move some of those forward now. some of them have been completed. the settlement agreement is actually a land sale as well. there are a few others that we have been talking about, the mountain view project. some others that come apart in the mountain view crisis, which we are trying to revive. >> i'd like to put in another request. i would like the commission to be aware of the fair market value of these properties. >> absolutely. where we have appraisals that are up to date, we would be glad to provide those to you. >> thank you. commissioners, and the other questions on communications? >> there was some correspondence

from steve lawrence and i would be happy to respond to those, if you would like. the first one was a discussion about -- somewhat confusing, but about $1.5 million to the america's cup. we are not providing a subsidy there in any way, shape, or form. it would be provided to the port and a tenant of the port at pier 70, when they get additional shoreside power. it would help to subsidize that the way that most utilities would help to subsidize a growing customer base. there would be more work at year's 70 and we would be getting more money and more power. after they get the power and use the power and give us the money, will -- , we would reimburse $1.5 million. it is not to america's cup, it is to appear 70 and work done

by an existing customer out there, vastly increasing the amount of work they're doing. >> there was the implication that there might be some impact on rate-payers. it is important to be clear that from an accounting standpoint, except for a sting operation, revenues and costs do not impact water or sewer rates. >> right, each enterprise has to be separated out. >> thank you. >> and in this case, this ratepayer will be paying this money as it gets put back. the second item that he raised was potential deficit for westside recycle water. he had mentioned a new pipeline that cost more money. and that we should get more

information. of course, we will. we are going into environmental review in the future and will be going back to the commission to get a full cost overview of what that would cost and the will of the comparisons. the third item was the ocean beach master plan and his concern about the temporary fix that would protect the tunnel. and whether that is impractical and ineffective in practice. we are still working on that. we believe that there are some ways that can protect the town of and the oceanside treatment plant that would be environmentally friendly. it really talks about getting rid of part of a highway out there and it calls for closing the great highway at float. traffic would be routed on and

rearrange at the front of the zoo, going around the back of the treatment plant. there were only be a one lane road going in and out for access. it would take the entire area for the great highway and have a rolling, sloping, larger rocks with standard that would catch any wave action. that is the idea. it still has to be proven, but if that is the case we would hope that that would take care of it for quite a ways. >> thank you. i appreciate that. i thought it was important to make sure that that was clear. thank you. >> can i ask a question on the planning process? what is the time line? i know that spurs will be in contract and will be the main driver of putting together the plan. >> they contributed to the original plan so far and expects

to be publishing at the end of this month, that is their hope. they have been beginning to get letters on the outstanding process in the public engagement. that will be published at the end of this month or so. the next follow one step will be partially funded also from parks service and other folks. that is probably a year or two long process. in the first part, it talks about short-term, medium-term, and long term type fixes. there are some things that we there are some things that can be done relatively quickly, from an interest rubberstamp point, but require environmental review. whether or not you can make one side of that a two way road and the other side bags and pedestrian, which would also go toward not having to take the

stand off and having a more natural sand barrier, changing the vegetation on the beach. the vegetation that is there now is not natural for this area and therefore increases the sand movement. those are not that expensive to do, but take some time to talk about from an environmental standpoint. there is the medium term, where people disagree. 10 years, 30 years, getting that down to what is happening. most people realize that the infrastructure that we care the most about is not something that we can move easily. which gives us time to do some real planning. >> the board, with the recommendation, should be out in the next month? >> will we get an update on what the board has recommended? >> the thinking is that we will have the staff person come to

the commission to talk about it. >> like a month? >> like when carlos was talking about it. >> the briefing on the report would actually project out for the next two years, because one of the things that we would bring before you the they whisper for the next few years and an in-depth study to address the infrastructure at ocean beach. >> there will not be any action beyond planning for the next few years? >> there are some things that we hope they can do that do not have to wait for all of that planning. the great highway was supposed to be paved in the near future. if you're going to pave the highway, could you do something between the area in the park? so that it is not just this wasteland and do not just wait for the plan to be done?

the big discussion is a two year discussion. >> the bond was passed by the voters last year. an element for better streets. so, we're hoping to use the better streets money as they do the right highway to do the more recreational attributes that they put together >> thank you. >> thank you. >> other commission business? >> mr. president, i have an emergency conference call at 3:00. i will have to leave to take that, but i will be back. >> thank you. i appreciate the notice. i have one item for the chair. there are not many opportunities to actually do stop operations at the commission, but we felt it was necessary and appropriate to have recognition of mike's service and we did not want to have that as a part of the

commission package. i think we have managed to do this in inappropriate and appropriately sneaky way. we do have a resolution of appreciation for you, mike. let me just read that. whereas the public utilities commission has selected michael and 2006 and he has worked for the positions in the mayor's office, the board of supervisors, san francisco public library, and public utilities commission, and whereas he has faithfully served under five commissioners during his tenure, coordinating the work of 11 additional commissioners, and whereas during his years of service he staffed over 120 regular meetings of the commission as well as numerous regular meetings and budget workshops, and whereas the commission recognizes that his service spanned a critical time as we

work to consider, approve, and implement water programs with a large volume of contracts and documents and resolutions associated with the 85 comprised aspects of the program, appreciating the fall for guidance on the charter amendments in 2008, it brought significant changes to the commission, in a positive, helpful, and dedicated manner, whereas he will continue to serve the san francisco public utilities commission as its archivist and historian, therefore be it resolved for these reasons and good humor and dedication to service, the city and county of san francisco this commission sincerely expresses our consideration to michael. it is my pleasure. [applause]

