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 i

so we need the sfpuc to at least get back in the game to the extent it just sends a letter saying we are opposed to this so that the folks in sacramento are not misunderstanding the situation. thank you. supervisor campos: any other member of the public who would like to speak on item number three? seeing none, public comment is closed. on that note, i am wondering what the p.u.c.'s position is on that bill? >> sure. mike campbell once again. the position on the bill, we have been very active on this bill, as have our c.c.a. alleys there in sacramento. as you all know, the sfpuc has a strong lobbying presence in sacramento, particularly as one of the water agencies. when we speak, they do listen. the long i was describing before, it was very, very broad, and we were aposed. i let the legislators know that as it was drafted, it was a disastrous bill. that language has been change, and as i noted, it doesn't affect us anymore. our current position is neutral, and does not mean support. the legislators know that. we are watching it very closely, and should the language get modified to a

it is one of the other reasons why the sfpuc came to the conclusion that in marketing, we may as well go out and market the program infinitely different from the products pg&e is providing to you. supervisor mirkarimi: i agree. i think with all of the concern and discussion about nuclear power that if we can reliably segregate an option that would not be nuclear-driven, i think that would appeal to a lot of people in san francisco. >> i do, too. supervisor campos: did you want to add something kristin >> i want to echo that on the marketing angle. -- did you want to add something? >> i want to echo that on the marketing angle with nuclear- free. it seems like the energy money and accessing that would be key to looking at the financing, the low income question, the rate payer structure, and all of that. i wonder if there's a sense of timing on that and where that is. >> i am going to ask miss hale if she would like to speak to that. it is an integral part of the program. it is not something we are presenting today. today, we wanted to give you where we're going on the renewable energy

that would go on to our security folks, but ultimately to sfpuc. -- sfpd. supervisor cohen: now i have a series of prepared questions. many of the questions i have the i will be asking have come from folks to have -- who have emailed me because they were unable to attend the hearing today. around the time, it was generally reported this new light rail service would cut the travel time between visitation valley and the south midmarket area by five to 10 minutes. have we achieved that time savings of 10 minutes? >> i just want to understand the

greening of public parcels, and, two, when sfpuc efforts toward watershed-based planning include recommendations for green infrastructure improvements, all land-owning city agencies should collaborate on implementation of their findings and grants distributed by city department of the environment should include requirements that the grantee spend granted money locally whenever possible. so we really look forward to the continued work with the city as we move together into a new era of integrated and eek logically-based urban and climate planning. so thank you. the greater green advisory panel includes myself and anna alvarez, the chair of the san francisco department of recreation and parks, karen kidwell at the san francisco parks, casey allen at s.f.

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

we have many projects in that area, san mateo, linked with the sfpuc. and we will like to know how exactly we can address those projects. a lot of the projects suggest that puc, even though sfpuc is the lead agency and is headquartered in san francisco, when it comes to the projects in san mateo, we really do not have any guidelines now. we need to know from this deliberation what transpired. so it is good that it came to this meeting for the public at home and many of us who are involved with real work force, because we put people to work. we need to know the deliberations. thank you very much. supervisor cohen: i have a quick question for you. mr. da costa. i am curious, when you say what transpired, are you looking for a copy of the meeting? >> no, there is the head of the department, and he is saying that he met some people with san something. whatever they mutually agreed to represents the city. i am a constituent of the city and county of san francisco, but also, i am the director of environmental justice advocacy, and i am involved with work forc

then i could check with mike, and we could see if that works with the sfpuc, and if in fact we could bring a template to you. i understand your normal procedure, and the full contract is what you want to see. not an outline or a schematic. supervisor campos: that's right. >> we have a lot of lawyers involved right now, and as you know the contract with all the boiler plate and all that, it's a time-consuming process. so i am not sure we will be able to meet early to mid july, but we will set it as a target date. your recess -- anyway, i know that our ultimate schedule because of the rate situation is now to implement by june of 2012. so even if we came back in september, we would be -- supervisor campos: i think it is important to have this in july. supervisor mirkarimi: if we can, we should. >> ok. supervisor mirkarimi: or we just absolutely cement the date , knowing very well that if we don't get something to the end of july, if we have a joint commission hearing, that's great. knowing that this is then forwarded to the full board and assigned a committee as early in september as p

we need to rethink this, and i think it is very premature for the sfpuc to join in with a desalination program like this, and as i believe that commissioner tom t -- commissioner torres one discuss this before we move forward with this, and he is even in favor of desalinization, so i really feel we need to have that conversation before you move forward to moving to wonder thousand dollars in desal. thank you. president vietor: thank you. any other public comment? commissioner: i the question for mr. brooks. it is unfortunate that commissioner torres is not with us today. at the part where that we are investigating water supply options that helped more reliably serve customer needs during. the short fall or during emergencies and skipping to the relevant provision, the party's proposed to continue investigations and analysis in the development of the joint desalinization project. this was not in any way contemplated prior to this meeting? because i am seeing action, i am seeing a commitment to continue investigating and analyzing. is this still going too far from where you thought commi

the sfpuc is used to doing things. we build and maintain dams, treatment plants, transmission lines, water and sewer mains. at the same time, our staff has always been in rented headquarters. we thought it was time to own that, too. this is the time and place, 525 golden gate. this is a milestone in the project for building. in about 30 years, we will have paid off the building, and then it will be free to our ratepayers. it makes sense for them and also makes sense for green purposes. this will be one of the most sustainable buildings anywhere around. it is going to generate power and also used 55% less power than and regular building. ed will send off more non- potable water for more uses in the area. it will be a wonderful thing to live around and be involved in. we are celebrating this topping off. we have done some research. topping off ceremonies started back in roman times. people would have a ceremony when they finished building the roof of a house. as they finished, it was traditional to put an evergreen tree

given where things are and having worked at the sfpuc for a number of years, they are taking final briefs. i would expect a decision from them in the next several months. a month or two after that, the commission may act. it is a big issue for cca and direct access. it is one that the cpuc a wrestle with for a while and the way making a decision on because of the political realities. supervisor campos: is there any member of the public that would like to speak on item five? public comment is closed. item six? >> legislative update on community choice every nation issues. supervisor campos: it is a related item. mr. campbell? >> a cut ahead and did items five and six together. supervisor campos: supervisor mirkacommissioner mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: i am wondering if the exit of one may give us an opportunity to send a message to pg&e that we sit down and talk question if they are headquartered here in san francisco. we have gone through a number of disagreements and battles like proposition 16. based on the information we received through their shareholders' meetings and the board

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 mo

in that would be invaluable information that would go on to our security folks, but ultimately to sfpuc. -- sfpd. supervisor cohen: now i have a series of prepared questions. many of the questions i have the i will be asking have come from folks to have -- who have emailed me because they were unable to attend the hearing today. around the time, it was generally reported this new light rail service would cut the travel time between visitation valley and the south midmarket area by five to 10 minutes. have we achieved that time savings of 10 minutes? >> i just want to understand the question? >supervisor cohen: sure. >> my apologies. i wear hearing aids. supervisor cohen: i apologize. i did not turn up my volume. do you hear me ok? i can speak louder. when the t-line, the proponents of the t-line were pitching the idea, they said it would increase the efficiency by 10 minutes, meaning it would take, if you are arriving at visitation valley down to the south of market area, that would decrease the right time by 10 minutes. i want to know whether or not he met that goal. >> i guess i would