it includes customer projections under various conditions. it addresses the urban water management requirements which are set in state law as to how all of our urban agencies, how they will meet their demands in the future to show them everyone is taking seriously the responsibilities. lastly, to incorporate elements from the water conservation act of 2009. this plan is available for public review and comment through may 27th and we expect to present it for your approval on june 14th. some of the changes between the last urban one schmidt plan than in 2005 and this one was the adoption of the -- program so we

have incorporated this into the plan a various water supply assumption. also it includes updated wholesale and retail demands. it does speak to the water conservation bill of 2009. this is an overall reduction in water use in urban entities by 2020 and how we comply with that i was be to in the slides. first, with the various supply elements, this was the decision by the commission. this is a hundred 84 gallons on the wholesale side and maybe one on the retail side.

this plan was crafted with that constraint built into it. it does provide information to other demands that might be out there. also the level of service goal is no greater than 20%. it also identifies that there will be a re-evaluation of the demands, purchase request, and supply options. the commission has set a deadline at the end of 2018 to revisit that limitation off of the watersheds. there is no other policy decision out there, we extended that supply limitation to 2035. that is 184 allocated to the wholesale customers

collectively. this includes the demand of san jose and santa clara. this assumes that they would stay at a temporary and intractable basis. this allocates $81 million per day to the retail system. what this shows are the unrestricted purchase restrictions. if we did not impose the supply limitations and what you see here is the demand is down currently so the customers to not exceed 184 based on their projections until sometime after 2020, somewhere between 2020 and 2025.

this does increase the demand projections to 198 million gallons per day. this gives us an indication of about $14 million -- for 2 million gallons per day. that will help to form the basis for the decision in the future. it shows a fairly flat picture for san francisco. there has been many employment projections. conservation was the last commission meeting, at least as an informational item. we went through and analyze many new conservation measures and identified which are cost effective for san francisco. this has a total that is --

these happen as a matter of course through the plumbing code and a change in appliances and things of that nature. they are having more conservation overall. you can see them ranging from 77 up to about 80. this is a fairly narrow band due to aggressive conservation. the next slide shows how we fit into the water conservation bill of 2009. there is the dark line which is a change in gross per-capita use overtime in san francisco. this is literally all of the water that crosses the county line in san francisco.

current water use is at 85.6 gallons per day. everyone would have to take a share of that. that is below 100 gallons per capita per day. the last average is at 92.2 per day. this is under the way you calculate compliance with the water conservation act. that does not mean we will not do additional conservation but san francisco is really out there in terms of party complying with low water use. 85.6 gallons, sometimes you hear other numbers turn around like 51 gallons per capita which is residential water use in the san francisco. the gross number is calculating

all of the water used in san franciscoslashthe number of residents. you will hear the key numbers. -- dues to san francisco -- used in san francisco divided by the number of residents. first, we are in the process of working to secure additional supplies to meet the shortfall due to the flow requirements that are required for the calaveras dam project. we were reporting progress on this back in march and this is where we are losing about 7.4 million per day. the second project is santa clara and san jose. they don't have to have a

supply guarantee. that is something that they are very anxious to achieve. we need to have water that can make that guarantee. resolving the additional needs beyond 2018 which i talked about previously. there is a policy decision that is coming and this will be coming towards us and 2018, deciding will san francisco provide more water to the customers. we need to incorporate the results of sb375 and demand projections. this looks at concentrating housing in and around transportation hubs. look for substantial increases in san francisco and other areas as opposed to suburban

sprawl out in the central valley. if those actually came to be a reality, that could really change the picture of water demand in the san francisco bay area. resolving the potential shortfalls with the state and regulatory actions. we are participating on real licensing. there is a process under way for establishing new standards for the san joaquin river. there are other activities that offset having this regulatory action. all of these provide great uncertainty and also great potential risk for san francisco that we will need to address in the future.

based on current demands, we are looking at no greater than 20% systemwide reduction. that changes once you get past that time when customer demand will exceed 184 mgd. this is in compliance with the water conservation act of 2009. officthe legal requirement are t we have it submitted after july 1st to the state of california. i am happy to answer any questions. >> this is a public hearing as required by the law and i suggest that we go to public testimony at this time.

