Good afternoon.

Today's meeting of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission will now come to order.

Ms.

Ram, can you please call roll?

President Arce?

Here.

Vice President Leveroni?

Here.

Commissioner Jamdar is excused.

Commissioner Stacy?

Here.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Here, you have a quorum.

All right.

Thank you very much.

We've got a quorum for today's business, but before we do, 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 Mowakmaalone tribe and other familiar descendants of the historic 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 Mawak 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 Mowek Maloney 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 three, approval of the minutes of June 9, 2026.

Commissioners, are there any corrections to the minutes of June 9, 2026?

Seeing none, can we open up for public comment?

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

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

Thank you.

Can we get a motion and a second to approve the minutes of June 9th?

Motion to approve.

Motion from Vice President Leverone.

Second.

Second from Commissioner Thurlow.

President Arcee?

Aye.

Vice President Leveroni.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar is excused.

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 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 members are called to the podium to speak in the same order that cards are received.

Okay.

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?

Seeing none.

Moderator, are there any callers who have oh, sorry?

Mr.

Francisco de Costa.

Commissioners.

I want to remind you that we need standards.

And we make statements like how we should speak and what we should say.

This is for children.

The SFPUC does not have standards.

The three employees who are fired.

And the and the cases before OSHA.

And when the US, SFPUC, for documentation, they don't get it.

So here we are at the commission in front of a attorney and some so-called seasoned commissioners.

And all y'all do is lie.

Do not lie, tell the truth.

Because if you keep on lying, you'll fall flat on your face.

As did Duane Jones, Julia Dallas, Holland Kelly.

And I can go on and on and on.

And now you know some people want to jump ship or retire or whatever they call it.

Fine.

Do the right thing.

Because if you lie.

If you can knife, if you retaliate, and harm people that are innocent, you will pay a big price.

Believe me, you will.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

DeCosta.

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

Mr.

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

Thank you.

Caller, I've unmute your line.

You have two minutes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

This is Peter Drackmeyer, Policy Director for Yosemite Rivers Alliance.

You probably recall that last spring we had approximately 1,500 spring run Chinook salmon come up into the Tualmi.

And extra water, not a lot, but just enough to keep the water cool enough was released during the summer, and most of those fish survived and they spawned in September, and baby fish were born.

But the early evidence is that almost all of them didn't make it out to the San Joaquin.

They can measure them up at the top of the river and down below, and there was tremendous mortality.

We just didn't have adequate flows for floodplain rearing habitat and for out migration.

This year 135 spring run were counted.

Much smaller population, but the interesting thing is they were larger fish.

The assumption is they were part of the same cohort from that were born in 2022, and all those fish got flushed out in the wet 2023, and most came back last year, but some stayed an extra year in the ocean and came back this year.

These fish are really valuable because if El Niño does produce a really wet winter in spring, their offspring are so much more likely to survive.

And we need these big water years for higher releases to maintain the Sami sound population.

So a little something to consider healthy rivers and landscapes, the voluntary agreements do not produce much in the way of flow at all, and are destined to fail.

I hope we can take a different direction and stick with the Bay Delta water quality control plan.

Thank you.

Thank you, caller, for your comments.

Caller, I've unmuted your line.

You have two minutes.

Yes.

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay.

Hi.

Yeah, um, I'm a former commercial fisherman.

Uh I was a fisheries biologist and grew up fishing.

And you know, as you well know, we have a serious problem with salmon on Tuelmi.

Um the as people have mentioned before the design drought um should be shortened.

Um the other thing um is that um I would invite you to uh go in the fall.

There's a canoe trip you can take uh on Tualmi uh where the salmon spawn uh you know and uh go there spend the day um you know canoeing and uh it really gives you an idea of what the salmon face uh about water flow about habitat.

So once again, uh thank you everyone for your service and you know um it's not uh too early to think about taking a nice canoe trip.

Thanks a lot.

Bye.

Thank you, caller, for your comments.

Mr.

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

Thank you.

Item five, report of the general manager.

Uh thank you.

Uh item five A is a clean power SF 2026 integrated resource plan.

First Abu Sinane will be presenting.

May I have the slides, please?

Sorry, may you have the slides, please?

Okay, great.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Firaso Buslene.

I am the acting manager for the Power Enterprise Resource Planning and Compliance Team.

Today I'll be giving an update on Clean Power SF's 2026 Integrated Resource Plan, or the IRP.

We are providing this report today to provide background on the IRP and share results of our analysis in anticipation of a vote you will take in July to adopt Clean Power SFs next IRP, which is due to the California Public Utilities Commission on August 10th.

So an IRP is an integrated resource planning tool or process used to guide the development of a utility's power supply portfolio in a reliable and cost-effective manner.

Our planning process for Clean Power SF is focusing on identifying a portfolio of electricity resources to meet our customers' needs demands at the lowest cost while also meeting local policy goals and state regulatory requirements.

Clean power SF is required under state law to submit an IRP to the California PUC for review and approval about every two years.

The Commission adopted Clean Power SF's last IRP in 2022.

A lot has changed in our energy market since that time.

Most notably, federal policy has become much less supportive of the development of renewable resources such as wind and solar, leading to new barriers and greater uncertainty for project developers.

More restrictive federal trade policies combined with increasing demand for clean energy technology globally have made it more costly to develop new renewable energy projects.

Among other requirements, the California PUC requires Clean Power SF to use their forecast for our customers' demand in the IRP process.

Another change since our last IRP is that the California PUC's demand forecast for this iteration of the IRP is significantly higher than our 2022 IRP.

As this chart shows, the California POC's forecast anticipates high rate of growth in electricity demand through 2045.

Compared to our 2022 IRP, the current IRP forecast features 36% higher demand in 2030 and 63% higher demand in 2035.

This very aggressive demand forecast is driven by high electrification assumptions and anticipated new data center demand that the CPUC has assigned to the Clean Power SF.

This assigned demand growth is both higher than what we are forecasting for Clean Power SF and higher than what we observed historically.

An energy supply portfolio is a collection of energy supply resources and technologies that are used by a power provider to serve customer needs.

The Commission will need to adopt one of these portfolios, three portfolios for submission to the California PUC in our final IRP.

The first portfolio, which we call the 100% renewable forcefolio, is designed to meet and maintain CPUC requirements and the city's 100% renewable uh supply energy supply goal.

This portfolio will continue to meet 100% of our customers' annual electricity demand from either resources that meets the state's renewable portfolio standard or from greenhouse gas-free resources like hydroelectric power.

In addition, the portfolio will minimize GRISP purchases from 5 to 9 p.m.

when the California grid is most stressed and reliant on energy from fossil fuel.

The portfolio also incorporates new local projects to be built in the 9 Bay Area County and CPUC mandated assumptions related to rooftop solar and energy efficiency.

The other two portfolios use the same key elements and assumptions as the 100% renewable portfolio, but also aim to achieve higher levels of time coincidence.

These portfolio require that energy produced meets at least 90% of forecasted customer demand on hourly basis by 2030 and 2035, respectively.

These charts visualize what we mean by time coincidence.

For both of these charts, demand is on the Y-axis in megawatts, and the X-axis represent the hours of the day.

The first charge on the left is an example of clean energy portfolio with less time coincidence.

The blue line represents customer usage for an illustrative day.

The yellow line represents the clean energy supply that the utility provides.

The total clean energy supply and customer demand are similar, however, on an hourly basis, there are some variation.

For example, in hour 21, we note that customer demand is higher than the clean supply available, while in hour 12, the clean supply is higher than the customer demand.

Looking at the chart on the right side, we see that the energy supply and customer usage lines are more closely matched on an hourly basis.

While a more time consistent portfolio is expected to reduce reliance on the grid to balance supply and demand, as you'll see in a moment, it also requires a lot of additional power procurement to achieve.

In the following three slides, we summarize the initial results of our analysis, highlighting the new energy resources identified in each of these portfolios.

The 100% renewable case would require addition of a thousand 220 megawatt of new energy supply resources, a significant build out in the next 10 years.

As a point of reference, Clean Power SF currently has contracted with about 500 megawatt of resources that are operating and about 700 megawatts that are in development.

So the 100% renewable case envisions almost a doubling of the energy supply and storage capacity already contracted by Clean Power SF.

The average cost of the electricity supply for our ratepayers under this portfolio would be about 91 dollars megawatt hour.

The 90% time coincidence case by 2030 would require a lot more energy supply than the 100% renewable case.

In this case, 2,580 megawatt will need to be procured by 2035, more than twice the power supply of the first portfolio.

The additional supply also comes at a steeper cost about 121 dollars per megawatt hour, which is more than 30% higher than the first portfolio.

In addition, the portfolio require an aggressive schedule of procurement in the next several years, several years, including a large amount of geothermal energy supply by 2029, given the lack of available projects that are not already contracted by other utilities, and the long lead time to develop new geothermal resources, achieving this portfolio in the schedule will be extremely difficult.

The time coincidence by 2035 portfolio will require an addition of 2,300 megawatt and come to the cost of 113 per megawatt hour, which is about 25%, 24% higher than the first portfolio.

The needed new energy capacity for this portfolio is only slightly lower than the time coincidence by 2030 portfolio.

However, the build out happens on a less aggressive time scale.

