>> it did not do you any good, and you may have done some harm.

commissioner moran: this is how i changed my question. if we knew what it was going to be, if this was the same situation, then we would have a fixed objective, and it seems reasonable but only minimally so, and an optimizing it would make a great deal of sense. i am less comfortable with that. rather than me tell and you what the answer is, what would you suggest to the commission is a way of dealing with up risk that seems likely, and i do not expect an answer of the top of your head. >> we may see it -- seek an

exception. this is such a difficult one. this would evaluate what it would do. there are those quick peaks. the model shows a storm hitting

the entire city evenly. there is a problem down in the yosemite area. this will be able to address the challenges this will share the burden by pushing the water out.

this approach we are talking about today it's a storm water management. that is a lot different. having a real time information there will be other capital programs in the future. this is where we want it to be, currently. commission crowley: i think that

is an issue we need to continue to follow. and there are other conditions elements as we go and check things off. this is still done without what we want to do with rates. and how do we address the question that was put to us?

and are there measures that do make sense that do not cause trouble? >> thank you. >> oh that is a combination of actions we need to do >> can we pick and go to item number nine? providing benefits to communities. if we can go to 9, karen? >> i thought you're going to item 9. thank you. >> we were confused about going to item nine on the agenda. >> so, commissioner mioran,

transitioning to climate change. now we are on the level of service on the chart. there are two levels of service. up to 55 inches by 2100.

this is making sure that anything we build its new will be there. this is a slightly different strategy. this is for a disc -- additional infrastructure, and maybe it should release a climate change. here korea flood control and improvements. we may have to be raising the electrical panels. we're going to be much more challenged for a higher level

and we would have to redesign facilities to deal with that. the areas that this would touch and this would prevent salt water from entering into the system. we might be changing how our diffusers are set up. all of our issues are going to have to be considered for climate change.

the projects related to climate change, 5.4 to another level, raising the equipment. and this would still be operable in six years. this is assuming that we're going with the latest sea level rise.

this would be the fourth item. this will really affect the infrastructure and how we consider it to be to address the challenges all of the things that we were just looking at. haute commissioner moran: i am fine with this, but on the issue of climate change, you are really dealing with sea level. >> so the question would be

whether or not we should include intensity here. we have to figure out of the level of service is. >> we might just propose, commissioner, to add an expected sea level rise with an intensity variation. commissioner moran: i am less willing to do this on the fly. i am fine with this one.

commissioner: feel less uncertain about this. commissioner moran: i am fine with these. commissioner: will you know to that? >> now, we are on the bottom one. so we have level of service for

the city's biosolids and we are not specifying this and we want to keep an open mind about this. we want to use 100% of our biosolids, like we do now. in the next level of service is to meet the non possible water

demand. -- arfnon-potable water demand. there are the low impact design projects. and i talked a little bit before about the investment. we were looking at $5 million per year for downspouts and incentive programs. and there are other different sources of non potable water.

the last one, actually, the second to last one is using methane generated. and there may be of a more cost- effective methods, and will be analyzing that. we want to get started rather quickly. certainly, installing solar where we can. we will get more methane production. we are looking at producing on- site towers for a waste water

enterprise needs. solar, co-digetion, and to stabilize life cycle costs, and we would start to use -- have triple bottom line review for all of the projects. that would include everything on the list to take a vision of the facilities, the technology, and be able to achieve this in the future.

we want to minimize our risks. and this is not to love a big site impact. all of them fall into the category as being projects, because across the board, we see these trying to reuse biosolids, capture stormwater. we're trying to incorporate what we're talking about locally, so we build the biosolids facility, and we will be looking to make sure we are not using potable water. all of them will be evaluated

based on the bottom line. commissioner crowley: ok, we are looking for a check on that one. colleagues? got aj >> the next one is actually the one -- >> maybe while we are wasting to discuss the item, given the earlier discussion about storm water and rainfall intensity, it might make sense to look get the resolution we are going to be asking you to adopt a the end of all this and see if you would like to amend that. the resolve talks about you endorse the level of service

with the caveat, and i asked the city attorney to work on that. there may be two possibilities. one is how they manage the effects in the future. we could also put something in provided implementation reflects uncertainties regarding future storm intensity or some words to that affect, so we can give you a chance to mull over that period -- over that. it might make sense to think about that. >> why don't we take public

comment? maybe you can continue going back to that one point. let's go back to the item on public benefit. >> we are heading back to the beginning of section 8, and i have extra pages. >> thank you. this is a community benefit the provides benefits to impacted communities, and that is the one area of a check.

the first level of service was within the treatment facility. strategy is to contain process orders carrier -- orders. that would include a facility of course. this implements visual improvements, including low impact designs, which would be improving the work of neighborhoods by putting in screening, and one thing we have discussed when they were here

giving the testimony -- this is just an example of how we could look get the facility. it looks like a beautiful architectural gem in the neighborhood. we would be utilizing the existing city programs. all those kinds of things we would have to work with the secured spend those programs. -- with the city on those

programs. we have hired a consultant. september 14, and then we would have an opportunity to adopt a policy statement for the end of 2010. several of the projects relate to community benefits, but all of them would relate to job opportunities and improvements to the community, bringing all this into the community and doing work. when i poll of all the community benefits -- pull up all the community benefits, you could argue they would have a

positive effect. i do not know if there will be some discussion. if we would be looking on a check at this for the endorsement of the goal and the level of service. >> i appreciate your coming back. this section seems least developed to me, so even under the implementation strategy a, that could have gone under the first level of structure under

that category verses to good neighbor category. i just felt it is broader than educational opportunities. if we are looking at a disproportionate impact in the southeast neighborhood with regards to sewage, how do we think about five? -- that.

the other thing i was curious about is a mitigation. we should go into this thinking about what our goals are, understanding better what we promised before that it could potentially still be a priority , and my last comment was getting a sense of knowing what is going to come out of the report superior -- of the report be rated -- of the report.

it provides more support for the places we implement. those are some thoughts. >> i have not given any try this on for size. implementation is limited. it needs to say something like providing, including jobs. i think there is a variety of things.

it brings those together, and we can work on the exact language. >> i am the assistant general manager. one thing we were trying to do is engage a consultant to look at what they have been during periods -- have been doing. we have been going through the process of looking at what was done and other