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 municipalities and what is possible that we can 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