construction around ocean beach and the issues they have had already. erosion. is this something that has been considered as far as future development? >> i am not an expert on sea level rise. i know our ceqa staff at the planning department took a careful look get all comment related issues, and i believe came to the conclusion in the ceqa documents that there is no sea level rise issues. parkmerced is a little higher up from sea level than you might expect. i do not have the elevation here. it was never raised as an issue during the review process. president vietor: i think it is a great project. it has sustainable alamance. things that address a lot of the

puc issues. commissioners, any questions or comments? >> commissioners, we did have three modifications to the agenda item. this has to do with the protection of our century as pipeline no. 3 which runs through the development site -- san andreas pipeline number three. the public can obtain a copy from the table. 1 is to modify the proposed relocation of the pipeline as part of the project. been there is the change that follows the staff report -- then there is to change that follows the staff report, that makes it clear the relocation will take place using the plans and the relocation, and we are very

comfortable with the language at this point in time. i wanted to make sure you understand there is one change, one modification. president vietor: before we take public comment, is there a motion to adopt the amended resolution? >> so moved. >> second. president vietor: do we have public comment on this item? >> public comment on the amendment. president vietor: sorry, on the amended item. so, if there is no comment on the and then men, all those in favor? opposed? -- if there is no comment on the amendment, all those in favor? opposed? public comment on the amendment in motion. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. i run the san francisco housing action commission. i cannot recall if i have spoken before you before. we are developing more solutions for housing affordability solutions. we attract this project for years. we'll look that it, have enforcement -- we have looked at it, have endorsement guidelines. it has abundantly met our endorsement guidelines. in represents the largest -- it represents the largest investment in housing affordability in the upper west side. it is the most increase in amenities since the street cars went in. we love the idea. the water used -- if i understand correctly -- something like the city's per-

capita usage. a lot of that is hetch hetchy water. we maintain this is not sustainable. the energy -- this project was built when fossil fuels for residential units were cheap, maybe limitless. and alas, that is no longer true. we have to do things differently. we love the energy features of this, how it reduces energy consumption and the development itself by 60%, not counting the opportunities that will come in the years ahead. we think this project exemplifies what we mean when we say pull, forward looking -- thoughtful, forward-looking. i strongly supported. support it. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. in 18-year resident of parkmerced. i totally support this wonderful project. we know san francisco needs housing, and high-density urban housing development is really the most sustainable. "mother jones" magazine mentioned parkmerced as an example of this type of development. there are many elements that address issues of water conservation and renewable energy. i am looking forward to living in the unit where i can live sustainably without making sure my heat is turned off. i'm looking forward to that, but i would like to give this as something near and dear to my heart, -- i would like to emphasize something near and dear to my heart, and that is

lake merced. i have been in a vault on every lake merced plan since the mid- 1980's. i understand the problem with dumping potable water. i was happy to see it be project, and that water will go into the west side basin, as well as directly into lake merced. however, it also provides habitat. they do have wildlife in parkmerced. the bird count took place at christmas time there. the storm water project proposed landscaping -- it will really connect lake merced to

parkmerced, and i find that really wonderful and i plan to live there forever. >> thank you. >> hello, commissioners. my name is barneys' larsen -- arnie larsen. i have lived in parkmerced for 15 years now. i can give you the perspective of someone who moved into a neighborhood that had a few shops way off at one end of the neighborhood, and most of them were empty, and that necessitated leaving the neighborhood for other neighborhoods to do almost any of the business of daily living. one of the things i thought about then was who can support neighborhood businesses? and then i could stay here and do my business here and just

walk to a lot of the places i need to go on a daily basis. when this idea was presented, i could not believe it. it was amazing. it was so right on the mark with what i had in mind with what i wanted to happen in my neighborhood. i appreciate that you understand my neighborhood a little bit more, to. the rent control that he mentioned -- it is very important that will stay in place at parkmerced. 60% reduction in potable water -- and there is no recycled water used their now at all. re--- -- there is no recycled water used they're now at all. -- used there now at all.

it will follow the natural watercourse down through the land, and the water will go where it wants to go. i think that the green and lovely. the alternative energy sources they have in mind -- the solar panels, also wind in this plan. they are not the color type windmills. that are the spiral type. they have screens. they will be waiting a few years before they get to that. may be the technology will be a little better. maybe the price will come down in real dollars. and so will the state of the art material that goes in there. i like this plan because it looks to the future and it plans for eds. and there is no way i can think of to come up with a better plan to put this much housing in san francisco in such a family friendly way. thank you.

