communications. and we were working to develop a large term plan as to how we communicate this program to the public, but the commission, internally, to be able to build support. we are developing draft materials. we will have handouts. we will not have to carry things on the run. we will have fixed materials will be able to hand out to build and hopefully curriculum as well. this was the first of many in this picture. i have been in the sizing to the team that waste water is fun. it took some convincing, but we did a bike ride on october 1 and went through the entire system, from southeast, along the bay, north point, along the presidio, along the box, into oceanside. losing people all along the way, but it was a good fun first effort. we will bring the watershed framework report at the next meeting in december. we're starting of the watershed

assessments according to that. bottom line, that is and that has been talked about a lot. it will probably be the first -- i hate to say guinea pigs, but under the guidance of our general manager and external affairs, we're looking towards using a triple bottom line to be able to incorporate public values in a non monetized fashioned so we can consider them as we're making decisions about projects. quickly, on projects themselves, the central bayside system improvement rfp is out. on the street, bids are due next three, november 15. very exciting. after this project, which was previously known as the channel tunnel. we changed the name is basically because we have a lot of basic functions being incorporated into this. we have the north basin, a central basin, and they creek basin. we will get the functions and will be taking care of localized flooding in challenges from a

climate change. after that rfp comes in, we will then be putting out the long looked forward to southeast improvement digest rfp, and that is currently being asked of. we're taking advantage of having this wonderful expertise, working with our team, and working with that rfp to have a very clear message so we get great proposals. our schedule forr current tasks, fp is due november 15. the southeast improvement rfp would go out around the yard. watershed characterization's will take about a year, but we are doing a fast pace in terms of identifying what projects we would need. we need to fix our flooding issues and take care of the state of the state. we need our levels of service. condition assessments occurring for the next year as well and program of validation. we expect to be back here in july and to have a fun summer

going to workshops with you. we can talk about rates and the whole deal. feature highlights, i have a feeling you'll see me also in december. one of our items got cut, the level of service for r&r. we will be here for quarterly updates and that in september to do an award for the selection of the conflict -- consultant timber se improvements. the projects we're working on now represent about $4 billion worth of ssip anticipated costs. so thank you so much. >> thank you. commissioner vietor: thank you very much -- commissioner moran: thank you very much. two comments. you talked about of dating or a review of wsip reporting requirements. i do assume that we're not

starting from scratch on this, that we're basically using what we learned admitting that forward. the other thing is the program validation discussion, i think it is incredibly important. is the idea of getting public buy-in for the rates that we're going to be talking about, and it is daunting. part of our credibility is going to rest on the degree to which we have taken a really hard look at some of the options we have and make sure that we are asking for what is really needed, and i think that is going to be tremendously important. if we can move this quickly on it, that is great, but it is definitely important. >> great, thank you. >> i have one comment, too. on the watershed projects part of it, i think it is really

exciting and very cutting edge. i was in wyoming recently when they did a whole piece of legislation that was one of the first of its kind of watershed as a protected area. a little bit different, but it was looking at the whole ecosystem. so i look forward and want to hear back as the proceeds, because i know that it is challenging and complex to be approaching this project in that way. i am hoping that as you give a regular update, you can lead as noah the characterization's are that you come up with and how you're going to prioritize and rollout that program. i know it is moving quickly, and it would be great to hear back on that part in particular. and the other part that i have a lot of interest in is the triple bottom line peace, because that is very pioneering. i think i could really be a model for utility to use that approach, especially as we start. and there is a way to kind of document that whole process and

really, you know, create sub matrix that can be shared with other utilities. i think that part will be a really interesting component of this project. >> it is really cool. maybe if i can get 10 minutes in december, that would be good. commissioner moran: and your credit is good with us. you came in well under 10 minutes. thank you. >> that concludes the general managers' report. thank you. commissioner moran: thank you. any additional commission questions or comments? we have a public comment. >> nothing like putting sewage on the agenda. i am from clean water action. as a very interested in this. i have been waiting for the watershed framework. i am very excited about the watershed characterization. i have about 20 community members who were very interested in seeing how this is going to

proceed and how they can participate. so i look forward to working with staff. i have already had someone from the neighborhood e-mail in me about the bayside improvement project, a community benefit. i am not exactly sure what that is, but i promised i would get back to her. >> i would be happy to talk about that. as you know, the commission has developed a community benefits policy, and it says they should be involved in the community and all the things we do. we're now extended that to our contracts. professional services contracts on the entire sewer system to permit program had an item saying what you'll do in terms of community benefits. do you intend to use local stores? how will you hire people? all the different things in the community benefits policy, we're now asking contractors to tell us how they're going to help us implement that policy.

so we're not asking, in this next rfp, for them to come up with ideas on how to do it. as you can imagine, engineers, this is not their first priority. often, you tell us how to design its ending, and we're happy to do it. we're happy to broaden their view. they now have to go to community groups to ask for help about community benefits, which is exactly what we were hoping for. commissioner moran: thank you. any other public comment? >> we have no speaker cards. commissioner moran: ok, thank you. call the consent calendar. >> item 8, consent calendar. all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar are considered to be retained by the san francisco puc and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission. approve water enterprise, water conservation and operating- funded high efficiency clothes washer rebate program, and negotiate and execute a professional services agreement.

