islands?

We are that that's included in 35.5.

Um we are uh there are um some pump station facilities at both uh Treasure Island and near Babuena that we are planning to integrate into the new DCS.

But the wastewater at Treasure Island and your Babuena Island are handled on the island with the new water recovery resource project that is ongoing out there.

It's not none of that wastewater comes to the city geographically, the Southeast plant or I believe the so the plan would be to be able to view um and control uh that system as well uh within uh the Southeast uh the Right from the South within the mainland, yes.

So somebody can manage it from the Southeast Plant.

Exactly.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you so much for the clarification.

Vice President Leverone.

Thank you.

Thank you for your report.

Um excellent, and I'm uh obviously very pleased to see the progressive design and and how you're working through it.

Uh no, it's not easy.

Um the $83 million that we're at now plus, um, is that pretty much now where we are we've settled down and said, I think we've got it, and and now we're gonna be able to move forward.

So hopefully there's always probably a possibility of change.

But hopefully that's gonna be Yes.

Okay.

We we we are anticipating for this to be uh the last modification uh to encompass all uh facilities that we have within um the sewer system.

Yeah.

And then as a as going through all of this, are is that a process that I know a little bit more work on your part and doing it, but uh more confident uh if you might be able to comment on the process and the numbers and the delivery.

Yes, the uh progressive design build approach or the collaborative delivery approach had allowed us to work very closely with um the design builder to control, monitor, and track our scope of work and how we progress in implementing DCS to all these facilities while at the same time coordinating with all the other projects that is happening within um the same footprint.

Thank you for all your hours that you put in on this.

That's appreciated.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Yeah, thank you for your report.

I have a quite I have two questions.

One is uh a follow-up on Commissioner Stacy's question about the Yerba Buena and Treasure Island piece of this.

How do we like how much of the total $35 million addition is that part?

And then where does the final landing point in terms of the cost of this contract land relative to what we may have anticipated when we started?

Yes.

So currently um the project team is estimating uh the integration of the TI and uh Treasure Island and near Boboina Island to be about 700,000 of the uh 35.5.

Part of it is because of the new facility uh that was that has just been built there.

Um it's just a matter of bringing it in and being able to see and control the facility from San Francisco uh mainland.

Um in regard to the um estimated 83 million, we we anticipate that that would this would be the last um modification since it's already taking into account all of our facilities being put in into the new DCS.

And the staff ramp up time and support and training as well, right?

Exactly.

I guess my question is you know, when this project was started, what did we anticipate the budget would be?

It was at around gosh, so this project started in um 2017, and there was a lot of planning and developing the contract itself.

Um based on the estimate from back in 2014 or 2015, it was around um 51 to uh 51 million.

Okay.

So that was in 2015.

Yes, 2015 rates.

Okay, excellent.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

I was gonna try to quickly do the math just in terms of uh, you know, uh what is uh 2017 uh whatever what was the number?

51 million and 2017 dollars equate to today.

But I think I feel pretty confident based on what's happened in the industry and particularly reflecting construction costs and materials, the city with the highest construction costs, second in the world, only after New York City and before Zurich, I have to feel that we've done a good job of using progressive design build to get the best value for us.

That's that's my sense.

Any other uh questions?

Can we take thanks for the presentation for the presidents?

Can we take public comment, Ms.

Lanier?

Remote college, please raise your hand if you wish to guide comment on item eight.

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 that we should be recognized.

Thank you.

All right, colleagues, can we get a motion to approve item eight modification number three to this particular contract?

So moved.

Motion from Vice President Leverone?

Second.

From Commissioner Stacy.

President Arce?

Aye.

Vice President Lavaroni?

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar?

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow?

Aye.

Item eight passes.

Item nine, communications.

The Commission takes note that we received the Commission communications noted in item nine.

Item 10.

Items initiated by Commissioners.

Colleagues, any items to initiate for further discussion?

No?

Okay.

Can we go to the next item, isn't there?

Item 11, public comment on matters to be addressed during closed session.

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.

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

Thank you.

Item 12, motion to motion on whether to assert the attorney client privilege regarding the matters listed below on this agenda.

Colleagues, can we please have a motion on whether to assert the attorney client privilege regarding the closed session matters?

Uh attorney client privilege.

Moved by Commissioner Jamdar.

Second.

Second from Commissioner Stacy.

President Arcee.

Vice President Leverone.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

The item passes.

We'll now go in to close session.

Yes.

The commission is recommending that the board approve items referenced under agenda item twelve.

Fourteen motion regarding whether to disclose the discussion during closed session.

Pursuant to San Francisco Administrative Code Section sixty-seven point one two A.

Commissioners may have a motion on whether to disclose the discussion during closed session.

Move not to disclose motion from Commissioner Stacy.

Vice President Leverone.

Commissioner Jamdar.

Aye.

Commissioner Stacy?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item fourteen passes.

Item fifteen, adjournment.

Thank you all.

Commission meeting is adjourned here at two fourteen PM.