president vietor:. >> good afternoon, commissioners -- president vietor:. >> good afternoon, commissioners. as is my wanted, in going to rain on the parade -- as is my wont, i am going to rain on the parade. someone has to. most environmentalists are strongly opposed to this project. i will not bore you with the details on that, but one of them is the rent control thing is not assured. that is one reason for their opposition. specifically for your task as a commission and an agency, one of the main reasons we oppose what does apply here is the

greenhouse gas assumptions. first, you will see if you look closely at the materials, there will be no leveling off of greenhouse gas emissions until 2012. we are reaching climate crisis tipping point now that need to be aggressively addressed in the next 10 years. the reason the project is so problematic, the main reason is that it destroys 1538 garden apartments and rebuilt. when you do that, that is a major carbon emissions problem. it takes so long to get to a good carbon future, and most environmental groups do not believe it ever will, because this project has 121 parking. -- one-to-one parking. that much automobile traffic, once we hit the five-year stage, it will actually level of.

what you can do from where you sit is a couple of things. you can be much more aggressive in adopting real energy technologies so they are billed out more aggressively and extensively -- built out more aggressively and extensively. there are projects in the bayview. there are projects all over the city. now all these developers are trying to put these in all over the city and that kind of defeats the purpose. co-generation stamps grades, but it is still burning fuel -- sounds great, but it is still burning fuel. one thing we never criticizes the water plant, because it is obviously a spectacular water

plan, and that kind of stuff should be encouraged and it is exactly what should be done, rather than desalination. [laughter] president vietor: commissioner torres. commissioner torres: as a former chairman of the california democratic party, i never thought i would be agreeing with the green party representatives. [unintelligible] it has been my experience -- most people do not realize that i have been living in san francisco since 1968. most san franciscans want to use a car. this city has incredible public transportation system. did you take that into account? >> even though san franciscans use their cars last, there is still -- when you do one-to-one

parking on a project like this, it has a major impact. in a dream world, you can say is going to go well, but usually it does not. also, some of the major transit improvements are not yet guaranteed in this project. the extension to daley city. that is why we were looking at this. what you can do to help change that, regardless of how much parking they put in, is to encourage the developers to put a lot more car share spaces in. even if they do do the one-to- one parking, that might help mitigate the problems. commissioner torres: thank you. president vietor: and i would be comfortable doing that,

encouraging the developers to put more car shares and be more aggressive with renewable energy and to bring it on-line as quickly as possible. we've been talking about this as a commission. you know, and the public power provision, especially the community source advocation and what we can do in that local development, unless there is any opposition to it, that would encourage the developers to move forward as aggressively as possible with that. thank you for those comments. other comments or questions? hearing none, all those in favor? aye. opposed? motion carries. i want to live in parkmerced. commissioner torres: and live there forever. [laughter] >> madam president, commissioners -- item 12,

discussion and possible action to authorize the general manager of sfpuc to execute a memorandum of agreement with east bay municipal utility district, contra costa water district, santa clara valley water district, and alameda county flood control and water conservation district to further study the feasibility of the bay area regional desalination project. the analysis will provide information about hydraulic modeling comet impacts on water quality, marine life, carbon footprint, and public out reach. >> mr. ritchie. >> let me say out front -- we are not proposing the desalination project. we are seeking to determine

whether it makes sense to pursue by any two or more agencies. and some of them have been examined on the technical aspects of desalination, some of them on how do we work together, which is part of the challenge of the project. we are looking to compare this for all our water supply issues for the future. this memorandum will allow us to participate in additional work, which includes the termination of future conditions and the ability to move water through it, including variability based on their projected maps. they are geographically in the spot where the water would have to come into their system to make it work. second, modeling the project impacts on marine life, specifically taking water and from a spot in contra costa county. third, evaluation of the car and

footprints, and opportunities for -- evaluation of the carbon footprint, an opportunity aged big and opportunities for mitigation of that. if we go forward with the project, we need to do this in a transparent white. the conclusion of this -- we need to do this in a transparent way. the conclusion of this is we need to determine if the project is worth pursuing forward. as a final note, our four partner agencies already have a proposed memorandum of agreement as well, but i would recommend you to approve it and we do participate in this study. i am available to answer questions. president vietor: our the parameters of the study determined. -- how are the parameters of the study determined? >> back in 2003, we tried to

determine who was interested in salted water, that was the first step. the second step was what technology it was available to do it? was it possible to do it? could you connect water systems for some regional benefit? a number of those issues were worked through over time, and in 2009, there was a pilot project at contra costa water district to run a very small plant and find out what worked and what did not. that was the last major work up. that was completed in 2010. the agencies have been talking about institutional arrangements and trying to identify those issues that need to be resolved to move forward. the obvious one is the impact on