accept work performed by p&j utility company for water enterprise program-funded contract number wd-2617, decreasing the contract to reflect the quality of materials and labor required in of breath final payment to the contractor. approved on occasion never wanted power enterprise-funded contract hh-940 san francisco /pencil lead/east bay with western allied mechanical. and power enterprise-funded contract hh-941, san francisco/peninsula's/east bay with johnson controls inc. commissioner vietor: does anyone would disagree the item from the consent calendar? >> double move the calendar. >> i have one question on 8a.

what is the impact of cca on that program? >> the program right now combined our money with the utility company money when somebody buys a high efficiency washing machine. they get the money from the state for efficient the kinds of things. on day one of cca, it had no impact. we are arguing to be about to get that kind of efficiency money that goes to pg&e and be able to use it with our customers better should that happen, we would combine this money and offer it. it is a four-year contract that allows us to get out every year as part of our planning for the next year. if we take it over, we would cancel -- cancel it with pg&e. commissioner vietor: either way, cca customers should be able to take advantage of that program and have available the pg&e funding or ours? >> exactly. the idea is not devaney lack of funding for energy and water

conservation conductivities. commissioner moran: we have a motion in a those in favor? opposed? carey said. ok, call the next item. >> regular business. authorizing the general manager of the san francisco puc to execute a memorandum of understanding between the sfpuc and san francisco recreation and park bank commission regarding management of the lake merced tracked and accept the report of the resource in planning and conducting an environmental review and making its recommendations to the commission. commissioner moran: mr. ritchie. >> i am here today to talk about lake merced in all of its facets. basically as a brief overview, i

am going to talk about the proposed lake merced management mou between the puc and park commission, the watershed reports, and specifics about the bauhaus, which is a particular -- about the boat house, in dealing with the lake or said water levels. here is a photograph of lake merced. three legs. south lake, the main body. northlake, which is kind of the park at the top. at the bottom is an area called in how -- impoound lake. it is separated off because of sewer facilities. it is our responsibility overall. this would update the puc

resolution. it does not replace that revolution, but would define better our responsibilities, defining the rec and park responsibilities. the whole point is we defining the responsibilities so that expectations are clear for all to say. on the pc front, there is a laundry list of items about attracting collaboration with rec and park, really focusing on water levels, water quality. we monitor that to maintain and operate our structure. rec and park do a lot of day-to- day activities around the park, in terms of gardening and crash management, things of that

nature. protecting water quality, one of the key things is if we find something that is not working out the way it should, we would direct, for example, rec and park to change that facility. we have that authority to do so. one of the things we do is work with the department of fish and game to enhance regional fishing opportunities, and work with dpw on parking facilities around the lake. this more clearly delineates the puc's direct responsibilities, relative to the like. on the rec and park side of things, they would have broad authority relative to recreational activities. they would provide -- there would be responsible to conserve national areas throughout the city.

they would also work with dpw, the parks association, and volunteers. a lot of community development is part of that. we have some joint responsibilities. first of all, creation of a work plan, including the lake merced watershed report. one thing from our perspective that is very important -- the line with the work orders, we look at how the money is used so puc is given the maximum benefit of those funds. one thing we identify is a meeting annually with stakeholders to go over our expectations for the year, and what we are doing at lake merced. one of the contentious items

around the lake our responsibilities for the leases. currently, rec and park manages all the leases at the lake merced tract. that includes the hard the golf course, which is technically now leased with the pga, and for the boat house. i would also have a responsibility for issuing rfp used for recreational opportunities. we would also participate in rfp for use of the bauhaus. on the pc side, and -- the p u c side, we look at the area on the south side of the south lake, where the issues are recreational to some extent, but there are watershed issues. we think it is important we have to take on those issues directly. with rfp's, we are talking about

management of the watershed in a way we believe would directly affect the quality of beneficial uses of the lake. we have a public process regarding the memorandum of understanding. we should draft the mou in mid july this year. the watershed committee and citizens advisory committee had a public meeting at the clubhouse. we met with the public parks and recreation open space advisory committee, prosaically called prozac. we have updated the subcommittee, and we met back on november 1. we have gone to various changes to the mou, and have become better over time, resulting in the product today. moving on to the watershed

report, i will not go into detail. this is for your general review. this was a stockholder-driven process, an assessment of the lake merced watershed. there were lots of recommendations for improvements there. it is not a specific plan, where there were a set of "thou shalt do this." there are generally ranges of possibilities anticipated for various uses around the lake. we are bringing this forward not as a plan to adopt, but as a document that would provide a strong basis for going forward to develop plans, which could have their own see "review before decisions were made. moving on to the harding road about house -- but house --