This chart compares the annual cost of the different IRP portfolios to the power supply cost forecasts in the Commission adopted 10-year financial plan for Clean Power SF.

First, we note that the 100% renewable portfolio, which is shown in green, is slightly higher in some years, but overall tracks closely with the Clean Power SF's adopted 10-year financial plan, shown in the dashed red line in the chart.

By comparison, the time coincidence by 2030 case in blue shows significantly higher power supply costs starting in 2030, the year when time coincidence is expected to begin and continues to be higher through 2036.

From 2030 on, the cost of the time coincidence by 2030 portfolio is about 100 to 160 million dollars more per year.

These higher costs will require Clean Power SFs to charge higher rates to recover those additional costs.

Similarly, the time coincidence by 2035 case, which is in purple, tracks the 10-year financial plan until 2035 when its costs significantly increase compared to the adopted 10-year financial plan.

In 2035 and 2036, the portfolio cost for this plan increase about 95 million dollars more per year than the adopted 10-year financial plan.

Staff are currently in the process of evaluating each portfolio is developed and will be returning to the commission with a recommendation on July 14th.

The portfolio that we will recommend for adoption will be one the one that is most consistent with the program goals adopted by the Commission for Clean Power SF.

These goals are listed on the left, which are leading with affordable and reliable service, providing cleaner electricity alternatives, investing in local projects, all the while providing long-term rate and financial stability.

The performer metrics staffs are using to evaluate each of the portfolios are listed on the right side of the chart with different metrics corresponding to the different program goals.

That concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to take any questions you may have.

Thank you for the report.

Colleagues, do we have questions?

Vice President LeBroni.

Thank you very much for the report.

A lot here.

Just trying to get it down a little simpler on the it sounds like we can meet the demands and the changes that are needed.

It's just going to cost more, which is a but that cost is caused by what?

Projects that we do for alternative, or just the cost of it going up each year and uh, you know, from you know the 90 to the 113, etc.

I'm just trying to get a feel for the relationships.

For sure, for sure.

So if we look at uh those three cases, so all these three cases meet the state regulatory and our local policy goals.

The main difference is this time coincidence.

And the reason why we have different costs is because we have to enter into many more contracts to achieve that time coincidence.

So if you look here uh in the slides, essentially if you look at slide number eight, uh the amount of resources that you need to procure under the 100% renewable case is uh about a half the amount that you have to enter.

And those renewable resources essentially what it is is that we have to enter more into more uh long-term power purchase agreements, uh, and that's just cost money.

Uh and that increased cost will result uh to increase cost to our ratepayers.

Okay.

And for like with um you mentioned here geothermal.

There used to be a plant, I don't know if it's still there, um, uh, at the geysers up in Northern California.

Is that how did that does that relate to anything that we're doing, or is that out of our area or um, but is that what we're kind of referring to?

Yeah.

The project like the geysers?

Yes, exactly.

So we actually have a contract with Geyser, and it is one of the resources that provides electricity to Clean Power SF customers.

But we are thinking essentially now to enter into new uh geothermal projects.

Um this is due to a lot of times for for several reasons, but essentially what you have is that geothermal is uh first mandated as a procurement potentially uh sorry, mandated as a procurement by the CPUC, but then in other parts it's also a valuable resource because it provides electricity 24-7 and it provides clean electricity 24-7, so it's a really valuable resource.

Uh so this would be uh the projects that we're talking about here, for example, in this chart, the 20 um megawatts in 2028, that would be a new project.

Uh so it wouldn't be the geysers in in Northern California, it would be newer projects.

Uh, some which we are already contracted with uh S-Clean Power SF.

But essentially, like those will be uh for variety of reasons have to be new projects, so it can't be just reliant on the geysers.

Okay.

And then with, you know, a lot of times when people put on new roofs or they're redoing things and they think, okay, let's put some solar in.

There are benefits to do it, maybe they're not always gonna last, but does that have any real significant impact uh on uh power in general to your calculations here?

If we get, you know, you know, 30% more people doing that.

Yeah, so uh behind the meter uh solar is a part of this analysis.

So essentially it is part of that uh load forecast already takes into account that the amount that we would have to buy is less because our customers have behind the meter solar in their households.

The assumption that we have with that we use for behind the meter solar is mandated by the CPUC.

So we don't so essentially, if uh you know, in in your question you ask, let's say our customer um our customers add more behind the meter solar.

The way it will get reflected to us is it will be essentially going to the CPUC and the California Energy Commission, they will adjust their forecast, and then that will be reflected in our analysis.

We can't adjust that uh number ourselves for purposes of this report.

Because this is a compliance reports for this to the state.

Um, so yeah, so it has an impact.

Uh it's it's not as clean uh as as we can adjust it easily.

Uh but yes, it definitely has an impact that reduces the amount of electricity that we have to buy.

And my last question would be what the data centers that we see coming on, which are huge.

Um are they uh being required to uh have an alternative, like whether it be solar, whether it be wind, um are they do you I uh you know I might be asking a question that you might not have the answer, which is fine.

But do are you aware of like the requirements for those data samplers being built?

Yeah, I can't speak specifically about the requirements to the data centers, but it was the requirement is on the provider of electricity to the data center.

So the provider of the electricity of the data center, say it's like Clean Power SF or Hedgehog or whatever, they have to still meet the state requirements and this and this and their local government requirements.

Uh so essentially, like if a data center comes to, let's suppose to clean power SF, uh, then we would still have to procure sufficient amount of electricity, clean electricity because we are 100% clean electricity to meet the demands of that data center.

But in of itself, like I can't, I do not know whether there's a state or city law that specifically calls out data centers providers to develop these particular resources.

It's more on us, the LSE to do it.

Thank you very much.

Of course.

Commissioner Stacy.

Thank you, and thank you for the presentation.

I my questions are similar to Vice President Leverone's.

For the increase that you show in your slide four, that you know the CPUC mand mandated demand forecast is much higher.

Is that because of the data centers?

What caused their demand forecast to go up?

No, thank you for that question.

So yeah, so it's it's not just data centers, but data centers play a role.

So in the in the sort of medium term, so like till 2035, I think about half of that growth is due to data center.

Uh, but in the longer term, that is a smaller percentage.

Actually, let me just double check my exact number so that I do not misspeak.

Uh yeah, sorry.

So by 2035, it's responsible for 40% of the demand growth, uh, not 50%.

Uh the rest, that 60% is electrification demand from transportation electrification, building electrification, and and essentially increased demand from that.

So it's 40% data centers and 60% just move towards cleaner energy, electrification, sort of an ambitious goal set for non-fossil fuel energy, is that right?

So this is demand growth.

So it would be essentially people switching from a gas car to an electric car, but uh that source of electricity can be anything.

In in the case of clean power SF, it would be 100% clean.

Uh but the the electrification demand uh is not necessarily clean energy demand.

Oh, I see.

Okay.

And then I know that some of our time coincident clean energy issue is the fact that we don't have storage for solar um power at least, and and maybe um hydro and geothermal, I'm not sure.

And I see in your charts that you have a fair amount of storage factored in.

So part of the mechanism for getting to that time coincident power is partly storage and partly buying more energy.

Exactly.

Yeah, so it will be about matching that energy with the storage.

But again, most storage is four hours.

And when we're doing this models, we're taking into account uh like a daily fluctuations, like so essentially sometimes what you have is multiple days when you don't have enough electricity to charge uh those uh storage um for like let's say like two weeks without uh sufficient clean energy.

So what what you end up doing, so it's like that that's what the modeling exercise is about is to find out which should be the cheapest kind of combinations.

Uh sometimes it's cheaper to build more storage and sort of store the energy and and dispense it in the times where dispatching the time when you don't uh have clean electricity.

Sometimes it's just easier to buy a clean electricity resource such as wind, which at that point of time would have enough electricity to meet your demand.

So is it's those models are pretty pretty like intensive calculation models that take all these factors into account and and spits out like that capacity that you would need, the cheapest capacity that you would need.

But storage is very important component in trying to achieve that uh time coincidence for sure.

And I just want to make sure I understood what you said.

Part of the problem with relying on storage is that there are times when the energy won't even be available to store.

So part of the solution has to be buying more energy rather than providing more storage.

Exactly.

I see.

Yeah.

Because a lot of the homeowners, when we install solar panels, we don't necessarily install battery storage on site.

And I just wondered if that was maybe another avenue.

Yeah.

I mean, just imagine like you have like a a week or two weeks with very low wind energy, uh, and you're trying to kind of find enough electricity to meet your uh 2 a.m.

electricity needs, so like where would you get that energy?

So you can have some solar to to kind of store that energy for for some of that part of that day.

But if you have a kind of a long-term, like kind of two-week or three-week shortfall in your clean energy, it might be cheaper for the model to pick up more clean energy rather than more storage.

So it's just like that's that's kind of like the math that is trying to solve.

Got it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Great.

Thank you for the report.

I have a question about what does it mean and operationally that the CPUC forecast is so high relative to both the historical forecast, but also it sounds like to SFPUC's own projections.

Is this just does this just have implications for the report being written for CPUC, or does it have operational ramifications down the line?

Oh thank you for that question.

Yeah, it's definitely um so for the report, we have to use their we have to use your forecast.

Operationally, we do, we're not bound by their uh forecasts.

We use our own forecasts, we have our own forecasts, we develop them, uh, and they are more realistic and take into account kind of operational realities.

