reduce overflows. again allowing flexibility and utilizing the system. compliance with gold number-one. >> i am interested to determine the odor vent stack. so what, it is above our nose. we will smell it anyways, right? >> essentially it goes above your nose, preventing what is objectionable to pedestrians. >> what about people living in the bay view? >> those are still in play. we are talking about today's collection system. i said it at the last workshop. we have talked about the control techniques on the collection side, and this is just one example. >> that is currently the system

within the embarcadero? >> yes, i think. >> you have tested it? >> i have not, but others have. >> i have, and i thought -- big deal. but they did, it made a big difference. >> it disperses? >> it is diluted and you cannot smell it. >> dilution is the solution. [laughter] >> i am sorry. >> given all of this, here is the summary of what we recommend for optional improvements. it is prioritized overtime. the total cost is $838 million. the pump station outfall repairs total about 752. these are essential to the reliability of the system and

are similar in urgency to the base projects that we talked about in the first workshop for treatment. the condition is bad and it needs to be repaired within the first 20 years. the operational odor project falls into the conceptual project category that karen described. we described a place holder wearing these projects would be brought back to that mission. so, we can talk more about the specifics of each project, their cost, and their value. leslie will see a green bar at the bottom for the third decade. this is a place holder for structural improvements and storage boxes. we think that we are ok now, but we will continue to inspect them over the next few years. this is all part of the prioritization process.

as promised, here we are filling in the first row of the scorecard with your recommended projects for reliability and operation. >> a couple of questions. the material that was sent to us, $100 million last, i take it? >> the total was correct on this slide, here. but moving up into that line, it was wrong. >> ok. some of the stuff that we had from the last workshop, before we got to this slide, there were apparent choices. you would have options for triple bottom line. was that the kind of analysis that led to a decision process? this does not have that. why? >> we made will be would call a

presentation of tactical decision. you will see more of that kind of decision making in the next few sessions. these are essential condition projects that we decided to roll into the first part of the presentation. the options that you have are that we have created recommendations for the threshold the spending. the options that have more to change those thresholds. but we would do is go back and prioritize a reaction to that change threshold. if it was lower, we would bring back the projects that would not be included within that threshold and discuss the consequences of what that means. >> commissioners, recall that the last time we did that grouping, it was like the base repairs. that did not really bring a lot of options. then there was -- what do you want to do about digesters?

this was similar to repairing those pump stations. they're just old and you need to fix them. the next idea about green infrastructure and what you do on the base side in the west side, those are all options and there you have the exact same kind of thing. this does not lend itself, this is a pump station or you are done and it seems like a base discretion. if you say there is some $600 million to do it, it is a pump station. >> it does make it less transparent. >> and we can give you a list of all of the individual pump stations, for example, or the individual discharge points. >> which probably would not help. >> the next thing about where it applies is that it gives you that sense of -- so, but it in,

what gets better, what gets worse? >> this keeps you going. >> ok. all right. >> that is the end of my part of the presentation. any more questions or discussions? >> no, thank you very much. >> with that, i would like to introduce my colleague, who will take you through the urban watershed in green infrastructure approach. i would like to recognize that she was recently recognized for her leadership in the bay area clean water association. [applause] >> good afternoon, commissioners. i am going to be covering the

green infrastructure portion of the process today. first, the context and how validation fits into the multiple ways that dream infrastructure is being implemented throughout the city and the larger community. then i will introduce the next efforts in our project and briefly describe green infrastructure technologies and how they have been analyzed within the potential benefits. that i will recommend early presentation projects to the budget. the green infrastructure portion of the validation is part of a larger set of strategies we have been gauging within to encourage green infrastructure throughout the city. in 2010 the commission approve the storm water maintenance ordinance, approving projects > 3000 square feet that are redevelopments or new projects, which are required to manage storm water on site. currently there are more than

6000 projects, with 48 located on the base side alone. residents and businesses can take advantage of our program and we have been pursuing other projects within. puc is also promoting green infrastructure as part of each project, integrating it into our programs to continue our community incentive grants programs as feasible. this chart shows you the impact of the ordinance and a large environmental protections and savings that we have approved overtime. today we are looking at the top two layers for the recommended layers. as we finish the validation process, staff began the urban water assessment mentioned earlier.