boathouse, it is basically broken into two levels. a main level, which for many years served as, in effect, a sports bar, and was reported from some of the people who work at the puc. it was a jumping joint back in the 80's. the upper level has not been in use since the early 2000's. the tenant walked away from the lease and now is currently used for storage by the recreation and parks department. without mincing words, it is a dump. the upper floor is not attractive at all. in fact, the pga, when they hold events there, and set off with

opaque fencing so people do not have to see it on the way to harding golf course. it is not a good thing, and something needs to be done about it. we are investing funds in the harding rowboat house -- road boathouse. we are working on rudimentary cleanup. that started yesterday. the contractor went inside to remove the debris and garbage that has been there since the tenant walked away a while back. we are working on some building share -- show repairs. the work is in great shape, but the bathrooms were in disrepair. they represent a problem that needs to be dealt with right away. for the rest of this, let me point out the top floor. the bottom floor is where a

large number of cruise region of rolling crews are tenants of the boat house -- a large number of rowing crews are tenants of the boat house, and store their boats there. this is not the long term, but house -- long-term boathouse i think lake merced needs. this would be a facility that could operate so that while collectively we are developing a plan for no facilities -- new facilities, we could find something reasonable or presentable. we have perceived add? -- add-backs as part of the

budget process. i keep saying harding. lake merced add-backs of cumulated over time, so we are currently investing in this effort. about a third of that is going to the bathrooms. additionally, some of the -- >> we are updating the commission on the harding but house today, but there is no action item. >> there is no action item on this. it is a significant activity we are gauging -- in beijing during the existing budget. we can make that space available with rec and park for potential use, based on a to be issued a request for proposal. for example, a concession for

recreational fishing or limited food service. there was interest in using this as part of the restaurant space. the building is not in good space at all, and required tenant improvements to make it an attractive restaurant. it needs to be more functional, related to the lake. there may be expanded use by recreational tenants. they would like more space for storage. how do we relate it to the lake, and the condition of the lake overall? that is important to us as part of this package. the harding road boathouse is under way. >> you are up about 5 minutes.

how much more time the need? >> about three more slides. >> ok. >> this has been a long-term issue out there and is one of the primary concerns going back to the mou of the water levels in lake merced. historically, they have gone down as a result of drought and groundwater pumping. the city had been working with various golf clubs in the area, and environmental stakeholders, to come up with solutions. one option was to take golf courses off of the ground water pumping, and move into waste water. that has had a salutary effect. we are working on the flood control project. the vista grande project is encompassed by the yellow- outland areas there. at the top, that little dip in

the middle is where lake merced starts. in effect, we have cut off like merced from all the water that drains to it. the daly city chunck echoes out into a tunnel into the ocean. none of it goes into lake merced anymore. on the san francisco side, we have cut off the san francisco drainage. and we wonder why the lake levels go down. even my 17-year-old can figure that out. one of the things we are working with is a project represented in large part by the blue line. it would take water from the watershed and run it through a treatment wetland area, and then through a structure of some kind, to be designed.

it would discharge amounts of that into lake merced. really extreme flows would go through the ocean, but it would be moving water through the lake, and that we you have a better chance of maintaining the like levels, as opposed to hoping for the best. we will be working with daly ity to look at alternatives of how to move water there. with technical report been done in their eir, we will look at how to execute the technical work. you all, as part of the approval process for their project, will establish what we think is the proper level for lake merced, and how their project can be operated to

maintain the level we desire as san francisco. that process will move forward and come to fruition over the next couple of years. in conclusion, we are looking forward to agreement on the mou, so we can move forward on a number of things. we are definitely continuing to pursue water level management and botha's improvements. we totally intend to build on the basic watershed report, and increase puc oversight and management of the like. in closing, there are staff here from the recreation and park department that are available to comment, if you so choose. the recreation and park department is scheduled to consider the mou during the month of december. they have a committee structure. they will take it up during the first committee meeting, at the recreation and park commission meeting. i am available to answer any questions.

>> i have a couple of questions. i guess i will start backwards. on the vista grande project, is there a projected cost for that? >> i cannot bring it to mind of the top of my head. -- off the top of my head. potentially $180 million. it is a big project. they have significant flooding issues to deal with in daly city. >> would that be a cost-sharing arrangement? >> so far, no one has approached us about sharing costs. i would fully expect an approach for cost sharing, but we have not gotten to that process. daly city just went through the alternatives analysis report and identified this project as the preferred alternative. one of their other alternatives

would be building a bigger tunnel out to the ocean to move more water out, which as we all look that it did not make sense. we should make use of that water first in the like. >> if it is $180 million, has there been discussion of how that would get paid for? >> daly city would pay for a portion of it. at the time the analysis started, there was hope for some sort of funding from the state or federal governments. there may still be hope for that. i fully anticipate that we will be asked to contribute to that project. we have not had any substantive discussion about that. >> i did see in the early resolution from 1915 -- 1950 that 27 feet was the optimal level for the lake. is that correct? >> that