And when we make purchases, procurement of energy decisions, we generally make it based on our forecast, not the CPUC forecasts.

Uh, that being said, like uh they are uh a state regulatory agency, so they might so we take their kind of information on advice to in in sort of informing our decisions, but ultimately our decisions are our operational decisions are based on our forecast and our needs, not what the state anticipates it for us.

And we have significant differences in what we see in their forecast and our kind of uh reality.

That's that's really helpful.

And then I'm just wondering when we it sounds like you'll choose the portfolio that makes the most sense based on the criteria that you outlined.

But would the operational strategy just be to I know these things can't be scaled down perfectly, but would it actually be to sort of scale down that portfolio to meet the operational needs that SFPUC actually encounters and forecasts, or would it be a different portfolio?

Um I think that is not a question as a person who leads IRP, not the procurement side.

I can't answer to that specifically how the procurement team uh does their work.

But I think what we try and do is use this document as a guidance.

But in addition to this documents, like the models that we're presenting in this report, because again, this is based on the compliance filing.

We have run a lot of scenarios based on our information and our forecasts, and we will use those uh information to um guide our uh procurement.

Uh so essentially um it's not like we can scale it down because this is not a linear problem.

Like there's so many factors.

So, so what we try and do is kind of run several other like uh sensitivities which will inform how much we need to procure them in the future.

Uh that being said, like you know, the we are constantly looking at how the how our demand is developing, and based on that development, we you know, we can actually like uh fine-tune our procurement procedures to make sure that we can meet our city goals uh at most affordably.

Right, that makes sense because, for example, if if it's data centers, that has a different temporal fingerprint than electrification of home appliances.

Um that's that's really helpful.

So this is basically a compliance effort where the details of the model and the portfolio development are sort of related to how we actually do our our purchasing with our own projections in the future.

Yeah, that's that's fair.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Yeah.

All right, thank you.

Unless we have other questions from the commission, can we go to public comment?

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

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

Seeing none.

Moderators, are there any callers with their hand raised?

Mr.

No callers that wish to be recognized.

I want to talk.

Okay.

Sorry.

Go ahead, Mr.

DeCosta.

Commissioners, we live in San Francisco.

80% of our energy we get from PGE.

Twenty-five percent from SFPUC.

Now, why haven't we done a needs assessment going 10 years ago?

Do you know how much land we have?

Millions of acres.

What about our solar?

Just like they have in Germany.

Now, we ourselves, and I attended a uh meeting, a committee meeting, they're talking about energy linked to SFPUC.

I said them this question.

When we start using quantum technology, where are we going to get the energy from?

We couldn't answer.

You can bring this consultants or whoever these people are and talk randomly about this, that, and the other.

We need to have outreach to the citizens.

We have smart people in San Francisco who can come up with better solutions rather than oh, you know, we don't have a warehouse or we don't have batteries.

We can do things with the talent we have in San Francisco.

The commissioners are not expertise in this.

Yeah, they are cheating us.

They want to create this hubs, data hubs, and uh people who create the data hubs should produce the energy, not us.

And it's time we have uh reconciliation with PGE, so that we don't when it comes to energy, we don't fall in dire straits.

That's why people are jumping ship.

Because they cannot handle, they won't be able to handle things two, three, four, five years from now.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr.

DeCosta.

Moderator just checking in again.

Are there any callers who have their hand raised?

Ms.

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

Thank you.

Mr.

President, uh I just wanted to um inform uh our viewers and I really that um uh I informed our staff uh this morning and um uh mayor's department heads at our department head meeting that I intend to retire uh when my uh current contract ends and I'll be retiring in uh December.

And it's been an honor and privilege for me to serve five years here at the PUC and for 25 years serving um the public of of San Francisco.

And as I told the mayor uh when I met with him earlier this month and informed him of my plans, I've always had the philosophy that the worst thing that you can do uh in any position of leadership is stay too long.

And that was a philosophy that I followed when I left being city attorney five years ago, and it's still holds true now.

I think that the best thing that you can do is set priorities for the agency that you lead, um, get things in motion, and then uh leave follow through to the next generation to take things to the next level.

And I feel like um uh over the course of these five years, we have satisfied a lot of the goals that I set out when I took this position five years ago.

Number one was to restore the public's trust in what is a fabulous agency, and then to uh attack the uh substantive challenges that we had in our various enterprises.

And I believe that we have made uh substantial progress and we have accomplished many of those goals, uh, whether it be um nearing conclusion in our negotiations with the EPA on uh wastewater issues, uh really making great progress with the state on our water issues, and perhaps uh uh most doggedly making substantial progress uh on municipalization of uh PGE.

So with having accomplished many of the goals that I uh set out, or at least moving the ball forward to a place where I feel confident that the great people this agency can take it over the finish line, I've decided to to retire.

And you can take uh solace and comfort in the fact that you have a tremendous group of um professionals uh and leaders at the uh that we have in place at the AGM level and elsewhere that are going to be here for uh a great many years because of their tremendous commitment uh to the PUC and our ratepayers, and I feel uh very confident that they'll be able to uh take the PUC over the finish line as we uh continue the journey to do a great job on behalf of uh my rate of our ratepayers.

But uh every season has its time, and uh my time has come to an end, and I look forward to being with everybody here through the course of the next six months, and I'll do everything to help smooth a transition for uh the next leaders that we have here at the PUC.

And uh I'm not gonna look at Commissioner Stacy because we have a long history, and she and I are very similar personalities, and uh she's been through this once at the city attorney's office, so she's not getting looked at.

But it's been my absolute privilege and honor to serve with all of you.

You've been absolute delight, and to work with all the tremendous professionals that we have in the PUC.

They have been great, and I have full confidence in their ability to fulfill everything that we've uh set out on the on the course that we've set.

So to all of you, thank you so very much, and you have me around for the next six months, and we'll continue to do great work.

Thanks very much.

That's heavy news, Mr.

General Manager.

I know I have thoughts and and gratitude and expressions of of my own I'd like to share.

Um I'll defer to the commission first.

I feel like we should close with you, Commissioner Stacy, but uh is there is there thoughts on on our general manager's announcement you'd like to share, Vice President Leveroni.

Um, uh General Manager, I've only been here for a little over a year and a half, two almost two years, um, but I did a lot of research and and you're coming in over the past five years, and uh very impressed where we were, and uh as you noted here today where we are today, and the city um and the PUC is a much better place uh for your involvement uh over the 25 years uh and the PUC for the last five years.

Thank you very, very much.

Commissioner Thurlow.

I'll just echo that um and say that I feel your leadership was a huge part in my um willingness to take on the role.

Um, and I've learned so much from you, and I look forward to learning tremendous amounts more in the next six months while I can squeeze it in.

Um, and of course, again, I'll just reiterate that it makes me a little nervous.

Uh, but I I wish you the best, and I'm so grateful for everything you've done for the city, Mr.

Stacey.

General Manager Herrera.

Thank you for your service for many, many years.

But the last five years at the PUC, I think you have done so much behind the scenes that is probably both unsung and unseen.

You came to the commission or to the public utilities commission at a very difficult time.

Um you have implemented numerous management improvements.

Um you've encouraged internal collaboration among the enterprises that I did not necessarily see when I was working as the city attorney for the PUC.

I think there's a much better sharing of knowledge and a cross-pollination of experience that is all to the good for the ratepayers.

We have better contracting procedures.

Um we have uh incredible leadership and staff at the PUC, and I share your confidence that the water will continue to turn on when we turn the faucets and the toilets will continue to flush and will continue to provide clean energy and see through the PGE um municipalization.

I I really hope that when we, as we look for another general manager, I I hope that we can find somebody who is as focused on management as you were, because I think that's really um what has made the PUC operate so much better in the last five years.

We have incredible leadership and incredible staff that I know will carry on the tradition, and I I hope that we can find somebody with the same management skills that you brought to the task, not to mention intelligence and all of your city wisdom.

Thank you for your service.

Um I know you're gonna enjoy retirement.

And I think what I would add, Mr.

General Manager, is is something I've had the chance to reflect and share publicly here in the past two years, or thereabouts of of my personal service and in our direct work that we've done together is just what an amazing ship you run here, and when we come together as a commission to review materials and to approve items, everything's ready and everything is so prepared and tight and thoroughly vetted, and I remember much different experiences for a lot of years before you took the reins and and guided the ship.

It's it's an amazing, amazing operation.

And I know that you credit the team and you did that today, but it's your leadership, starts at the top.

So you've been an amazing general manager.

The one thing I want to share is something that I think about when I think about your work over the decades, not just appropriately so when we're approving a plan to deliver 100 percent clean energy, but I'm thinking about that phone call you made when you were first elected city attorney, and you called the constituents of the city and county and those most impacted by those dirty power plants, and you called on that election night and said we're gonna close those power plants.

We're gonna deliver clean energy, not dirty fossil fuel power to the people of San Francisco.

And you did.

And I enjoyed working with you along that path and that road in those days and up to here feels like a full circle, and I admire everything you've done for the city and county of San Francisco.

Commissioner Stacy.

Thank you.

I I just am sort of thinking next steps.

I I worked on director searches with the planning commission a few times, and we really benefited from uh guidance from the city's Department of Human Resources and the City Attorney's Office.