the day in terms of the intake and discharge of brine concentrate, particularly in a project like this, near its suit or a decent a waste water treatment program -- near two or adjacent a waste water treatment program. understanding if there are potential adverse effects would be important to study here. working with the regulatory agencies in determining the conditions, one of the big questions is the delta at effect, and that is obviously a very -- the delta effect, and that is obviously a very stressful place. president vietor: we all received, i believe, a letter from some community groups with their concerns. it struck me -- i was just

wondering if there had been any doubt reached to the groups to find out if these moneys -- to under thousand dollars, i think we're talking about -- $200,000, i think we're talking about. some of these bigger issues their concerns are around might be addressed in this study? >> they are all included within the list we are proposing as part of this, and included with it, going out and meeting with stakeholders, not just for the city and county of san francisco. in santa clara water district, that service area, the contra costa service area. this has the potential to affect a lot of people. ultimately, this may have contra costa, east bay as separate

partners. that is a possible configuration. another is east bay, contra costa, and san francisco. there are lots of different ways this could work. trying to gather information and making sure we have shared that with everybody we can, we get into a position where we can make these decisions. commissioner torres: why contra costa? why contra costa? >> in terms of intakes, there are a number of considerations. we got it down to three possible sites. one was contra costa county. it has the lowest level of salinity, so it had the lowest cost of desalination itself. working within the existing water rights is possible.

it is near the bay bridge. surprise. how do you get water out from there? you have to a large transmission system. you cannot just dribble it around to other people. third, sharing for us, particularly the ocean. that did not work. i explained to folks -- having santa clara take more water from the hetch hetchy water system did not seem like something san francisco would embrace. on the other hand, i think the project does merit further consideration at some point. but that is why contra costa. commissioner torres: proposition 50, the analysis provides

$495,000, correct? >> correct. commissioner torres: so why? >> that was a pilot project. commissioner torres: in contra costa county. so that money is gone? >> yes. commissioner torres: this is not a new issue. these issues were being raised in the late 1980's and early 1990's. why we spend money on a study? i don't we know the variables already in the decision making that has to take place -- don't we know the variables already and the decision making that has to take place? >> for california, it has always been seemingly too expensive compared to other options, but

only since 2000 have people seen at a comparable cost to a way that might be attractive. southern california, they have enacted it now team -- they have enacted it now. santa clara. when you get down to it, a lot of the technology issues have been dealt with, that actually deal with the region-specific issues. in this case, the discharge through the intake and discharge right there is permissible. commissioner torres: given the technology, the utilization is for what in the purpose? >> not drinking water. this would be taken into the east bay mud system, and interconnections would exist. their water with spillover. we would connect through

hayward. if we were partnered, they would deliver more of the regular water, and we would deliver less to hayward and more to our other customers. commissioner torres: is the on- site analysis taking into consideration what would occur with the accumulation of salt and the sale therein? >> the collection of desalt pieces are economically attractive -- the salt pieces are economically attractive -- commissioner torres: what are you going to do with that? >> it would be piped in and discharged into the delta. commissioner torres: so the salt would go back into the delta? >> and be washed out through the system over time. commissioner torres: that sounds

pretty dangerous to me, for the ecosystem. >> it is actually the same concentration. there is a lot of debate. what you take out, you put back in. -- commissioner torres: what you take out, you put back in. >> yes. commissioner torres: recycle, so to speak. do you think this will work? >> i do. commissioner torres: so you are a rate payer here? >> for the east base system. commissioner torres: oh, for east bay.

[laughter] >> and i love it every day. commissioner torres: i have been around long enough, i understand. we have improvements in efficacy and technology and what the results to the ratepayer. i get that. i just wonder if it is worth it? >> i think it is. commissioner torres: we did that with a wave, right? homage to we spend on wave power -- how much do we spend on wave power? >> as we look at alternative water sources, we have to look at them all. we will have had to exhaust conservation, recycling, raw water usage, desalination, all

of those things. they will be thoroughly explored. commissioner torres: and what do you say to the ratepayers to see the tremendous snowpack in the sierras? >> i say that is good for this year, in july 1st, it is the same old mill. we're hoping next year will be a good one. commissioner caen: i think we should contribute to the study. this came up 10 years ago. we were looking into buying water, were we not? so, this idea of reverse osmosis came of the. i do not think we should put our head in the sand. commissioner torres: you mean the salt. [laughter] commissioner caen: i think we've should contin