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 continue on. >> 15 years ago, the major water systems and the bay area were not tied together. today they are. we're looking at different ways to tie them together. there is more of a collective look on how the bay area actually derives from all water supplied perspective. this is one option. there are different options, different benefits. we now have east bay mud, santa clara. east bay mud and contra costa are tied together. and part of this is the institutional arrangements. i think this provides us with enough information for this body to sometime in the future make a collective decision on

do you want to do a project like this? commissioner caen: i mean, 10 years from now a lot is going to change and if we do a study now. what i've heard about decell, especially from an energy perspective, is it takes a huge amount of energy right now. from the climate and state mandates we're trying to apply and we might be bringing a project online in the next one to three years that would be a huge energy user and that we might be making an initial investment right now knowing that's the state of the technology is a little worrisome. that's one comment. it also seems like there are a lot of other projects that have been tried and tested out there. would this study collect all

that data as well? what's happening with the salt from some of these other projects? i do see some value in being able to -- even in the letter that was submitted there was reference to a couple of the past studies that the p.u.c. had done. so there might be some value to data collection. 00,000 still seems like a lot. would that be a piece of it? >> we have collected data from other projects and we party in a statewide project trying to make sure 245 there is shared information on deval nation efforts in the state of desalination. the question is how can you

bring down more efficient memory brains to bring down the energy costs. lined up with industries typically that have waste energy that can be collect. that's kind of the state of the business overall. santa barbara built a desal plant in 1967 and eventually they disabed it because they thought that flowing water was more available. things change all around. commissioner torres: we don't have a state budget and we're debating on whether to spent -- spend 200,000 on a desal project. i find it amazing. >> just a custom of comments. there was no question that

desal has its challenges. it's the transactions costs on the plants said to be pretty high, but there are a couple of reasons why, without committing to a desal front i think getting this information is important. first of all on uni costs. we've figured out that nothing is cheap. where 20,000 bucks an acre foot sounded like a lot of money a few years ago. now it's kind of in the middle. so the affordability is getting to a point that it's competitive. second is that the -- i'm really interested in how the intertide works between this and hayward for a couple of reasons. one is the intertides we have

are currently only emergency facilities and this is going to look at what you have to do to make those ordinary operating -- hayward is an interesting customer of ours. it's the only one that has no cap on how much water they get to take from us. so having a splay for the city of hayward i think is important, to fully understand how that might work. there are other ways of getting water into -- and part of that will be valuable no matter where we go. and the other thing is we do have some challenges out there and we don't have a whole lot of solutions. we have being asked to make fish load contributions to a variety of streams.

we are being asked to reduce our dependence on -- and at the same time we're being asked to look at making our interruptable customers permanent. if you have a nonm.g.d. option. it's worth knowing whether that's feasible or not within our circumstances. i think we know that you can take salt out of water. we don't know how that technology works in our -- into our specific circumstances with the transportation and all of that to whether that's a viable option for us or not. i think it's important to have good answers on how that works and i say that being fully aware of the challenges that desal has. but i think it's an important

technology for us to fully understand as applied to our circumstances. >> before we call the vote, i'd like to open it up to public comment. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. eric brooks. san francisco green party. first of all, the most cutting edge environmental organizers, when it comes to desal of oceanestry and bay water, we're not -- ocean, estuary and bay water, not water that's been ruined by earg. but when you're returning water to the ecosystem, you're taking some of the water out