And I think it would be great if we could uh ask the mayor and the Department of Human Resources to maybe come to our next meeting and walk us through the steps and the process and the commission's role in it to really help us make this as smooth a process as possible and to ensure that we find excellent uh applicants.

Yep.

Well I'm happy.

Uh I'll I'll work with uh uh President R.

Say to facilitate that.

I think that would be useful.

So we'll I'll talk with uh President R.

Say about how we facilitate get making that happen as soon as possible.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

General Manager, for everything.

Thank you, Commissioners, for your reflections.

We have an opportunity to take public comment on our general manager's report.

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

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

Denise Louie.

Am I on?

Okay.

Uh good afternoon.

I'm Denise Lewey speaking as a member of the Center for Biological Diversity.

And under current management, the PUC's obstruction of the 2018 Bay Delta plan has sent Delta Smelt into extinction.

We can't bring them back.

We've known for decades that the Delta smelt were in trouble, and they were an ecosystem health indicator species.

Now seven fish species are threatened and imperiled.

And the Bay Delta ecosystem is in full collapse.

And the next general manager should care more about the Bay Delta and the fish.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Mr.

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

Thank you.

One of the things I also really enjoy, sorry to do this, but I just thought about the fact that you know we don't have a mandatory local hiring law for the city and county of San Francisco, if not for then city attorney Dennis Herrera saying that we're ready to stand by this legislation, which at the time was unproven, and we're ready to defend this law in court if and when necessary, and now to be here all these years later when all the projects that we put into place and the major investments and infrastructure and all the job-generating investments of the public utilities commission that happened to move forward under your leadership benefit from that law.

The workers of the city and county of San Francisco benefit from implementation of a law 15 16 years later that you approved to advance and put the city behind.

So there's a lot of a lot of things happening full circle that uh make up your your legacy, and I know we'll have lots of opportunities to thank you for that in the months to come.

All right, next item is uh can we call the next item, Ms.

Ram?

Item six Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency reports President Arcee and Commissioners.

Tom Smegel from Bosca.

And first let me uh add to the chorus uh General Manager Herrera, thank you so much for your relationship with Bosca and the wholesale customers and the management style that you've had uh in my tenure of just a year and a half.

Uh it's really felt throughout the organization, the cooperation and support that we receive.

And so we thank you very much and uh hope you enjoy your retirement.

Um I was gonna speak very briefly today about a small update on our strategy project, and I I think I've talked to you about this a couple of times before, but um one of the more uh one of the different aspects of this is looking at uh local resiliency uh for emergency preparedness.

So mostly when we talk about reliability resiliency, we're talking about infrastructure projects.

We're talking about the major uh water system, of course, that we all share, but we're also looking at those aspects of emergency management and resilience uh for acute shocks such as wildfires and uh floods, uh infrastructure failures, uh computer network disruptions, communication uh blackouts and outages, they can cause serious problems for water utilities throughout the the Bosca region.

Uh and of course, we've been doing for many years a tabletop exercises focused uh with uh with your staff on perhaps an earthquake or perhaps a major disruption to the to the regional water system.

Uh one of the things that we're investigating is expanding our efforts to broaden uh interagency cooperation throughout the region.

Um, and so a couple of the items that we're looking at are communication with each other uh among the agencies and with San Francisco staff and with our communities, better training and sharing of resources, and uh continually reviewing things that went well, things that could go better uh whenever there is an incident.

Uh we've also started a dialogue with San Mateo County Department of Emergency Management, and we plan to expand that to our other counties.

One recent example uh just uh few weeks ago uh was a water quality emergency in Mountain View.

Mountain View's a Bosca member agency.

Um, and a lot of the agencies in the region, including the SAPUC staff, uh, were able to step in and assist Mountain View when they had this uh water quality emergency due to a construction incident to help with water quality testing, providing expertise, uh technical aid, and because the resources that are available from such a large uh system here in San Francisco, it really benefits the entire region.

Um so uh we do have an opportunity to continue to work uh together on this, and I think that uh in my initial dialogue with uh uh AGM uh Richie and his staff.

I think we very positive initial dialogue on continuing to work together on these on these items.

I will say that your field operations that are in Millbrae and in Synol are vital to continuing those efforts to provide regional resiliency, and so when we make future decisions, we need to keep in mind how important it is that we have those resources, whether it just be the technical expertise or the fact that we have uh equipment and materials in place in those areas uh that that can help assist our agencies in an emergency.

Um so just wanted to give you that update, and that's all I have for today.

Thank you.

Uh, happy to take a question if you have any.

Thank you, Director Smegel.

Questions from the commission?

All right.

Seeing none, can we take public comment?

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

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

Denise Louie.

Okay.

Moderator, are there any callers with their hand raised?

Mr.

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

Thank you.

Item seven, consent calendar.

Um, Commissioners, I uh have shared internally that I am expected downstairs of the Board of Supervisors for an item that will be called at 2 30, and I'll plan to return at approximately 2 45, no later than three o'clock.

And I'm handing the gavel over to Vice President Leverone until I return.

And I anticipate that we will have quorum to continue further business.

Is that right?

Attorney Braggman.

Thank you.

I'll be right back.

For the consent calendar, um commissioners, do we have any uh discussion or questions uh regarding the consent calendar?

I'll just make one quick comment.

Um I noted on item 7D, which is the Eureka Valley um project, um, that I was really impressed to see both a coordination of the water system improvements and the wastewater system improvements in the same time in the same project.

Um, and I thought that was just a really nice thing to see, especially for the people who are living on those streets in those communities.

So great to see that.

Thank you, Commissioner Thurlow.

Okay, can I um are there any public comment?

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

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

Seeing none, are there any sorry moderator?

Are there any callers who have their hand raised?

Mr.

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

Thank you.

If I can then call for a motion and a second uh to approve the consent calendar, move to approve.

Second, President Arcee excused, Vice President Leveroni.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar is excused, Commissioner Stacy.

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow, aye.

Item seven passes.

Item eight, regular calendar, public hearing to consider and possible action to adopt the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan prepared by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission for the City and County of San Francisco pursuant to California water code sections one zero six one zero-one zero six five-seven.

A you want to see my part of the speech?

Oh sorry.

I apologize, Douglas.

Oh sorry.

Douglas Benton.

Or is it was it too late to have a issues?

Sierra Mountain Construction.

We have been a strong partner bidding and building work for the SFPUC for over 20 years, and I'm saddened to be here today.

We recently protested the low three bidders on HH 1019.

All three bidders failed to meet the experience requirements and qualifications per the IFB.

Unfortunately, CAB missed the heart of our protest.

Interestingly enough, we had to put together a joint venture with Obiashi Corp to meet the qualifications, even though we had built project phase one two years prior.

During the QA at bid time, other bidders asked three separate questions with regards to reducing the qualifications.

The agency's answer was consistent.

Not acceptable.

Yet one of the unqualified bidders subsequently received a post-bid waiver, a competitive bid advantage that no other bidder received.

This inconsistency undermines the integrity of the bid process.

If the qualifications were important and strong enough and a requirement to be denied three times at bid time, they must remain firm now.

Reluctantly, we have prepared a writ of mandate that will be filed if this project is awarded to Narrich and Sons.

We ask that you hold off awarding this project and conduct an independent review of our bid protest.

And I believe the findings will be positive in the favor of Sierra Mount and Obiashi joint venture.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Douglas.

Thank you.

We need to reopen to have a vote again.

Is there any public comment on item 7A?

Remote callers, please raise your hand.

I'm sorry.

On the tire on all the items under 7.

Okay.

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item 7A through E.

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

Seeing none.

Moderator, are there any callers who have their hand raised for item 7A through E?

Mr.

Amder, no callers that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

Okay.

We need then to call for a motion to approve the consent calendar.

Or if there are any questions.

I have to get a motion first.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

I'm sure I understood from the testimony.

Is there an additional protest that was filed against the uh low bidder?

Or there was an additional process that occurred with the low bidder.

I don't see the person who testified.

Oh.

I'm not sure I understood what you were saying.

You filed another protest?

No, ma'am.

We filed our initial protest on the low three bidders.

Unfortunately, CAB missed the heart of our protests and ultimately denied it.

I see.

They have not proven that the low three bidders have met the requirements.

We received a copy of all the bid packages.

The information is in the bid packages.

They do not meet the requirements.

Okay.

I understood that point.

Um and I did you have something to add?

I I saw you stand up.

I'm sorry.

I yeah, Commissioner is uh Daniel Sanchez from the Contract Administration Bureau from the PEC.

Uh and yeah, so this was a typical protest.

Uh we uh review the protest very thoroughly in collaboration with the city attorney's office with the contract monitoring division uh and the project team reviewed the MQs, reviewed all the merits of the protest, and we responded in writing, and we felt that there was no merit to the the protest, and so that's what he is referring to.

There was no waiver of any type after the fact, it's just that there was uh a disagreement on interpretation of the the MQs, which we applied as we're in.

Thank you.

I also I understood the commission doesn't really have a role in these um contract awards or these protests that it really is CAB and the city attorney that reviews the protests and assesses the validity, and I I see that the staff memo uh provides the information that the protest was reviewed and determined to be without merit.

But I just maybe I need confirmation from the city attorney's office that the commission doesn't really have a direct role in these protests as I understand it.

