condominium or townhouse. this could be office space and usable space for the waste water enterprise as well as for the community. it is the digesters screened by trees and buildings. another had a top across the digesters and other buildings that could fit in a more industrial or parklike or campus-like structure. one thing i want to highlight that ties into the prior hearings, the community benefits portion, are the suggestions that came up and we started to talk about community benefits in the project. because so much work is going to be done in the southeast community, the was a lot of time and thought and discussion on opportunities for the southeast community. i want to summarize these suggestions. 50% of the hiring from the zip codes.

if the san francisco public utilities commission on behalf of the improvement program has a new project labor agreement, that commitment would have to include local hiring built into it. having necessary resources to support the community so that there is job readiness, internships, and opportunities, barrier removal, and other services that help the puc meet the local hiring requirements. continuation of the existing apprentice ship program and job readiness program. that is included in all the designs. they did the mitigation so that air quality and environmental

impacts would not be an issue from the new bio solids facility. increasing environmental education to the students in the area and considerations of residents in94124 for mitigation because they've been so close to southeast, perhaps they could have solar panels. on june 22, 90% of the task force came to power commission. they were commended for all of their work and given a hand. ed harrington gave them a resolution signed by himself and our members. each of the members got up and gave testimony of about five to seven minutes. it was really neat. the task force will certainly be involved. i see many members of the task force every meeting i go to on the waste water side. certainly on the plants, and expect them to be highly involved.

they did support moving the project forward. this is a critical project. we do not want to end up in an emergency situation where we cannot meet treatment requirements. as we step forward through the sources improvement program, our commission has endorsed levels of service better very specific. we're beginning to draft and prepare for program management and proposals for the facility in the channel tunnel. we need to get the consultants in place and working on designs so that we can initiate an environmental review. with the review, we have to have plans and specifications to be able to move forward. i have one more really important slide. we're also investigating new technologies to enhance energy production and reduce carbon footprint.

we're sending a team to look at similar plants built in the u.k. we have a project engineer with us today as well as someone who is in charge of our asset management. some of the process is out there could reduce the number of digesters needed from six which we would need if we stayed with the traditional treatment. the pre-treatment process could reduce it to four. that would be a wonderful thing. i want to say that your staff who support you have been out to the facility. they are standing there on top of one of the roofs. they were very brave to do that. they spent a good couple of hours with us learning about the plant, taking a tour of it. all the focus and questions were really about the southeast

digester improvement. i think they all got a good idea of how very close the neighbors are. we have everyone look over the wall and the can see people's homes right there. that was really my summary of the project. i know you want to hear from the task force members. i think there are some other people on the docket as well. supervisor maxwell: we do. as you look at treatment plants around the country in the world, they do more than just that. people are excited about them. they educate the public. how're we going to make ours different so that it is a place where people want to come and it is an asset to the community? >> we want to have a plant that is state of the art and is not something that people are afraid of. we wanted to be welcoming and set up to have tours safely. many of the facilities require climbing ladders for dangerous vantage points. even giving a tour is complex. having a facility that welcome

jim people in -- that welcomes young people in to work with us, we want to do the right thing and expand our apprenticeship program. i know tommy has some thoughts on that. supervisor maxwell: how will you facilitate the process customer is that written up? -- how we have facilitate the process? is that enough? >> we are including community benefits in the entire program. supervisor maxwell: by a understand, but what you described is not necessarily in the community benefit. it is a benefit to the entire city if it is a beautiful place that people can tour. a community benefit to me is when you have some of the other things we're going to talk about today. that is a citywide benefit.

as we start doing this and paying for it, if more people know about it, they will be willing to support it. that is why i am asking about how it is going to be and what you are thinking about. is this something you are thinking? is it going to be on paper so that people will start planning around doing that and designing for it? >> the design criteria is going to be on paper. we're looking at a highly advanced treatment process that has only been used in the u.k. it reduces the footprint. everything is a sealed vessel. it captures the gas to create energy. that is our real dream. that in combination with more energy efficient treatment processes + solar could enable us to produce over 40% of the energy for the plant. supervisor maxwell: i agree with that. nowadays people are looking at

infrastructure not been below the ground but on top of the ground so people can see what is going on. are people going to be able to see it? will they understand? i took a tour of oceanside. for the first time, i understood digesters because i could see it and smell it. it was interesting. that is what i am asking. are people going to do those kinds of things? in other parts of the world, they have brought it to another level. >> 1 process we're moving towards is where we would be engaging with members of the digester task force and other community members. we do intend to have it be above ground and more transparent and have the community participate in the aesthetics and what would ultimately look like. it would make it more of an open facility so it is clear. let the daylight in and not hide

it in a big concrete box like it is now. to get to a modern, a state of the art thing that we're proud of and that the neighborhood can be proud of as well. supervisor maxwell: for those of you who do not have a seat, there is seeking in the chambers. we have to have everyone seated in this room. thank you. supervisor mar>> we're in a fivr process. i think everyone is in agreement that we want this new place to be a destination. it is a new way of conducting business. it is not something we want to hide. it is something that is part of the infrastructure of the city. we want jurortours and welcome l those things at various levels.

