do. that is why we wanted to go through a menu of options, so if you look at the southeast, you are going to work with the community and talk about what was promised, talk about what we can do. the great thing is that we are not only looking at it. we are looking at it for the entire organization, so the whole plan is we want to look at it does all whole department, and we want to go to different communities to help build a capacity so they can participate. it is a bigger picture. we want to integrate its to everything we do, how all we

operate, where we operate in, and to be a good neighbor to everybody. >> we will retool the strategy. one thing we have begun talking about is also making sure the project team is integrated into the community and has office space in the community. as they are building new plants, we will provide opportunities for intern's and other people to participate, because there is such an investment in this program at the southeast plant. it is nearly $3 billion worth of

work. it is an awful lot of work. >> as far as being able to come up with an accurate dollar amount, because it is not as safe. -- not as shaped. >> it is not as shape, but when you think of each of the projects, is what portion of that do we tried to link into the other city programs, and i think it is a question of the jobs. good >> almost everything you could say would have some sort of an adjacent community benefits, and that is problematic. just because it is in the community manges community benefit. do they actually benefit?

there are a bunch of things folks would say our priorities the other related to being able to think about -- that are related to being able to think about it. >> we are not talking about having a separate cost center. we were planning on including it in the budget for each of the projects. we could say, this project had these impacts. it could have these benefits. you only have 50 million. that was part of the issue. do you separate the costs? >> there are resources

available within each project area that could then be used that would come out of the community benefits program. >> we did choose to do business a little different. >> some things are going to cost, and some things are little more transparent. >> we even have a conversation about if you have it set aside for arts, should you have it set aside for benefits? should you have a goal for how much money gets set aside for things? some things are to be able to do it later on.

>> for each project there will be a lot of public scrutiny, so i would look at everything based on what the community wants. we have to earn their trust to find out what they would want. >> the level of service -- as karen said, i think the issue is the specificities and projects we are not approving today, so we could get back with a more robust language on those portions. >> you get a check mark.

i am going to the right place. >> i just want to make sure you are tracking this. >> we have five checks? >> 5 checks. >> i am starting to lose it. we are almost done, which is really good. for the future, this system will be ready to meet all the challenges better going to face us. >> that is a small shack.

>> we will be refining the schedule and continuing to bring that back. i will talk with you about some of buckner steps we are taking. i am hoping we could maybe even do it soon. >> item 13 is the item. >> we will have public comment part of that. >> we are hoping to get authorization or direction to be able to proceed with implementation activities. we are in the process of putting together requests for proposals

for program manager and channel tunnel consultant, and those will be coming to the commission in the next few months, so the next step will be coming back to you as you move forward. the future commission activities will be to get out the door, to discuss the framework. you may notice i am shy a couple people today. everyone is becoming mothers. my staff just had babies a few days ago, so we are going to hold down the fort until they get back in january, but my watershed team is operating a little thin. at the end of the year, we have our community benefits policy,

and hopefully by the winter will be region we will be approving consultants. -- hopefully by the winter we will be approving consultants. >> why is it taking so long to approve consultants? it is almost a year and a half. >> we have to get through what we are going to do very good we want to just move. -- we have to get through what we are doing. we have to just move. they are ready. i think there is a lot of interested in a long channel, and we have a lot of development to do on the project. i think we are here now. >> winter 2011 is january, not dec.. it is the winter of 2010-2011.

>> i think of christmas. i meant january. i also want to be merciful and not have it all right at christmas very good -- right at christmas. before i stopped, i want to thank the game that helped me -- gang that helped me. bedstand i do not know how many hours looking at slides, -- ed spendtny hours looking at slides. thank you. i will sit down now. >> are there any questions? we have a special order of item 13 in our book. before i call this item, i will ask for public comments.

>> i would ask any speakers to line up. >> i came after you started. i would like to thank staff for all the health they have done. i really appreciate all the work they have done and the fact they had a special meeting last thursday. i would like to ask you not to approve these today. i have 30 minutes to review these, and i appreciate that we need to move these forward. i think you should say current or potential.

i think that would change your plans. when you're talking about controlling storm water flows, for years we have been talking about reducing for storm water discharge. i would like to understand what happened to that. i see in the powerpoint they talked about putting it in. if we are talking about a 30- year plan, it is short term, particularly along the north

shore. we are actually going to have to be pumping storm water. that is something that is not listed. it provides benefits to impacted communities. you have adopted an environmental justice policy. could we actually use the word environmental justice? i think it might be a nice idea. i have not heard they are going to reduce the number of trucks moving back and forth carrying chemicals. get are we still going to have trucks coming over into the south seas plant? also, there is no level of services for environmental benefits. i did not have one of the top of

my head that i can go back to. those are all things that i would like to comment on, and the idea of planning by power plant is under way, but i would really like to have this in writing. >> next speaker please. >> first i really want to commend the staff for their great work they have done. it has been really heartening to see how this progress. just to piggyback, everything we