The protest was rejected um by the department after review, after internal review, that's correct, and uh the the decision of the of the commission is whether to proceed with award or not.

That's okay.

Thank you.

If I can call for a motion, I'll move to approve the consent calendar items 7A through E.

Second, President Arceus excused, Vice President Leverone?

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar is excused, Commissioner Stacy?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow, aye.

Item seven passes, item eight, regular calendar.

Public hearing to consider and possible action to adopt the 2025 urban water management plan prepared by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission for the same for the city and county of San Francisco pursuant to California Water Code sections 10610-10657.

May I please have the slides?

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is Jennifer Lee, and I am the project manager for the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan.

So today's meeting is a public hearing to consider and possibly adopt the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan, including the 2025 water shortage contingency plan and the Affordable Housing Development Water Service Priority Policy.

A quick note about this policy.

It is a state requirement under the California government code and needs to be updated every five years, which is why it has been integrated with the Urban Water Management Plan.

There are no changes to existing practices with this policy, and it's simply to comply with state law and has been included in Section 415 of the final plan.

Two months ago, I presented the draft 2025 Urban Water Management Plan where I described that this plan is required by state law and came about during a time where California was experiencing significant growth coupled with a severe drought.

These plans help ensure that water supplier like San Francisco can reliably meet future demands associated with the growth as projected by the local land use authority.

The urban water management plan is not a rate setting document and does not dictate water power sewer rates.

And the consequence for not submitting a plan are that urban water suppliers may become ineligible for many state grants and loans.

So here is a timeline and key dates for the 2025 plan.

The draft plan was made available to the public for review and comment from March 16th through April 20th as an electronic version available on our website and a hard copy version at the main library.

On April 14th, the draft plan was presented to the commission and a public hearing was held to receive public comments.

Today, staff are presenting the revised and final plan to the commission for consideration of adoption, where the deadline to submit urban water management plans to the state is by July 1st.

The PUC has received 31 comments on the draft plan, nine of which were written comments submitted by email, three verbal comments at the CAC meeting, and 19 verbal comments at the public hearing.

Several public commenters raise the same or similar concerns, and so rather than to respond to each comment individually, staff develop global responses to address these comments comprehensively.

The detailed comments and responses are included as attachment number two to today's agenda item, as well as included in appendix B of the 2025 plan.

And in the following slides, I will summarize each global comment and our response.

So the first topic area is regarding water affordability, where commenters raise concerns about the demand projections and that they may be overstated and drive unnecessary capital spending, which could raise rates.

So coming back to the purpose of an urban water management plan, it's to demonstrate how a water supplier would meet future demands based on the anticipated growth as provided by the local land use authority, which in our case would be the planning department.

Those projections are what the PUC uses to develop demand projections for the UWMP scenario.

And while the UWP describes major reliability and supply projects, the decision to fund and implement them is made through the capital budgeting process, 10-year financial plan, and rate setting processes, not through the UWMP update, which occurs once every five years.

The next topic is in regards to retail population and demand projections, where commenters state that the retail population projections are overstated and leads to inflated retail water demand projections.

So, in accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act, the PUC uses the planning department's housing and employment projections.

These growth projections form the basis of the UWMP scenario.

Now, alongside that scenario, the PUC has also developed two additional demand scenarios that assume lower levels of housing and employment growth.

For example, one of them uses the Department of Finance's population projections.

These additional demand scenarios provide a broader range of demands and will inform the next AWS or alternative water supply plan update, which will begin next fiscal year.

Next, we have wholesale demand projections, where commenters express concern that the PUC does not independently evaluate wholesale customers' purchase projections and that those projections influence capital planning and rate decisions.

So wholesale customers develop their own demand projections and determine how much of those are anticipated to be met with regional water system or other supplies, such as local groundwater or purchases from other wholesale suppliers.

Wholesale customers, most of which are also required to prepare their own urban water management plans and have a separate public hearing and public comment process that they have to conduct as well.

Wholesale purchase projections in the urban water management plan do not determine wholesale rates.

Wholesale rates are established separately under the water supply agreement between San Francisco and its wholesale customers.

And in regards to design drought, commenters question the length of the eight and a half year design drought, knowing that it is longer than what other agencies use and leads to more conservative rationing projections.

So tying this back to what's required by state law, the Urban Water Management Planning Act requires water suppliers to conduct a drought risk assessment that's five years long.

And up until the 2020 plan, it used to be three-year drought risk assessment.

So that shows that drought requirements from the state have increased over time.

The PUC meets this requirement by using years two through six of its eight and a half year design drought, because in year one, we don't necessarily know that we're in a drought, and so year two is the first year that we could see water use reductions.

The let's see, the PUC relies primarily on the Tuolamee River watershed, where during droughts, because San Francisco has junior water rights, most of the water goes to senior water rights holders, leaving the regional water system dependent on stored water at the beginning of a drought.

And this is the basis that drives the SFPUC's drought planning approach.

And lastly, we have the Bay Delta plan amendment where we received comments raising concerns regarding the Tuamy River ecosystem health and salmon recovery, the SFPUC's position on the planned amendment, and whether a healthy rivers and landscapes program would provide adequate environmental protection.

And so again, tying this back to what the state requires.

So the purpose of the urban water management plan is to evaluate potential future water supply conditions and document how the SFPUC would meet demands under a range of scenarios.

And as part of this, the 2025 plan and its future updates will continue to reflect the current status of the Bay Delta Plan Amendment and the Healthy Rivers and Landscapes Program.

The Urban water management Plan itself is not an environmental policy document and does not determine the outcome of the Bay Delta Plan Amendment.

Instead, it informs the SFPUC and the public how evolving regulatory requirements could affect future water supplies.

And more information about the Healthy Rivers and Landscape Program can be found at this website.

So to conclude, today's request is for the Commission to consider and possibly adopt the 2025 urban water management plan, including the 2025 water shortage contingency plan and the affordable housing development and water service priority policy.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Lee.

Commissioners, are there any questions?

Oh, wait, I'm sorry.

Commissioner Stacy.

Thank you, and thank you for the updated report and providing the responses to comments.

I think I said most of this at the last hearing, but we also received more written comments via email.

And so I just want to repeat a little bit of what I said about my understanding of the urban watershed management plan that urban water management plan.

That's a five-year look at anticipated growth and whether there is adequate water to serve that growth.

And the PUC has to rely on those numbers.

So planning has to figure out a way to meet those housing goals.

So planning's anticipated growth is also pressed a little bit by those state requirements that they need to figure out a way how they're going to meet those housing goals.

So when people comment that the growth scenarios are ambitious and perhaps unrealistic, I think we need to look to the experts, the planning department, for their models or their projections of what growth is going to be, but there may also be pressure on the planning department to be fairly ambitious, especially with housing goals.

The urban water management plan is not the PUC's primary planning document.

It's really our response, the PUC's response to this maximum potential for growth, the sort of outside box of what growth might happen in the next 25 years in San Francisco.

So our capital planning isn't based, you said this in your presentation, both their last hearing and today, is not based on the urban water management plan.

It's based on a number of studies that the PUC itself conducts, financial capital demand projections.

And so I don't see the urban water management plan as the PUC's document for planning purposes.

And that we need to rely on this outside agency for what those projections are.

I really appreciate that in this version of the Urban water management Plan, PUC did look to calibrate and to provide additional information about future growth.

I think that is a useful exercise.

But I think that we still have to meet that state requirement of meeting that maximum growth.

And so I think that the information that the urban water management plan provides may be important for that coordination in the event that that growth happens, whether or not we think it will or not.

So I I appreciated all of the comment letters, but but I think that the PUC's decision making happens with other studies and other plans that we prepare.

So I am I'm not hesitant about approving this urban water management plan.

Of course, I want to hear what people have to say today if there's more information.

But the it those comments are important for the PUC to hear, but I I think that the urban water management plan isn't where we resolve all of those issues.

And if you have something to add or something that you think I've missed, please do so.

No, I think that's an accurate summary.

Yes.

Nothing to add, no notes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Stacey.

Um, one question on the on the numbers that we use that come from the planning department and our other agencies.

We uh have to use those numbers.

So if their numbers came in and they were wrong or high or low, it doesn't it's those numbers that they report to us after their study is done saying here's your our report that you need to make up this uh plan.

Is that correct?

Yeah, so the state so the California Water Code does require us to coordinate with the local land use authority or regional authority for population projections, and so that's why we've turned to the planning department as the resident local land use authority to make um those projections for us.

And these projections do get updated every five years, and so all projections are wrong, but some are right, and that's just the nature of things.

And and then so the one that we have the most, or I'm gonna say this, I might be wrong.

Most influence is over the design drought.

Is that our figure or is that then based on all of these different calculations that are coming into us to say here's your plan going or here's what you have to use to do your analysis?

Yeah.

Um well, really quickly before I pass it on to Steve.

So the demand projections, they're looking at the demand side of things, like how much water we use based off the growth that's associated with the local land use authority, and then with the design drought, that's on the supply side, how much water we would get.

Um, Steve has Steve has thought of so I'll pass the baton to him.

Yes, please.

Yeah, Steve Richie, assistant general manager for water.

The primarily what we're doing in the urban water management plan is we can assess how much water individual customers will use.

Um it's the matter, you know, putting the the you know projections from the land use side together with what we know about how people will use water, and we're really pretty good at figuring out how people will use water.