last time, i did inform you that 80% of the adults in san francisco do not know what happens when the flush the toilet or take a shower. for too long, they do not know. they need to know. it is something they paid for. it is a responsibility that we have. these facilities will be designed with the public in mind. supervisor maxwell: people may not know, but even in orange county, they have toilet to tap. they are drinking that recycled water. i think it is important that we understand what goes on with the water issue. anyone else? do you guys have any more that you would like to add? why don't we hear from folks on the task force? would you like to come forward? all right.

sam, would you like to start off with the task force and talk a little bit about it since you are so vested? >> good afternoon. i am sam. and work for the public utilities commission. it is an honor to be here in the great city of san francisco. i want to say before we start, "go, giants!" one thing i want to discuss is that the effort we put in place to put the task force together. sometimes we tend to take those things for granted. the board members know i do not take those things lightly. you do know my history. this board was very diverse. in some cases, a lot of people

would think it is a very dangerous board to put together. they are all very strong-willed people about what they do. that is what makes this board so unique. i would like to say that i personally think that the san francisco public utilities commission deserves credit for being willing to be doubled to put these types of individuals together. with that, and like to ask the task force to come up and say a few words. i just wanted to let you know and understand the process. the process is amongst people who are active in the community. they actually had a concern about the digesters in the master plan and the whole history in that.

even though i work for the city and county of san francisco, you knew that i used to be way on the other side dealing with them. you know that personally. the effort they put into this is incredible. i think some other agencies should take a look at how they went about getting the task force members. i think that is really crucial in the process. we heard a lot of different opinions. we also heard the fact that they had to learn how to work with one another to come to a consensus. i think sometimes as we do these things, the hardest thing when you have your own agenda is to drop that and deal with what you understand that the task force members are working with themselves. i think they accomplished that goal. they did not all believe the

same thing, but they did work together. i think that is the unique thing. for me, it has been an honor to be part of this particular task force. supervisor maxwell: ms. jackson? other members, if you like to say something, please line up to keep the process going. >> thank you. ms. jackson from hunters point. in the report just given to you, some of you may not have been around in 1996 when one of those areas collapsed. all of that went into people's businesses and the streets. that is an old plant. we want to make sure that everything will be new and not repaired. we were concerned about the jobs.

on some of the issues being discussed, we did not all agree. i was the one talking about jobs. i was the one talking about mitigation. some people did not want to hear it. i have been in bayview since 1948. i thought i had the right to request certain things of those of us who had lived in the community at all of those years without sewage plant. i was there when they did the expansion. i would like for people to understand that sewage plant affected the entire city and county of san francisco. we were told in 1972 that we would only be receiving 80% of the city's sewage. i got very upset when i learned that we were getting sewage from other counties and it never been discussed. what i want you all to do is not

only this, pass it on. it happened in 1996 when it collapsed and fell in. all the things went down the street into folks businesses. i never will forget one of the owners of a business called me up and tell me to come down. i said i was not coming down there. i said i was not the fixer, but i want to make sure that everything is done so we can get to work on that next year in january. you are not voting on this today? supervisor maxwell: no votes today. >> if i had known that, i would have stayed at home. [laughter] supervisor maxwell: i am glad you did not. >> i am the program manager for a young community developers. i would like to say that it has

been a pleasure to serve on the panel of the waste water digester task force. although we did not always agree, it is good to know we love each other and agree to disagree. i want to speak towards the community benefits package and the young community developers. we look forward to being part of the training and referral process of these opportunities coming down the pipeline. it is not just for the community. it is for all san francisco residents who can take advantage of all these opportunities. we look forward to the scholarships and internships that can come out of this. we hope the community benefits package can represent that and help identify requirements for the entry level to prepare people to get into some of the long term employment instead of just the construction phase, to

prepare them for long term. one thing i found out the was very educational was smelling the air. having the opportunity to tour, listen to the different ideas, and how it is as a whole, was very important for me. the dues and equipment for the construction workers, if there were a package to prepare the community for the union to help them get back into the union, help prepare them for their own backyard instead of bringing people from outside. thank you so much. supervisor maxwell: next speaker, please keep it going.