do we have any speakers. >> good afternoon, commissioners. it is neat to see that the projected plan is down. we are making really good progress. a couple of concerns are related to taking more water from the -- river.

one of the solutions for a meeting that losses through the -- river. we're hoping that we are able to find other sources. the water storage and recovery project is looking at using surface water to recharge the ground bass and and we would much rather see something like recycle water or storm water. this was referred to in an earlier item. this is something that we would like to see as a steady. do we have to go with a reverse osmosis or is there a way to use lesser treated water for irrigation.

my sense is that rec and parks did that, and we may have to go to them. this becomes much more financially viable base and also could be addressed. our organization, we do not have many concerns about the golden gate park area, but there are many groups that do, and it has taken longer to find an alternative, but on the whole, i think the plan looks good. >> good afternoon. my name is joan. girardo, we hope to get some comments in by friday, but we have some

concerns based on the demand, and it seems to be changing almost monthly. table three says we're going to have over 900,000 people. that is 79,000 people more than we say now. and yet, in this scenario, if it comes true, they are projecting an increase of over 90,000 households during that time period. at 2.4 persons per household, according to the documentation of the average citywide, we agree to have an increase of over 200,000 people so those projections are out of whack, and if we are using 50 gallons per person per day, we would have to have another 10 million gallons per day to service that repopulation. will that happen? i do not know.

the planning department and politicians and planning committee are aggressively promoting population growth in the city, so these are the projections. that is one problem that we see. another one is that the demand projections are not talking about full buildout. they always say the number of units in a development and not the number of bedrooms. there is a big difference here for the number of people that can be put into this housing. we also have a concern about the ground water program because it appears that a consultant in the peninsula since the state field for the whole offer is about 10,000 acres the current year, and i believe the peninsula -- that the offer -- aquifer is about 7,000 acres, and we would

not be able to draw the 4 million acres per day which the projection is for. they might not come on line in time. i am concerned about the period of time between 2015 and 2020 as far as enough water supply is concerned, and i think another consideration is the aggressive conservation. 66% of the city lives in bolten family dwellings where there is no meter. they are unmetered, so there is no motive. i think those numbers projected are high. those are our concerns. president vietor: thank ycommis?

i have had one conversation with steve, and i will have more before this comes back. one of my objections for this document is to the extent that recounted this time, we give meaningful definition to the challenge we face in making the decisions of 2018, and i think we are part way there. i do not think we are all of the way there yet. some of that depends on the urban water management plans for our whole fill customers' -- are wholesale customers. but i think this is clearly the time that we need to be clarified that challenge, and i think we have a good start on the information to do that. interestingly, the next and this comes up to be around 2015, and by that time, we should be able to describe what the devil we are doing for the 2018

challenge, so i think the timing is actually fortuitous, that this is a good kick off to preparing this commission to making the decisions, and 2015 will be a good time for the culmination of that. any other comments? seeing none, i will call the public hearing closed. secretary housh: the next item is regular business. item 11, to authorize the public utilities commission to have a memorandum of agreement with the municipal utility district, contra costa, santa clara valley water district, an alameda county flood control and water conservation district, an amount not to exceed $200,000 to conduct site specific analysis to further work on the project. the analysis will provide information necessary to proceed

with crested design, permitting, an environmental review. >> steve ritchie agsain. -- agaion -- again. we have narrowed down the sights for contra costa as a potential in take site where this plant could be built and could result in water that could be through a variety of mechanisms be shared by more than one agency. the contra costa water district would basically be intake. the utility district's system is the one that would then be the most key to actually allowing water into their system, whereby

they could potentially use the water, or they could wheel that water to other areas. we could potentially share water lily of the water district, as well, so there are a lot of different options for moving water around, and there is also the possibility to use delta water, for those who use delta water. we reported previously there was a pilot project conducted at that site in 2009 to give us information on the physical characteristics of the plant that might be necessary, so what we are looking at here are four things to be determined. one is hydraulic modeling of a system to see how it would actually work, and the slide shows the dark land across the talked -- top, which is the