Uh so those are the two things that come together here.

Uh the design drought is really um frankly, in this document, the design drought is a sideshow.

It does not contribute to the dead, you know, the the answering that primary question that we've been talking about here.

Uh but the you know, over time, they've expanded the act to say, well, you put a little information on this and put a little information on this, and maybe do a little bit more, starting to show that people are actually thinking about and planning for a drought.

That's what the water shortage contingency plan component of the urban water management plan is, is to demonstrate that yes, we actually you know have a good idea of how we would handle a drought, how we would actually handle a drought will always depend on the individual circumstances, but that's where the design drought at least is informing that a bit.

But again, it's not it.

All plans are good and they don't survive first contact with uh the punch in the face.

Thank you very much, AJM, for the additional information, and thank you, uh Ms.

Lee.

Um, hearing no more from the commission.

Uh, we can open for a public comment.

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

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

Charlene Woodcock.

Um, I'm focused on the design drought.

Uh, according to the state's website, California Water Watch, current major reservoir levels are at 109% of average with Oroville Dam full and Northern California weather predicted to be little affected by La Niña conditions.

Statewide, we've had 97% of normal precipitation.

Northern California is predicted to experience normal weather through the rest of this year, though it'll be drier in Southern California as predicted.

My greatest concern is for these uh SF's PUC to protect our Delta ecosystem and to allow enough water to flow from the rivers into the Delta to keep the water cool and improve conditions for healthy fisheries.

They're not just people here, there are a lot of other creatures and the fish that we have had for eons that we're killing off.

We've shown that when come called upon residents here can reduce our water use significantly.

Most of us would much rather conserve water than see our delta and its fisheries destroyed by inadequate water flows.

Planning for extreme droughts can result in overfilled reservoirs and the building of needless new environmentally destructive reservoirs such as sites rather than planning for extreme drought with the damage that would do to our fisheries in the Delta by reducing flow through the Delta.

And invite public commentary to achieve a scientifically informed, reasonable approach to water management.

Voluntary involuntary agreements are inadequate.

We've seen that.

And then quite separately, with reference to something that was said earlier with regard to data centers.

If they can't, thank you for your comment, Ms.

Woodcock.

Eileen Boken.

Speaking on my own behalf, following up on my written submission, strongly opposing the adoption of the urban water management plan as currently proposed.

There is a long-standing uh adage in IT, garbage in, garbage out.

For the urban water management plan, the garbage in are the following outdated statistics.

For population projections, San Francisco is now by the State Department of Finance to have flat growth in the foreseeable future.

Outdated policies for the design drought of 8.5 years compared to others, uh utilities in the Bay Area of 5.5 years.

Flawed assumptions that the PUC consistently overestimates demand, doesn't take in account State Water Code 73503.

Don't even know if you really know what that is, and PUC being unwilling to adopt the Bay Delta plan, and the PUC suing the USCPA at this state Supreme Court, and finally wanting to make San Jose and Santa Clara permanent customers.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Boken.

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

Ms.

Ramp, there are four callers that we should be recognized.

Sorry, we have one more public comment.

Miss Denise, did you want to speak?

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, so my comment is about projections.

The plan depends on other agencies' projections.

And the plan is based on ideal conditions, but conditions are much less than ideal.

Look at the state of the Delta ecosystem.

Okay, so someone other than myself needs to stand up and say that in order to meet projected growth, we have to cut water demand in reality, or if even if you approve this plan, more should be done to reduce demand or failing that, you should insist that we cannot go through with those uh projections for growth because we've already exceeded the Earth's capacity for renewing itself uh with our uh human uh impacts on the environment.

So um I I hope that you will um take a look at those projections and see if there's something that we can do to mitigate our negative environmental impacts.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Ms.

Ramp, there are four callers.

I wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

Caller, I'm a mute at your line.

You have two minutes.

However, it is a grave mistake to rely on the voluntary agreements, which are clearly not working.

Once the Delta ecosystem collapses and the fish are uh extinguished, we can go back.

There's no going back on something like that.

Uh we can moderate our user uh consumption and citizens of San Francisco and the Bay Area demonstrated very well that they are willing and able to uh modify their consumption.

Almost anyone would rather see their lawn go brown than or replace their lawn rather than have the entire Delta ecosystem crap, which it is doing.

This crap not only harms animals that harms the humans who live there, and you get toxic um overgrowth, which can harm us inhabitants.

So I urge you to reconsider your overly generous allotments, which have been demonstrated to be exaggerated, and to follow the science on how much water is actually scientifically needed to preserve the Delta ecosystem.

Please go back to the drawing board.

Um we had a grand plan at one time to fill in San Francisco Bay, and fortunately that was stopped by citizens, so we still have a bay.

And I actually saw a copy of those plans, um, and it was stopped.

So we need to stop this plan as well.

Please do so, and you'll be proud of your legacy and your heritage.

Um, uh resident of the caller, your time has expired.

Caller, I'm mute your line, you have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name is David Schramm.

I commented at your meeting on April 14th.

And I'm speaking today because after reading the staff responses to those comments, I think my concerns have yet to be acknowledged.

I'm concerned that you use the urban water management plan demand projections to justify capital expenditures for additional supply.

For those capital expenditures, you increase the cost of water to users whose rates you increase to pay for them.

I looked without success for acknowledgement of this linkage in the staff responses.

I'm also concerned that you use urban water management plan demand projections to justify taking legal action to prevent implementation of the Bay Delta Plan.

By spending ratepayer money to oppose the Bay Delta plan, you're impeding the implementation of sound science-based policy necessary to protect riparian ecosystems that comprise irreplaceable public assets held in trust for the people of California.

I failed to find acknowledgement of these linkages in the staff responses.

The urban water management plan is a key element of water policy.

We'll benefit by considering its impact, including its budget bloating and environmental destruction in an integrated way.

By compartmentalizing responses to comments, your staff has obscured this larger picture.

Underlying the urban water management plan is a design drought more extreme than any used by other Bay Area agencies.

The design droughts ramifications for the urban water management plan and the plan's impact on capital budgeting, water rates, and most importantly, ecosystem integrity are enormous.

The public deserves a full and open scientific assessment of the criteria by which the design drought was constructed.

Caller, I'm a mute at your line.

You have two minutes.

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you.

Okay, my name is Mary Butterwick.

I'm a resident of San Francisco.

It is now too late to make substantive changes to the 2025 urban water management plan.

However, there are some outstanding concerns at the plan that warrant your continued attention.

The plan lacks any information on reservoir storage levels during the two most recent drought experiences.

Data on reservoir storage levels, especially at the low point of storage, is needed to evaluate the SSPUC response to these dry periods.

The plan projects extreme water rationing up to 43% if the Bay Delta water quality control plan is implemented.

Yet the plan lacks a description of how these numbers were calculated.

Again, in the absence of reservoir storage levels, how can we determine if such drastic rationing is justified?

Using SFPC data, the Yosemite Rivers Alliance found that at the end of the driest consecutive five-year sequence, the SFPUC would still have more than 600,000 acre feet in storage.

This is enough water to last two and a half years.

And if the SFPUC adopted a more reasonable design drought, the saved water could compensate for the extreme rationing projected in the plan.

Alternatively, if FUC use the driest consecutive five-year sequence out of the six-year drought of record, SFPUC could manage the drought with a Bay Delta plan implemented without any rationing and still have water remaining in storage.

Clearly, options exist for SFPUC to better manage its flows to benefit the environment and people.

We desperately need a workshop that carefully examines the design drought and realistic.

Thank you, Caller for comments.

Your time has expired.

Caller, I'm a mute your line.

You have two minutes.

Thank you.

Peter Dreckmeyer, Paul, the director of your somebody wrote the line.

This is yet another flawed document based on a flog product.

You had your hearing, initial hearing over two months ago and have done nothing since.

It's like you're waiting for staff to ask you to do something.

You really need to provide oversight.

You've got a lot of feedback from the public.

You've gotten a lot of feedback then, but it's so staff driven at the FFDUC that there's no one watching over the environment and rates.

The demand projection in the urban water management plan are 10% higher than your finance bureau projections for 2050.

And we know from previous document that both the water enterprise and finance is overprojected.

The demand projections are 30% greater than the Euro Club drop demand model predicts.

That's been reviewed by a lot of experts, including folks at the FFPUC and Bosca.

And there haven't been complaints, but a very solid model.

Ridiculous plain fall.

That's water that could be used during the drought.

But you refuse to have a workshop to think about these things.

And then it was said earlier today that the uh urban water management plan is not a planning document.

I've said it so many times.

The alternative water supply plan is based on numbers in the urban water management plan.

I will also use the 50% rationing.

Thank you, caller for your comments.

Your time has expired.

Mr.

No more callers that wish to be recognized.

Thank you.

Colleagues, I'm back, and I um would like to ask if uh if it's possible, I caught the last comments, but uh to the extent I missed other public comment.

Is would it be possible to get a summary from colleagues or what would the sense um I know how important this is to us?

Um that's not on the agenda.

We're we're not able to resummarize uh an action that's already taken the the comments that have already been issued.

There are a number of written comments as well, right?

But I I can't ask for uh commissioners to summarize what they've heard today.

Uh let me try another way.