have seen so far has been essentially getting marginally better every time. hopefully we can take care of these. some things that are important are clear policy directives on a variety of different things. number one has been troubling a number of people. it is in the implementation strategy. you need to be responsible for the water that goes into the system. you need to establish to make

sure that they are asking you for money and that you actually have a sound basis to find a specific project. other protocols i think you need to implement is something for a hierarchy. i think the best way to think about it is to move from demand to supply. the first thing we need to be looking at is retrofiting existing infrastructure, and at the very end looking at infrastructures so you have a hierarchy of how decisions are made. a couple of other points on

impacted communities -- you also have to think about habitats. also environmental qualities and inhabitants. finally, karen did a pretty good job of presenting this, but we are already faced with two different cost numbers you're a good it is best to do your utmost to see these things up. -- to speed these things up. we are paying with escalated

incomes. it is how you present the numbers. it has a real possibility of coming out of context and scaring people syria otherwise, i think there -- scaring people. otherwise, i think there has been a lot of good here. >> next plays. >> -- next please. >> i am really courageous -- encouraged by everything i have seen. i am going to encourage you to adopt a resolution today. i think the amount of development and the quantitative nature of services is worth adopting today,

understanding of lot of uncertainty you are concerned about is really going to be affected by the management. i think we will actually achieve it by implementing the watershed framework, and we've will be achieved by it the analysis. -- it will be achieved by analysis. all these things going for our -- forward are part of what they can cover, so i would really encourage you to adopt the resolution. it is time to start fixing some of the problems. i want to echo what was said about coordination. it has long been said that

working together with other projects is important for the sources some plan. i think it would be stronger language than incorporating it, and i would like to say we published a report. what should be the objectives for the waste water plans to years ago? -- two years ago. the current draft satisfies all those objectives. i think all the implementation and details going forward is how we will really manage the challenges. we will continue monitoring implementation of these approve this through the watershed approach, so i encourage you to

move the system forward. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. good afternoon, commissioners. with all due respect, i am going to confer with the first speakers and ask you to delay your resolution to take up a number of things that have come before you today when during public comment as well. i do not think after all the great work that has gone into this to us for this is too much to ask. i have a couple other things. first, we look forward to the development of a watershed for a more rigid the frame works include a framework to develop

it and amending and other plans as needed. wheat think it is one of the fundamental elements required to make this a success. they should look at all elements before considering any new elements. they should not wait until the completion of this plan. they should define the program and how it allows them to make investments that contain the system. they should ensure the funding is appropriately invested in green infrastructure. there is plenty of great language in the report, but what are the comparative commitment and in festive elements. -- investing elements.

the other question is how does the plan reduce floating into the ocean? how does the plan and address environmental justice concerns? please identify the distinct benefits that will proactively a sign of higher level of service, that do not just minimize harm but act as a catalyst. the commission should adopt a policy that projects will be funded on the overall system.

of course the puc is going to be the one to bear the costs down the road. we encourage the improvements of the watershed approach, and finally and to review to be fundamentally engaged with the waste water management system to insure they will base its of the arts facilities -- they will be state of the art facilities. you will be the ones left to maintain. >> any other public comments? go ahead. >> what are the implications if

we waited? other than you would be frustrated and feel unappreciated? when we have a better document if we waited two weeks? >> can we amend its? >> almost all the comments were not addressing this side of the page. a goovirtually all the commentse on this side. that will not get addressed until we moved down the line, so if i actually heard more about a level of service discussion, i would have been much more willing to say, let's go ahead and continue this for a while. i think my suggestion would be

if there is an amendment that needs to be made, we can make that at any time. there was at least one comment about adding environmental service. virtually every other comment -- if somebody has a better way of saying to be a good neighbor, i would love it, but every other, and was the other side of the page, which is part of the frustration of how we do it where we are adopting levels of service and not the larger plan. the intensity discussion we had earlier, that does get back to level of service. everything else is on the other side of the page or further on. >> i agree with the gentleman. it was all implementation.

there will be plenty of opportunities to engage in putting more rigor around it. >> we are going to be developing an awful water should frame work theory dead -- developing of full watershed framework. we are going to need to do the same for each of these. alex has brought of the issue of having clear guidelines for the other departments. it is all implementation issues. if there are wording changes, i did not hear in a period -- i did not hear them. we can refine the strategies of how we get there a.

>> it took me awhile to figure out a lot of the things i cared about were the implementation strategy, and they are, so that makes some sense. i did not see anything that reflects fundamentally on the overall goals. we do not have the resolution. >> you had an amendment. >> when we adjourned, we called the item. it is the second workshop. >> item 13, i called for your, inferior -- call for your comments.

first of all, i am pretty comfortable with what is your -- here. what i would suggest is we add a further resolved, that staff adapt to increased intensity and propose amendments as appropriate. the way we phrase the level of service as inches, all the others are very general, and then we work of the details in the implementation strategy the reagan -- implementation strategy. >> as long as we do not go to a five-year storm