>> good afternoon. thank you for holding this hearing. i want to talk about a couple of the issues addressed at the digester task force and ask you to step back and look at how this relates to the entire city rather than just the parochial interests of the commission. in terms of the report and the work we did, i 2nd what everyone else said. he was a pleasure to work with everyone on this issue. i was the one person who did not sign off on the report. my reason for not doing that was simple. the way the numbers were presented is something you need to keep in mind. the way the numbers were presented in terms of future cost of projects was an escalated terms. we were looking at a project starting at one point in comparing it to a project that starts four years later. the nature of money these days

is inflation. costs run up. my background as a planner and economist is that when you compare projects that start at different points in time, you need to look at real costs. what we're looking at between the pier 94 alternative and the status quo alternative is a difference of about 20%. where does that 20% play in? it is cleaning up a landfill right next to the bay that has been there since the turn of the last century with sanitary waste and other sorts of things we used to pile in their way back when. that is the principal cost. the other cost is replacing a few pipelines and adding some between the facilities. when we look at the 20%, we're getting toxic cleanup as opposed to the status quo alternative. there is a broader issue that

speaks to the rest of the plant and system. the way this report and process was set up, we were strictly focused on the digesters. that is clearly a necessary thing. what has recently come out and has become apparent is that the liquids and handling side is coming near the end of its useful life. we will have to start thinking about replacing that. that is about a 30-year-old plant. to do this planning and decide where we will spend billions of dollars to replace the infrastructure for the next 50 or 100 years, we should be looking at it from an overall perspective in terms of the entire plan. one thing that is happening is that both the puc and the port of san francisco are sometimes at odds in terms of their own institutional interests. they find it hard to agree. i think it is important for the

decision makers, the legislative body, the board of supervisors, and the mayor to force them to dialogue and work together. when there's all this talk about avoiding. 94 because people have notions about future development, the port could not develop it during the biggest real-estate bubble in the history of mankind we could build just about anything. we've reached the point economically where a lot of things will not be penciled out. we need to look at how we can protect the assets at pier 94, the industrial assets that will be under water in a generation if we do not clean up the existing toxic landfill and reorient the land use of a strategic point towards

something much more positive and beneficial for the community. this is outside the bounds of this particular program, but i think it is really important for you as decision makers to look at this to see where we can centralize the system, start looking at the infrastructure assets in a more strategic fashion so that when we build and invest this money, we do it in a way that sets san francisco up for the future. supervisor maxwell: next speaker, please. what alex has said, i would like for you to speak to that. i thought i heard you mention looking at the rest of the plant. i think is absolutely right. why do this piecemeal? >> i agree with your last statement. i was on the task force as well.

i want to say that this was a great process. we did come to a final agreement. it was consensus. my definition of consensus is that nobody is completely happy. i did warn that there would be a minority report. i am here for part of the minority report. one of the things that was a problem was what alex said. we looked at only digesters. even if it were not the case that both sewage plants have to be rebuilt or have a lot of work, we should be looking of the whole picture. had we been looking of the whole picture, there were some alternatives that we completely scratched early on because the sites were not large enough to house the digesters. if we're going to modernize the process, i am learning -- you

know how it is. you get on these committees and realize you have to become an expert. i am learning that there are a lot of new ways of treating sewage better much more efficient and would require a much smaller footprint. that would give us additional alternatives for where to put the digesters. we scratched one side because it was too small. it cost some money to purchase. i do not think that cost should be the first factor in determining where we will put a sewage plant that should support is for the next 100 years. if we adopt some additional processes, we could probably put the digesters and most of the activity on a much smaller footprint than what we have now,

maybe just on the north side of gerald and phelps. we need to be looking at these other things. i just learned very recently that a much more efficient and quicker process that would be healthier for the community when we're talking about treating the water after it has gone to the digesters would be using something other than chemicals. if we did that, it would be a lot quicker. we would not need as much room. we would truly be moving towards being state of the art. i want to suggest that the digester task force has done its duty for the first up. ste --- step. [tone!] we need to go back and have the

expertise we developed be put to working on how we do the whole system. but also just want to support alex's other suggestion that we do need to look at spreading this around. we do not need to have 80% of the sewage in our neighborhood. supervisor maxwell: next speaker, please. >> my name is francisco da costa. this is a hearing on the source system -- sewer system improvement program. supervisor maxwell: know, it is a hearing on the other. >> let me address that. some years ago the constituents of san francisco past a measure for $2.4 billion.

conveniently, the san francisco public utilities commission decided to address just the waste water -- just to address the clean water and did not address the waste water. i am here to address the issue in general. first and foremost, we need to have an idea about our waste water system. there are about 1,000 miles of waste water pipes. 80% of which are very old, more than 75 years old. we also need to have a sense of what has to be explained by the puc. if that does not happen, we're going to have a backup of

saltwater into the system that compromise everything. you have heard about a task force and the digesters. but really what the city and county has to address is quality of life issues. one of you supervisors mentioned you have been around that area and can go and evaluate that for yourself. another thing we have to keep in mind is the housing element. it talks about developers building 10,500 homes. all that does not happen unless you have something that can propagate this kind of huge construction.