replaced by a brand new replacement units, bringing the entire site up to 8900 residential units at build out. in addition the plan proposes a mixed use community with retail, office, a community center, and a redesign of all the open space, increasing the amount of public spaces to about 68 acres. this is an overview of the land use plan. i will move quickly because i realize we have limited time. essentially we see the creation of a mixed use transit-oriented for. that is what the dark colors are toward the middle. -- essentially we see the creation of a mixed use transit- oriented core. it allows immediate access to

neighborhood services like cafes and dry cleaners. it also allows for positive benefits to mode share. the transit-oriented neighborhood core is walkable for pretty much everyone on the project site and will provide many resources that are not available now. the slide will show you how density is added over the site. there is a mix of buildings from one or brought stories all the way up to 13 stories. i will quickly move to the slides. i will be happy to come back and answer specific questions if he would like, commissioners. -- if you would like, commissioners. this is a pretty ambitious plan, with the provision of the athletic fields, public squares, transit plazas, and a

special storm water retention ponds in the middle of the circle. here is a demonstration. there are six neighborhoods in the commons. this orange area is part of the storm water system, which i will explain all of a layer. that is an open space that links to the entire project. this project is at 1 batista circle. other key aspects of the site include access from the southwest florida -- from the southwest corner. there are, as in denton, athletic fields -- as i mentioned, athletic fields. there is a new transit plaza

outside the ocean view. there are community gardens. finally, these are all the public spaces, all of the private projects must be supplied on the site as well. the it side is modeled on the better streets model. -- the site is modeled on the better streets model. they will be meeting the new planning department specs. in addition to on site improvement, the project sponsor has proposed improvements in pedestrian safety surrounding the project site. these purple areas show improved points of access to allow greater permeability between that community and surrounding communities. following the signature improvement, the proposed new realignment. this is muni in its current

configuration. many and know station holloway, which as i understand it, is the most heavily-used muni station on the line and the site of injuries due to conflicts. this project would move that station in to the site, add two new stations to the l track for significance public benefit. there are a host of transit improvements that are probably too extensive to go into in great detail. they all support the transit- oriented goal of the project in general. now more focused on sfpuc -- a development agreement incorporates my referenced and sustainability plan. the sustainability plan incorporates all the resource

requirements of the development and sets ambitious goals which the project sponsor has filled out. the development agreement works in coordination with the sustainability and development plan to make sure that sfpuc can monitor progress on those goals. specifically, those goals are -- i will move quickly through this -- a substantial reduction in per-capita energy and carbon output. this is achieved through exceeding standards it through substantial investment in alternative or non-carbon based renewals -- renewal bulls, and conservation measures -- renewables and conservation measures as the project is built

up. there will be a 56% energy usage decrease at the project site. there are equally ambitious goals. the project proposes to reduce per-capita water use by 60% per household at build out, reduce waste water generation by 60%, and improve the local watershed. the project proposes incremental removal of the waste water -- excuse me, storm water -- from the current store system from of storm water management system that combines wells, bonds -- wells, ponds, and if as all goes as planned, we can add this watershed to the lake merced --

excuse me, this offer to lake -- aquifer to lake perced. the sfpuc has discretion to guide the process. at no point in the project exceed or bitter round -- at no point in the project can it exceed or get around the city. and think that is the most important taken for the commission. -- i think that is the most important take home for the commission. i think there is only a marginal increase in potable water. this is because of substantial increase in recycle water. -- recycled water.

there are ambitious goals to keep whitewater -- which water production at an absolute minimum. this -- waste water production at an absolute minimum. all of these ambitious goals -- and i appreciate your patience. and moving quickly through a lot of information. i think it is important that the commission understand. then i am open for questions. the development agreement has four levels of approval. the first level is a resolution authorizing the consent for the executive director to execute the basic agreement. as the slide indicates, there are three layers of approval after this. probably the most important for sfpuc purposes is the development of the approval.

the developer must develop of phase application during which they outlined their storm water requirements, their energy requirements, all the benefits in their plans, and the sfpuc or any agency with that authority is assigned to review that to make sure it is in compliance. this allows for subsequent review and monitoring at every development phase. if a target cannot be made, whether it is energy or potable water, there is an opportunity at each development phase to correct the course and exercise is discretionary authority to make sure the obligations of the developer are fulfilled. as i mentioned repeatedly, there are no public funds for this project, said the agreement

allows for substantial flexibility -- so the agreement allows for substantial flexibility. this involves individual design review projects and the city retains full permitting authority and retains its rights to review any public improvement and to accept public improvement only when its standards have not been satisfied. the sfpuc staff will be reviewing a variety of improvements, including the potable water distribution system, waste water collection, a new storm water treatment system, street lights, and an auxiliary water system. all of these are executed by the sfpuc. included in the agreements is the addition of the sustainable

energy agreement. that is our goal of generating approximately 20 million kilowatt hours per year of either renewable energy or some combination thereof, or requires developers to achieve capacity. this is a review and monitoring role for the phase application. and allows the developer a variety of means to achieve those goals -- it allows to develop for a variety of means to achieve those goals. for example, a large cogen facility. a thing it is a model of flexibility -- i think it is a model of flexibility. finally, we included a public power provision that requires a feasibility study conducted soon after the development agreement.

