to me to the level of service, it would be increased collection capacity, the daylighting, the undrawn -- the underground systems. and we need to get some more experience under our belt. we're looking at focused watershed planning efforts and coming back to the commission in the fall to be able to say this is a watershed we would like to be able to start with and really looking at the watershed, et what creeks are there, the to be terry danish -- the tributary dane drink -- drainage. it has to be put through a triple bottom line analysis so we get a long-term kerf -- kerf -- curve.

we want to make sure that captured water can be reused, and strategically, will be focusing on. that are susceptible to flooding, that i showed you in an earlier slide. i reviewed them earlier. we would be dealing with new technology. we have to develop guidance for

the rest of the city. to be an effective part of the system, we have a lot still to learn, and a channel tunnel would be one that we would be looking to start right away, and that is a major asset, and we are looking at what we can do on the surface to manage storm water and will begin to below the service to know the we have reliability. >> ongoing maintenance for a

better street. >> dpw in general is responsible for street maintenance. it is a cross departmental kind of effort. it sounds like an issue. >> it sounds like an issue. they have not been fully defined. >> performance has to be monitored. when there is a replacement of any infrastructure below it, the right pavement has to be put in.

caring for it. it is complex. it is a new area of business for us. >> we really need to figure out what elements are sustainable. and with normal human behavior, what might not be sustainable over time. >> we would like to be able to press forward the with this goal and this level of service. commissioner moran: i am not

comfortable with this. this all makes sense to me over time. i do have some concern about a level, given that we believe the severity of storms is going to increase overtime. tell me if i am wrong. the cost curve does not apply to every element of a program. what i mean by that is in the case you're putting a pipe in the ground, in an incremental

cost on that may not be huge. you are trying to upgrade and optimize the size, i am wondering if that is the sensible thing to do. if we have opportunities to build more capacity, and the incremental cost is not there, then why would we not do that? especially if it is a hedge, having to tear up the streets and to the wholesome and over again. -- and to the polls and over again. >> we will be limited -- and do the whole thing over again. >> we will be limited.

we will have to upsize the plant. we will probably be replacing things. and that is why you see this escalation it would mean that we are collecting and spending a lot more water to the treatment plants beyond their capacity. we are trying to manage the water this is why you see that deep slope on that curve.

commissioner moran: this seems unreasonable. >> this is such a big one. a lot of defects are known. there is cause and effect with everything. -- a lot note -- of effects are known. we have to manage them in a different way. right now, that is what happens. they are holding these above- ground in challenging the residents and causing problems.

commissioner moran: how can we best protect ourselves? how do we protect ourselves against that? >> what we're trying to do to be

able to avoid that is, and this is difficult. we're trying to look at each of the basins and their characteristics, what infrastructure is there, what are the challenges. what is the problem now. is it a collection system proof is in a creek that is causing a problem? what is the nature of the problem, and then we are looking to identify solutions, and say, this neighborhood is going to be further challenged if we of climate change and look at different levels of intensity, but our plan to manage this is

looking at a more intense basis and look at all of the tools in our toolbox, gray, green, everything. one solution. commissioner: we have had this discussion, so why is a 1.3, and what if we did 1.5 q or there, and the response that i was getting is that the whole system is designed for 1.3. going in and putting in small portions of your upgrading to a, a different size storm does not do any good because the rest is not accommodating. in some cases, it would probably cause trouble because there was a larger capacity and i think it

may be in some ways, not to get somebody crazy, but building a new bicycle lane on the bay bridge. it russia off on treasure island, and you cannot get here. it may be a good idea long term note, but until then, -- is inappropriate to start sending money? i think that is part of the trade-off. commissioner moran: if you're planning for uncertainty, maybe you would plan for that.

>> it is designed for 1.3. commission moran: if you design it for 1.3, and then you have a year of 1.5 or 1.6, we do >> it would be a lot to do that.

commissioner moran: it is not the whole system we are talking about. >> 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 incentivpr