Can I get a comment on commissioners' thoughts on what you heard today to help inform my decision on this item?

City Attorney Bregman.

Sorry, the commissioners have already commented um on the item.

You're welcome to have the commissioners can continue to comment uh before a vote is taken.

Thank you, City Attorney Bregman.

I would appreciate comments from commissioners about their thoughts on the item after hearing public comment.

Commissioner Stacy.

I am sure I can't do justice to the public comments.

But I had some extensive comments at the beginning of the item that the PUC relies on the planning department for the retail, at least the retail side of population and growth projections, because a lot of the comments um were about how growth is is overestimated.

There's pressure from the state on San Francisco.

There is to provide uh a lot of housing over the next 25 years.

And the purpose of the urban water management plan is really uh a document that forces a conversation between the development side of government, both for the wholesale customers and the retail customers and the water provider.

And that I thought that a lot of the comments are necessarily resolvable in the urban water management plan that the PUC conducts its own capital planning effort, its own financial planning efforts, when we make decisions on what to build and how to spend that the urban water management plan isn't our primary planning document.

I'm loath to try to summarize the public comment.

I'm sure I would not do them justice.

Any other thoughts, comments, any um discussion further from the commissioners?

I I will just say that you know the we constantly um is brought up, which is nothing uh that we haven't heard um before is the design drought.

The eight and a half years versus um what the state might be using and others might be using.

So that was again um a major say item that has been brought up for us to reduce it.

I was just checking the calendar for reasons that will become clear in a moment, but the uh today's Tuesday 23rd, a week from tomorrow, there's a state statutory deadline for us to submit, not just approve, but submit the urban water management plan.

And I know from our briefings with staff and from the hearing that we had that it's uh a very critical and important deadline that we can't miss.

I asked the question to get some sense of some of the comments just because I walk back in with two choices either abstain out of respect for not having heard the public comment and and as someone who spent a whole lot of my life and time as an advocate doing public comment, like right there for about 10 years.

I want to respect what folks put into to provide the public comment.

But knowing I think a sense of what the public comment is, and I'm anticipating based on what I saw in the written comments, it's also commentary consistent with what we received in volume from the from the public hearing prior to this uh action today.

I feel very confident in the work that staff has done to incorporate feedback to continue to work with advocates on the array of concerns.

I want to echo what I heard from Commissioner Stacey, which I know to be true, that we have no role to play by statutory design from the state of California in what the projections are in terms of population growth.

Those are statutorily housed at the various planning agencies that counties rely upon for this kind of information.

So the data we get is the data we must use.

And so I agree and echo what Commissioner Stacy said.

So based on what I've always seen to be the track record from our staff and working really hard and taking feedback I know that I had and others had, and members of the public at our hearing in written form going into today's action.

I do feel comfortable and um not just comfortable but confident in approving the plan today as reflective of all of those considerations and feedback, especially based on the importance that we only have eight days to get this submitted.

There's very serious consequences for the ratepayers.

Any other comments, okay.

Uh, with that in mind, we have the ability to uh go ahead and make sure we meet that deadline by approving this item today.

So I'm gonna get a motion and a second to approve item eight.

Motion to approve.

Motion from Commissioner Stacy.

Second.

Second from Vice President Leveroni.

President Arce?

Aye.

Vice President Leveroni.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar is excused, Commissioner Stacy.

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow, aye.

Item eight passes.

Item nine, award contract numbers, PRO.

Zero three three three dot A through E as needed environmental review services to environment environmental science associates incorporated.

ACOM Technical Services Incorporated, Panorama Environmental Incorporated, GEI Consultants Incorporated, Instantec Consulting Services Incorporated, each for an amount not to exceed 15 million dollars.

An assistant general manager for infrastructure.

Congratulations to General Manager Herrera on his retirement.

And I'm here to introduce Karen Fry because this will be her last public commission meeting.

She now moves into retirement as well.

So we wish her congratulations and thank you for 19 years of public service.

She will be missed.

Her expertise in this field has been instrumental.

And thank you, Karen.

Thank you, Steve.

Oh, sorry.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Commissioners and President Arce.

Um, Karen Fry, currently manager of the Environmental Management Group and Infrastructure Division.

And here today for Pro 0333 A through E Professional Services contract.

So just a quick presentation.

These contracts will support our capital projects, and they cover mostly three main areas, which is environmental analysis.

So you've heard of CECA, the California Environmental Quality Act, and also the Federal Equivalent National Environmental Policy Act NEPA.

We also obtain permits from resource agencies and do construction compliance for environmental.

And we've been doing these as needed contracts for the capital projects for quite a while.

It's been about 20 years.

This is our sixth iteration.

And the work will cover uh environmental services for all of our capital plans, water, waste, water, and power.

As you know, it's a 12.5 billion dollar capital plan, so it's a very large capital plan.

So there's a lot of environmental work.

Uh just noted a few projects here that you've heard of uh nutrients removal, southeast outfall, spear street substation.

Uh you can't see some of them there, but um uh some of the dam projects.

Anyway, there's a lot of projects, a lot of environmental work to support our capital plans.

So just a quick um detail on the scope of services.

I mentioned CEQA and NEPA.

Um, NEPA we only need when we're uh have a federal nexus, so if we are on federal property, like on National Park Service Land, BLM, Forest Service, or we have a federal permit.

And both of these um have a very broad range of environmental services, so there's a lot of expertise needed from odor, air quality, noise, paleo, uh, biology, cultural, tribal, so um, all of these areas are included in these contracts.

And then the permitting, um, these are permits that we get for construction.

These are not operational permits, but we need these permits before we can go to construction, and I've listed some of them here that are most commonly needed.

And then the last item is environmental construction compliance, and this is where we have mitigation measures in our CECOA and NEPA documents that we commit to.

So we make sure that those are implemented during construction, as well as any permit conditions in our permits and our own standard construction measures.

And my last slide is on the contract value, because this contract is larger than our last contract.

Um what we did was in the fall of 24.

We went through the capital plan, we went through every single project, estimated work needed for environmental, uh, to come up with the forecast, and then uh was a high number.

So to really ground truth it, we also compared it to our current burn rate on our current environmental contracts, and it aligned.

So that's how we came up with our contract value.

And with that, I would just like to um ask the commission for approval to award the their five, pro 0333 A through E with an amount not to exceed 15 million, a duration of seven years, subject to Board of Supervisors approval.

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

Thank you, Ms.

Fry.

I know that Vice President Leveroni has a question for you.

Okay.

First, congratulations.

Uh 19 years is a long.

And we're very, very glad to have had you for that long of a period of time.

Not today's world, not many people are in one job for that period of time.

So your continuity and your contribution, even though I've only been here for two, I'm sure, is very deep.

So thank you very much for that.

Now for the question.

Yes.

Um the uh I I was five contracts or five companies.

Is the 15 million each of the five, so technically 75 million?

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Commissioner Stacy.

Thank you.

Uh Ms.

Frye.

I've worked with you for many years, both in the city attorney's office and now as a commissioner, and you brought enormous intelligence to some very tricky projects, trying to, you know, weave our way through the regulatory and environmental framework, but also to really help define the projects better through the environmental review and how to make the projects work from the PUC's point of view as a practical matter.

And you were great at every one of those tasks, and you brought an intelligence and a incredible patience to many of the projects, and it was always a pleasure to work with you.

So I wish you all the best in your retirement.

I know you're going to enjoy it.

Thank you.

But I also have a couple questions as well.

You anticipated my question on the 15 the 15 million amount that it is more than uh the last time we did this.

Um, but you really tried to evaluate what projects are coming and how much uh we would need to pay for the environmental consultants.

So I appreciate that information.

I also think this is a rational way to go about this.

That rather than do a new RFP for every project, it's much more uh time efficient and more responsive.

What I uh wonder is if you could just explain a little bit about how you decide which consultant to use on which project.

Uh yes, that's a good question.

And um, we look at several things.

So uh every task order is different and needs different expertise.

So we of course look at you know who has that expertise.

Sometimes it's not even with the prime, it's with a sub because it could be very specialized, like benthic invertebrate surveys.

Not everybody has that on their team.

So we'll look at, you know, what is the expertise needed.

Um we also look at uh uh we keep a log of every task order and why we selected the firm for that task order, um, so and to ensure that we're you know giving work equally.

Um we also look at LBE participation.

So we do have um, like currently we have a JV, so we make sure that we're giving the JVLBE firm enough work.

Um, and then sometimes you know we might even ask firms to propose.

You know, maybe we're it's a big dam project, and we want the best, and we want to see who's the team at the time, because a lot of it is really on the people, right?

We want the right people, so sometimes we will ask them to actually submit to us a proposal.

Great, yeah.

Thank you.

And thank you so much for your many years of extraordinary service.

Thank you.

I wish you the best.

Then uh then, if there's no other questions, Ms.

Fry, I wanted to respect that after 19 years, this is your last commission presentation, I think.

So I wanted to make it at least try as best I could to contribute to making it the most seamless of all of your presentations.

So I have only nine questions to ask.

Uh no, just kidding.

I'll I'll rest with thank you and thank you for the thorough presentation and responses and nineteen years of great work.

Thank you.

Can we take public comment, please, Ms.

Rand?

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

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.

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

Thank you.

All right.

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

Move to approve.

Is there a second?

Second, I'm Vice President Leveroni.

