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. >> commissioners? i was wrong. >> i wanted to add treasure

island. it is not a classic redevelopment project area. about last summer, i cannot remember now, it was going on that be development path under the office of the treasure island development authority. because of this uncertainty last summer, they were determined to go into the past and use infrastructure financing districts, port of san francisco and recount held. it relies on tax increments. subject to the terms of the agreement you have in place. wanted to address that. >> thank you. >> so there are not projects that are not going to be moving forward that affect us? >> we have hunters point, mission bay.

what else was mentioned? >> phase one will be harder to move forward. >> correct. the gap for infrastructure and development of affordable housing is quite large. tax increments were going to fill that gap. in bill requires state legislation, and creativity, newmarket tax credits, to put together a program. but other than that, in terms of your jurisdiction and interest, things move forward as expected. unless it is a state, but the risk, as phase two, transkei, in the mission bay, gosh golly, we do not agree with those contracts. we do not think that that -- that is a narrow, a small risk. we are taking appropriate steps quickly, through the process described, working closely and directly with the governor's

office to make sure that there are lots that with everything we are doing. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> if you could call the consent calendar, please? public comment on the general managers' report? now, if you could call the consent calendar. >> item 8, consent calendar. all matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the sentences the public utilities commission, and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or the public so requests, in which event the matter will be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item. item a, spauthorize the general

manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to apply to the united states bureau of reclamation watersmart grant program for funding of up to $100,000 for the sf regional filter loading study, to be matched by sfpuc funding and in- kind contributions of $100,000. the total cost of the proposed study is $200,000 and it would be conducted over a duration of fifteen months, to be completed in august of 2013. b, approve the selection of edelstein, gilbert, robson, and smith for legislative affairs funded agreement no. cs-231, state legislative representation and advocacy services, to provide state legislative representation and advocacy services to the san francisco public utilities commission and authorize the general manager of the sfpuc to negotiate and execute a professional services agreement with edelstein, gilbert, robson, and smith for an amount not-to-exceed $1,000,000 and with a duration of five years. c, approve amendment no. 1 to wastewater enterprise operations budget funded agreement no. cs- 989, biofuel technical assistance services, with biofuel recycling cooperative, to continue providing technical support to the sfpuc biofuel program established to collect and transfer waste cooking oil for conversion to biodiesel for use in the city fleet and authorize the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute this amendment increasing the agreement by $300,000, for a total not-to-exceed agreement amount of $600,000, and with a time extension of two years and four months for a total agreement duration of 5 years and eight months. d, approve the plans and specifications, and award wastewater enterprise, capital improvement program-funded contract no. ww-540, spot sewer repair contract, to repair

existing sewer piping, on an as- needed basis, at locations to be determined throughout san francisco, for a total contract amount not to exceed $3,737,440 to the lowest, qualified, responsible, and responsive bidder, j. flores construction. >> thank you. commissioners, i have a disclosure i need to make. i have a continuing business relationship with feldstein, gilbert, robison, and smith. they are retained by a client of mine. i have no direct relationship with them or financial interest in the firm. i have consulted with the city attorney that it does not constitute a conflict of interest, but it does constitute a disclosure requirement. i wanted everyone to be clear about that. that said, commissioners, are there any items that you would like separated from the consent calendar? >> item b. >> we will separate that. on the remainder, do i have a

motion? >> so moved. >> any public comment? all of those in favor? >> aye. >> ok, the consent calendar carries, with the exception of b. commissioner? >> what was the process by which this logging firm, as opposed to any other, was selected. >> ms. allison is here in she ran that process. >> i am the assistant general manager. i believe that the question was -- what was the process to select this firm for the contract. so, we did our traditional process, which is we issued a request for proposal on the scope of work that we were looking for in the new lobbying contract at the state level. we publicized it in sacramento through the newspaper circuits

up there and threw the networks that we had there. we received three proposals. we had an outside panel that was completed with senior staff from the airport. and then we had our director of budget and internal affairs. we had the deputy assistant internal general manager on the panel. they received training with regards to the contract in department and what we were looking for in a successful applicant. they did the interview proposals and scored and zero steam as the highest score in that process. -- battle steine -- delstein e -- edelstein as the highest

score in the process. >> [inaudible] >> it was the same firm. yes? >> they may have been before that. we have a process of not just letting it ride. we do go out, but i believe they have some representatives for possibly 15 years, but they tended to be five-year contracts. in some cases we have done three years with one-year extensions or just five years. >> the other two firms were? >> the california strategy, i think that there score is in comparison and should be in your packet as well. >> the third? >> i believe, and i will look to ivey, who was with us in contrast -- checking under 8.

>> 8b. >> [inaudible] >> if there was lbe, i would be fine. i believe that there was a requirement on this proposal. they may have not -- and may not have met the lbe requirements. i might say that it was 10%, but i would have to double check that. >> they were not considered responsive? >> if you do not meet the -- meet the hrc requirement. >> had didedelsteid edelstein mt requirement? >> they propose to work with the consultants for that.

their proposals are to work with them at 3.5%. >> can you see any language on that? >> [unintelligible] >> i have a question on that item as well. there are other utility checks that use in-house lobbying services. was there a decision -- how did the decision, about to contract out, rather than provide this as in-house? >> >> we had conversations within the leadership of the puc. historically, we have used lobbyists in sacramento and they have done that quite well. they have discreet, concrete work plans that they go off of. there was not a lot of interest in stepping up. you will remember that this past

year, we hired a director of the budget of legislative affairs to town in how we are using our work locally. that was seen as a priority more so than hiring an additional position. >> it has always been a five- year contract? fa>> the last ones were five years. did you know for how long? >> the last contract, and i have been here for the state and federal legislative lobbyist, it was two one year terms. >> at the same amount? >> yes. >> three year, plus two one- year's. >> yes. >> that sounds similar to what we do at the citywide contract in sacramento, right? >> one