aqueduct. they would share water into the other systems, ultimately getting to how much it would cost. the water for other parties would be one of the key points. the second with the hydrological modeling of the delta and surrounded the environment to make sure the intake in the location we're talking about would not have any significant adverse environmental impact. the third evaluation is the carbon footprint, a concern to all of us, and since desalinization is a high energy user, what are the implications there for this project, and then four, starting to have a public outreach plan. my anticipation would be in about 18 months when this study is complete, that the the time when san francisco and the other party would really have to

decide if they see a project here that they really want to pursue as a project. i joke a little bit with the other parties that it has been easy to study because about half of the money comes from the state of california, but we are getting past that we now, where people have to put in real money for a real project that they want. we were interested in 9 million per day for study purposes. we would be looking at a specific number for this project if we choose to pursue it based on information available, so the item before you today is to sign a memorandum of agreement with the other parties in the amount of $200,000 for a series of studies, at which point we will be in a position to decide if we want to invest in this truly of the project or not. president vietor: thank you. commissioners? any questions?

commissioner: i have a quick question. are we referring to the grant money or some other fund could >> the grant money has already been used. this would be money i believe from retail and wholesale customers. i have got a different answers on that about whether it is coming out of retail or joint, but it basically comes out of an index , so that is cash that they are contrary to two. commissioner: the grant money is planning, in this is for surveying -- and this is for surveying? president vietor: public comment? >> art jenson. a couple of points. steve and i talk about this project frequently, and we have

a running question as to who is paying for this, and i think in general, it would be good for many of these projects that have a regional flavor to them, like your own water supply projects, but if the items made it clear who is benefiting in who is paying. in our understanding, this is a joint project, a two-thirds contribution last year made for this, to launder thousand dollars for this year korea eyharts -- this year. we always want to be clear on what is the project. what is the project and what is the project for the sfpuc. these do not necessarily conflict a think they are worth noting. the mention the 9 million gallons per day, and in the staff memo on the second page,

in the first box, last paragraph, it talks about approximately 20 year round for joke -- 407, think it was, for some group of people. at any rate, it is talking about a year around supply. there are a number of things that might go to, one which might be for the work in calaveras and crystal springs. it could be used in different ways, but in the past, this project has always been presented as described in the second whereas of the resolution, which is to meet the customer's needs of the various parties, during pothole. keepers of emergencies, so there is a big difference in terms of benefit as to whether this is an ongoing supply or whether in this supply during the time the shortfall or emergency. it is possible that it is to

make up for yield that is now going into the streams, that it is a little bit of both, but we would like to be very clear on what the money is buying. the last comment i would make, and this is something i suspect will come out of the details of the study as things get for the refined that refers to a water district as being able to receive water that goes through the system, and that may be a five-day. i can imagine situations where it would not. where they are using capacity of your system during a drought, where your regional customers and your wholesale customers would like to use that capacity during a drought, so those are things we will be looking at so there is no conflict and so we are sure that the benefits are going to be there, and i am sure steve is looking to make sure your customers are protected, as well. president vietor: 80.

a question for mr. richie -- thank you. >> period of supply shortfall or emergencies. a supply shortfall is a very broad phrase, to meet future demands, or it could be a time of drought. for study purposes, for the supply shortfall, we are looking at the water can be used to make up the flow requirements that we are using right now, or it could be used for future water supplies for our wholesale customers, as well. those are both on the table for this. president vietor: so there is nothing that goes toward the dry your supply only? if it turns out that that is

something we need every year? >> well, actually, the study of the block some overtime. everyone was interested in dry year supply, and no one was interested in multiyear supply, so you would have a plan that might operate out of 10 years only one, and that could be done, and since that time, we have had changes in our needs, and we're looking towards 2018 and beyond, and we said let's look at every year water for us. this is so that you would at least, the way the study is currently configured, you would have a plan that operates full- time, and there would be what would be for those only one to dry your water.

president vietor: i am wondering if we should modify the language for future supply and take up the supply shortfall emergencies? >> i do not see any difficulty with that. i am looking at staff to see if there is anything from the partners that would make that -- president vietor: i guess one question is whether it matters. if we decided we wanted to use them for more than that, it would be under ceqa.