new bill in the house that is a shorter term than the five-year measure that is currently proposed, for there might be amendments to the current proposal -- or there might be amendments to the current proposal. the house is out of session for the rest of the week. they returned on march 19 to begin debates again, whether they will proceed with the revised five-year bill or change it to two-years. as i'm sure you are aware, one of the key problems with the five-year proposal is the funding source to maintain the funding levels as currently proposed. in summary, both those are at work in progress and likely to be further amended, either on the floor or in conference. the president has released a budget for fiscal year 2012- 2013, and it does increase funding levels from the current

year. the proposal is that these expenditures would be funded with what is called a peace dividend from the end of the war. these savings would be invested in transportation and also in deficit reduction. the president's bill establishes money for high-speed rail and inner city passenger rail -- commissioner chiu: can you explain the peace dividend is? it and you have the exact amount? >> i do not have the exact amount. i know about 60% is proposed for transportation, and the% is for deficit reduction. that is what i have heard at this point. the president's budget also includes a proposal to fund central subway at $150 million and also van ness vrt.

if there are not any questions, i will turn this over. >> thank you. there are four or five bills i want to draw your attention to, but before i do that, there are two quick updates. ab 57, which deals with the mtc membership was amended last week. it does now include the requirement that the member be a resident of san francisco subject to approval by the mayor. commissioner weiner: i will just say, it also -- it previously put a cap of 3 members per county, which would have allowed alameda county to have four members for the next three years, and we strip that out of the bill as well.

commissioner chiu: i am happy to talk further about that if that is something will want to do. >> the other measure is the long expected caltrain sales tax. they have not identified to outside folks would vehicle they would tend to and put the language into, but they are on track to get it done later this month. commissioner weiner: on that matter, i think it is really important that we very carefully monitor -- this is a bill that would allow the sales tax -- that we monitor that to make

sure that it provides maximum flexibility in terms of the amount, what it can be used for, and the length of time. i have spoken with caltrain about this. it is important to make sure this does not just become a vehicle with them to shore part of it, but that it becomes an opportunity for us to gather more needed funding for electrification of caltrain and the downtown extension. i hope that staff will remain deeply engaged in making sure it stays on the right track and does not bear off to becoming an operational item for caltrain only, although that is a key part of it. >> in the sand, and we will be monitoring closely. in your back, the matrix begins on page 59. the first measure i want to bring to your attention is ab

1455. that would be another attempt by an author who introduced a bill last year that went nowhere. basically, it says we cannot sell any more bonds. the bonds you sold are the amount that is available. we were recommending opposition to that. i expect this measure not to really go very far. ab 2173, which is on page 9 of the matrix, would modify the current capacity to place a 10 cents a gallon gas tax measure on the ballot to fund transportation programs. essentially, under the current law, they have to do it regionwide. this allows them to do it on a county by county basis, depending on how they want to structure that. we are recommending the support position at this time. aca 23 is an interesting

measure. one more attempt to reduce the voter threshold for local transportation taxes. the current version of the bill, however, is limited to only -- related to funding local projects. in other words, a lot of local sales tax programs provide funding for state projects and other purposes. this right now is signaling the intent of the author to limit it to localize projects. for now, we recommend a support position. sb 1339 is down on page 16 of the matrix. senator yee had introduced a measure last year regarding commuter but it fits. we supported that effort. -- commuter benefits. we supported that effort. it was handed over to another member, and at that point, the bill passed but was vetoed by

the governor. the senator has decided to take the effort up again, and i think he is going to be working hard throughout the process to see if we can get a signature that will recommend support consistent with past practice on the bill. in addition, there is one measure i just want to highlight. it came and went in early february and has been pretty significant -- has some pretty significant implications. again, this measure was introduced the first week of february and was logged by the end of that week. it was part of the department of finance program to generate additional barraultab -- borrowables, which would designate additional funds that can be utilized by the investment board for one-day or two-day cash flows to keep the accounts hole in sacramento.

the transportation community generally supported this because it did not constitute statutory borrowing. in other words, it did not delete funding from the transportation program. it just allows it to be tapped on a day-to-day basis. in addition, a long time issue that had been spearheaded by local transportation agencies and cities and counties throughout the state was to overturn the practice in the state budget to withhold tax revenues when there is a late budget for the transportation program. this has caused numbers of projects to be slowed down, held up until a budget was reconciled. the department of finance did agree to put language into that. it is no longer the case. there is a late budget this year. highway user tax account revenues will now flow to cities and counties into the state highway account. just to highlight an interesting

bill with a very short history. with that, i conclude my presentation. commissioner weiner: thank you. colleagues, questions or comments? seeing none, is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion? we can take that without objection. that will be the order. thank you very much. we have addressed item 10. we will go to item 11. >> introduction of new items. this is an information item. commissioner weiner: any introductions? any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. is there any general public comment? seeing none, general public comment is closed. next item? >> item 13, adjournment. commissioner weiner: we are adjourned. thank you very much.

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