at this point, when the study is complete, the parties can meet to discuss the provision of public power to the site, if it meets the goals of the agency in the developer. that is a very brief overview. again, i appreciate your patience. president vietor: thank you very much. i for one think it is a very exciting project. i think these developments are the way of the future and we need to be doing everything we can to discuss a project. it looks like you're trying to hit all the high points with this development. i have a couple of questions. maybe i will open it first to my fellow commissioners, see if there are comments or questions. commissioner torres: how long have you been working on this project? >> dry years. commissioner torres: -- two

years. commissioner torres: it shows. [laughter] good job. i just want to ask about the astonishing 2% increase in waste water with these units. how is that going to occur? >> in the plan, it sets ambitious -- and actually currently goals of that exceed the existing title 24 standards for everything from energy consumption to water conservation. the site is extraordinarily inefficient today. the reason is such an amazing picture come up when you look at it, it is because the waste at the site is extraordinary. if you give me one second, i can give you an estimate, for

example. a lot is achieved by retrofitting out of date systems. for example, today, the average unit at parkmerced systems 189 gallons per unit per day. the average home in san francisco averages 144 gallons. we can substantially reduced water consumption, even if another unit was not built on the site. so, i think it is primarily a combination of eliminating or reducing existing waste water practices, outdated infrastructure -- you are creating a credit by which you can then add. i think that is the primary reason they're able to set these ambitious goals.

commissioner torres: thank you. president vietor: commissioner caen? ommissioner caen: what is the timeline? >> that is a great question. this is a unique project. is entirely private. -- it is entirely private. what we have not said is the developer will decide when they will commence construction. that will depend on financing and the market. once they commence, the whole set of requirements, all the public benefits i mentioned are required commensurate with the development that occurs. so, this is more of a performance-based development. that is, the amenities are provided commensurate with the private development that occurs. we do not dictate the timing of that development.

but certain obligations are created and the developer is required to make commercially reasonable efforts to improve the site. is driven by the market, but the framework is for -- it is driven by the market, but the framework is for public improvements. after 30 years, nothing has occurred, and if the board of supervisors does not amend the agreement, all the obligations expire. it is our estimation it will occur over approximately 20 years. president vietor: i have a question. i like to see a lot of this generation. i think this is the way of the future. i want to commend you on that. i saw that you did some calculations on savings. i believe the ghg, energy

consumption and production -- are both of those related to the transportation peace -- piece, or is this gained by the new housing units? >> are you referring to the purple boxes? president vietor: yes. is this one on the left related to transportation? >> the one on the left is related to energy consumption and transportation. i am glad that you mentioned and pointed out the chart that i rushed through. i am trying to respect your time. there's a long story behind all of this. i think the point is to show the commission in general -- we accept -- we expect a good mode share on this project. in using transportation speak. -- i am using transportation

speak. there is a detailed public benefits project. i breezed through this. id includes a shuttle with connections -- it includes a shuttle with connections to all the shopping. bike share, car share, huds. what that's graph shows -- what that graph shows is a large majority of the transmission -- of the emissions are due to transportation. so, that chart shows that the simple pop up allowing this growth to occur here, as opposed to on the edge of the bay area or a low density suburb, has significant carbon savings due to transportation. the analysis you see on the following page is a combined

analysis that shows savings due to energy conservation and also changed behavior for residents. president vietor: so, i know we as a municipality are looking to comply with the state legislature. have you been able to create a quantifier as to what this may contribute to that effort as a whole? >> i was talking to my colleague from the planning department. president vietor: i know that is a hard question. >> i can tell you the graph i provided is a crew estimation of what we are saving in terms of ghg and php. josh, do you have anything you want to add? >> no, i do not think there is anything specific to that community strategy our city has

to undergo as far as sp22, sp 25. president vietor: i think it would be a great story to tell if, moving on, we would be able to say what the projections are. we will be able to contribute our fair share. so, what percentage of the units are going to be affordable housing? >> i will reiterate this because there was a significant public controversy. there are approximately 300 existing rental units on the site. at the full build out, all those rent-control units will remain. i wanted to make sure that the commission was aware of that. all existing tenants will be provided an opportunity to

relocate at the developer of's expense to the brand new units. -- at the developer of's expense to the brand new units -- developer's expense to be granted units. the development agreement requires that one-third of those be provided as bmr units onsite. at a minimum, 270 units will be provided on site. these are affordable units that do not exist today. those will be targeted specifically at qualifying households. the remainder, the remaining 10% of the obligation, the developer may provide onsite. we estimate the developer, as an alternative, could pay $220

million to the mayor's office to create an affordable housing trust fund. that money can be leveraged with state and federal money, and that to under $20 million, by the way, -- that $220 million, by the way, is what the obligation is valued at today. it will increase over time. president vietor: how much are they? >> there is a substantial high turnover rates. there are a good percentage of long-term tenants as well. i think in some cases the rents are very low. i want to emphasize, we've gone to great lengths to put an agreement in place that protects those, particularly the long- term tenants and make sure no one is displaced at any point

during the construction and the long-term tenants who are benefiting from rent-controlled can move into new units. president vietor: last question. all this us to do with climate change and the proximity to the ocean beach and all the 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 they do have wildlife in parkmerced.