President Arcee.

Aye.

Vice President Leverone.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar is excused.

Commissioner Stacy.

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item nine passes.

Item 10.

Approve an increase of 275 calendar days to exist in duration contingency for contract number DB-132 New Treasure Island Wastewater Treatment Plant with PCL construction incorporated.

Good afternoon, President RC, Vice President Leveroni, Commissioners.

My name's Calvin Huey.

I'm the project manager for contract DB 132.

Today I'm requesting your approval to increase the duration contingency for the new Treasure Island wastewater treatment plant by 275 calendar days for a revised total duration of 1,479 days with no change to the contract cost.

This project replaces the existing uh Navy built plant, which is over 50 years old and beyond is uh useful life.

The new facility will provide increased treatment capacity, advanced membrane bioreactor technology, solid howling, and Title 22 compliant recycled water to support the Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island development.

The original contract was awarded for 165 million 32,269 for 1,095 days.

And Drew contract modifications 1 to 80.

Uh we now stand at 175,795,922 and 1,204 days, all within authorized contingencies.

The additional time is needed to um deal with extended equipment procurement, uh this just distributed control system integration coordination issues, resequencing of tie-ins, uh coordination with external underground uh utilities and added startup and commissioning activities.

Uh funding remains available through wastewater enterprise capital improvement program and LBE participation goals continue to be met.

Uh approval of this request will provide the schedule flexibility uh needed to complete this critical project without any uh increase in costs.

I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Huey.

Is there questions from the commission?

Commissioner Stacey.

I don't have any questions.

I just wanted to say that I am excited to see this project come to completion.

It's a really great wastewater treatment project.

It includes both wetlands and recycling.

I think those are really uh forward-looking components, and it will be a great project when complete.

Thank you.

Commissioner, any other questions?

If not, can we take public comment, please, Ms.

Ram?

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item 10.

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.

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

Thank you.

Commissioners, can we get a motion to approve and a second?

Move to approve.

Motion from Commissioner Stacey.

Second.

Second from Commissioner Thurlow.

President Arcee?

Aye.

Vice President Leveroni.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar is excused.

Commissioner Stacy?

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item 10 passes.

Item 11.

Approve the urban watershed stewardship grant program requirements and terms and authorize the general manager of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission to negotiate award and execute grant agreements of up to 250,0008.

Oops.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

My name's Kelly Teeter, and I am a watershed planner with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission in the Wastewater Enterprise.

Today I'm going to be presenting on our Urban Watershed stewardship grant Program for approval.

May I please have my slides?

Oh, it looks like they're already there.

So today we're seeking approval to establish SFPUC's Urban Watershed Stewardship Grant Program in-house.

I will review how this grant program fits into our citywide green infrastructure strategy, give the history of this grant program, and the decision to bring the program in-house, and share the process of updating the grant program and improvements we're proposing, as well as our budget and next steps.

So this program fits into our green infrastructure citywide strategy as part of our programmatic offerings to support the implementation of green infrastructure across the city.

We have several programs that make up our citywide strategy, including our green infrastructure grant program for large properties, our parcel-based residential grant program, our new development stormwater management ordinance, and the Urban Watershed Stewardship Grant, which supports the implementation of stormwater management projects in the public realm.

The Urban Watershed Stewardship Grant was the first grant program launched by our division in 2009 as a pilot program, which was developed in partnership with the city administrator's office in response to a supplemental environmental project requirement.

Those pilot projects were so successful and had such positive response that it was decided to determine to establish it into an ongoing annual grant cycle.

The grant program has awarded 2.8 million to 48 community-led projects, transforming schoolyards into asphalt and nature play areas into sidewalks, or sorry, nature play areas and sidewalks into gardens.

The program has helped us develop strong partnerships with our watershed stewards in San Francisco communities, and it's highly regarded within these communities.

These are some of the example projects that we've implemented through the Urban Watershed Stewardship Grant program.

So we have rainwater harvesting systems, capturing roof runoff on schools, impervious surface removal and replacement with drought-tolerant biodiverse plantings in community gardens or in the sidewalk, and rain gardens managing parking lot runoff.

Some more examples of projects implemented through the Watershed Stewardship Grant on schools in the public right-of-way and community gardens.

These projects provided needed site improvements while increasing permeability of the landscape and creating nature-based learning opportunities for the public and students.

In 2024, we concluded our partnership with the City Administrator's Office in order to update the program and bring it in-house.

We made this determination in order to have more administrative oversight of the program and to align it with our other grant programs.

Unlike when this was launched back in 2009, we now have the staffing bandwidth, expertise, and administrative mechanisms to in order to deliver this program through our team.

As part of this process, we embarked on a program update, which included analysis of existing programs and processes, documenting lessons learned over the lifetime of the grant program, and conducting case studies of relevant successful grant programs.

We'd like to establish two program tracks, an infrastructure track and a stewardship track.

The infrastructure track would fund projects that provide a stormwater benefit in one of San Francisco's eight urban watersheds, and it would result in a built project.

The stewardship track would fund projects that provide a stormwater focused service program or an educational opportunity to San Francisco ratepayers and SFPUC, or sorry, to SFPC ratepayers.

We're also proposing more guardrails to support projects that would implement performance-based green infrastructure designed to manage stormwater from a contributing area.

This will ensure more technical projects are designed to SFPUC standards.

Lastly, we wanted to ensure this program update increases our impact and reach, and there we're therefore proposing eligible grantees to be beyond just nonprofit partners.

We took successful program elements from the green Infrastructure grant Program to make the Watershed stewardship grant Program more accessible, such as eliminating any cost sharing requirement, allowing for an upfront construction payment of 50% for infrastructure projects, and increasing the project cap in order to keep up with inflation.

The proposed project budget for the grant program is 400,000 in the first grant cycle and 600,000 in the second grant cycle.

With infrastructure projects receiving a maximum grant award of 250,000 and stewardship projects receiving a maximum grant award of 75,000.

If this item is approved, we plan to hold the first grant cycle in July.

We have a robust outreach strategy, which will include integrated communications across all of our grant programs.

We'll utilize workshops, webinars, social media, and mailers to reach potential applicants.

We're also developing our outreach list to target high environmental burden areas with lower previous program participation.

So you can see our map analysis driving this outreach on the slide.

The map shows moderate to high environmental burden areas in red, orange, and yellow, and the blue circles represent previous projects that were implemented through the urban watershed stewardship grant.

Our goal is to increase participation in the moderate to high environmental burden areas where we have less program participation in the past.

That's all I have for today.

Thank you so much for your time, Commissioners.

I'll take any comments or questions.

Thank you very much for the presentation and for your work.

Do we have questions from the commission?

Commissioner Thurlow.

I have one question.

Thanks for the presentation.

When we think about the scale of this grant program relative to the green infrastructure program overall, yeah.

How big is it?

So it's it's a bit smaller in terms of percentage.

Let me see.

I'm gonna grab my sheet to tell you.

You don't have to know the exact answer.

Yeah, yeah, no problem.

No, I've got some backup information here.

So for our um green infrastructure grant program, just for example, we have awarded 29.65 million over the last since 2019, and those projects have to be they have to manage over half an acre of impervious surface.

We don't actually have a performance requirement with this grant program, so it's really meant to be smaller in scale and to reach more of like our grassroots and community groups that wouldn't qualify for the green infrastructure grant program.

So the green infrastructure grant program is more for large parcels.

This is more for public improvement projects that don't meet that half acre requirement.

Okay, perfect.

That answers my question.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

All right, any other questions?

If not, can we take public comment, Ms.

Ram?

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.

Ramsey, no callers that we should be recognized.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

With that, can we get a motion to approve item 11?

Motion to approve.

Motion from Vice President Leverone.

Second.

Second from commercial Commissioner Thurlow.

Vice President, President Larce.

Aye.

Vice President Liveroni.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar is excused.

Commissioner Stacy.

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item 11 passes.

Item 12, communications.

The commission takes notice of the communications that were received.

Item 13, items initiated by commissioners.

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

No, there are not.

Item 14, public comment on matters to be addressed during closed session.

Remote callers, please raise your hand if you wish to provide comment on item 15.

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.

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

Thank you.

Item 15 motion on whether to assert the attorney client privilege regarding the matters listed under agenda item 15.

Commissioners may have a motion on whether to assert the attorney client privilege regarding the matters of closed session.

Move to assert.

Motion to assert the attorney client privilege from Commissioner Stacey's or a second.

Second.

From Commissioner Thurlow.

President Narce?

Aye.

Vice President Liveroni.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar is excused.

Commissioner Stacy.

Aye.

I Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

I the item passes.

Thank you all.

The commission will now go into closed session.

No, it's not both.

I'm talking about it.

Item sixteen report following close session.

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

Item seventeen motion regarding whether to disclose a discussion during close session, pursuant to San Francisco Administrative code section six sixty-seven point twelve A.

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

Motion not to disclose the discussion during the closed session.

Motion from Vice President Leveroni.

The second from Commissioner Thurlow.

President Arcee?

Aye.

Vice President Leveroni.

Aye.

Commissioner Jamdar is excused.

Commissioner Stacey.

Aye.

Commissioner Thurlow.

Aye.

Item seventeen passes.

Item eighteen, adjournment.

This meeting is adjourned at three forty-five PM.