>> congratulations. >> [unintelligible] [laughter] >> we have a picture. >> where is that? [laughter] [unintelligible] >> see, without you organizing this? >> all right, ok. >> thank you. >> it is my great honor and privilege to be a little part of the hard work that all of you do. because you do the real work. >> as you can see, mike has also

helped out with putting together this meeting, this one item, and there will be continuing deference to donna and she takes over the ropes. thank you, mike. any other commission business? ok. moving on, the report of the general manager. >> good afternoon. i only have one item to report on. you have asked about what is happening to the redevelopment agencies in california. we have a bit more clarity on that and are here to talk about that with you. but >> thank you, general manager. the last director of the san francisco redevelopment agency, in the current executive director of the success for -- successor agency. as long title. [laughter]

we will come up with a different name other than the artist formerly known as. [laughter] it is my pleasure to be before you end up debut. what happens, where we are now, in what it means for you at the puc commission, stepping back, what has happened to the redevelopment agencies in california. as of the first of february and a court decision by the supreme court of february -- of california in late december, all of the redevelopment agencies were resolved as of february 1. they no longer had any assets or reset -- resources under their control. providing for cities, counties, or perhaps a state appointed body to step in as their successor-appointed agency to wind down their activities. the contracts and obligations

that were in place, in many cases in san francisco their obligations for major improvement projects that have come before you. the hunters shipyard, phase one, for which you have agreements already, candlestick point, phase two, and to some extent trans day, portions of that state owned parcel, mission bay, others. these were all considered important obligations. so, what did the city do as a result of february 1? we moved quickly. our board of supervisors and the mayor, there was unanimous approval and we passed a resolution that provided for the transfer of these assets of the redevelopment agency. the transfer of the redevelopment agency's affordable housing assets. they have developed over 12,000 in its tenure over the city, not

just in redevelopment project areas. those assets were affirmatively transferred to the mayor's office of housing and the mayor's office of housing will be charged with implementing anything left in the housing balances. the project is under construction. the non-housing aspects, by operation of law, really transferred under the city's charter to the administrator's office. those non-housing assets include the projects that have come before you. the contracts related to mission bay, the private third-party, half a dozen affordable housing units killing in, portions of trans bag, as well as the hunters point shipyard phase one and phase two. there are other non-housing properties the support assets that have been transferred to the city administrator's office.

that was accomplished in a relatively orderly fashion. working through the mayor's office and the budget office on an ongoing basis for all that remained, those obligations continued to continue under the mayor's office of housing or under the office of the city administrator and successor agency. a number of other things fell out from that. not all of these obligations had contracts that were enforceable. we were doing work in the broader bayview. the general manager and i participated in a model block opening there in a gray streets project where you contributed money, resources, and other members of the city family stimulus funds. we were using that in broader bayview amongst other economic activity. the redevelopment agency's participation in that is no longer.

we are no longer entitled to use any tax increments to fund those activities. visitation valley, another redevelopment plan that came before you, we were in negotiations with a private development partner to enter into an agreement like mission bank, -- like mission bay, mike hunters point. as a result, they have no continuing ability to capture that public financing tool there. that does not mean that the city as a whole will not continue in these areas. what will continue in some fashion in the city, the community revitalization work, the mayor's office of housing and economic development, those will all still continue. those will absolutely still continue. work force and job training, those will continue under the office of economic workforce development. skipping to what it means for

you, hunters point shipyard phase one does not rely on any kind of tax increment. it was all private developer equity. we have entered into agreements there. i will wrap up. that work is ongoing. infrastructure work is just about complete. we are moving on to park development. there will be a process of acceptance through the city, working with your staff. the balance of the shipyard development, we are relying on tax increments. $7 billion in incremental tax sources. the same can be said for mission bay. the same four components of trans bag, the different, as we're working with caltrans. we need to step through the process the state has laid out to make sure they agree with our interpretation.

i will add that for those major legacy projects, the board also conferred upon this oversight board, which was required to create certain land use development permitting plan design authorities for those major projects, mission bay, trans bay, hunters point. in terms of implementing cooperative agreements that we have in place with you, the terms and conditions on the oversight board will put on its land use hat. the oversight board also has a fiduciary at to the holders of those obligations, the bondholders and taxing entities. i am available for any questions you have.