this will find a plan for the system with each of eight major watersheds and how to address the challenges. we will be finding the recommended projects that we talk about the day and working with neighbors, communities, in stakeholders for solutions that are best for their neighborhood. first and foremost, we will be looking at performance to optimize the additional benefits that we see. so, green infrastructure has been discussed a lot today, but it may be new interest -- a new idea for many in the audience. we have a booklet for you and i. and it is a packet and a glossary that describes some of the key tools in technology. in essence, it is a set of engineered technologies that is

slow to reuse storm water within the sewer system. heading upstream to keep the water out as much as possible. it includes rooftop disconnection, paving, retention rates, and construction. this slide shows you examples of projects in san francisco that you can go see, if you are interested. the green roof in the upper left-hand corner is located in the ortega library as part of a partnership undertaken within the improvement program. next to it is the parents had parked for rain water irrigation. a recipient of our grant. karen briefly mention the additional elements of a green infrastructure. they can improve the quality of life and provide offsets, and

hinting habitats, providing jobs in urban landscapes. captured and reused, it can offset the demands for potable water. we have been spending considerable time for the potential impact on the collection system performance. the validation process dealt deeply into the best of san francisco, identifying locations that are feasible from physical in spatial standpoints. we believe that demonstration projects will allow us to optimize these. after all the modeling and analysis, we have programs for you to consider today. the recommendation is for 400 acres of green infrastructure and eight early implementation

projects to cut our teeth. this will allow us to keep performance with local experience. as early implementation is completed, we recommend larger scale implementation. specific projects would be just fine through the urban watershed assessment process, but if you want an idea of the level of implementation we are talking about, we think 22 miles of mean streets redirecting hundreds of acres and giving us the ability to daylight one. these are placeholder concepts that allowed us to model and assess the performance of these projects. as we go through, we will be coming back to confirm these assessment assumptions and going through actual specifics with the commission. the potential that these recommendations have to impact this system are significant. there is a combined discharge volume of 900 million gallons annually, meaning that over 20

years approximately 1 billion gallons would never make it into the system. there is also a side benefit, while resolving some of the larger discharge goals. it can help to solve one-third of the city's flooded areas. as i explained earlier, and you can see more details in your packet, we proposed eight early implementation projects for experience designing and building green infrastructure. it comes out to 1 per watershed. we would monitor these projects to confirm local performance. it will allow us to add to our understanding of green infrastructure and integrate it to our collection system, helping us to understand how to use it with our maintenance programs. vip's were chosen through a

screening process. each workshop was held in 2007 and 2009. these included community members and larger stakeholder groups. each underwent preliminary staff evaluation from consultant teams. as the exact project locations have not yet been confirmed, these projects can help you to visualize what you are approving today, ensuring that there is community support an adequate partnership. the chinatown green alley project is a proposal to redesign an alley to maximize storm capture. it can also be closed to traffic to maximize benefits. there is great potential for projects synergy in the department of neighborhood groups with in all neighborhoods. i will not go through each of the projects. this is just a sample.

the daylight of the upper portion redirects the flow. the project would result in improved public space for public landscapes within the neighborhood. the richmond greene street project would redesign a street to maximize impervious savings. improving services with functional paving and greening. the corridor was redesigned as the sunset boulevard, creating a high performing green corridor. dtw, who has already developed these costs for these subjects, the public-private partnership would allow us to retrofit the university's main campus as part of their ongoing capital

improvement programs to increase groundwater recharge and provide opportunities for faculty and students to develop educational outreach programs. in summary, we are recommended -- recommending investing in the second decade for a total of $400 million, including the efp project. this is an increase from the 2010 recommendation and is an exciting new chapter. these projects will improve the performance of our system over time and potentially create an enduring legacy. i will break for questions or discussions. >> on the early implementation projects, there is a total of

$57 million. what is the status of that? these are being proposed? >> you would be approving the funding. >> you would have seen the funding in the 10-year capital program. >> is that all within the 110 of the first decade? >> yes. >> so, in terms -- these are of a tight end scale that is designed to help us understand what we can do and how we can make those larger objectives? >> yes. >> the idea was that there was something green we had not done that much. we wanted to try out the projects, but we wanted enough money to pick the ones that worked.

that is why we have money that is still sitting there after we have found the ones that work the best. >> that is very much the same kind of concept we have in the technology policy assignment before we go full scale. the $400 million, that would save the $60 million in order to get answers to things. this will make us smarter, to figure out how we will really deal with that? >> the assessment process would come back to was based on the final modeling and the more time we would have to go through each phase and. >> so, has the urban -- the urban water management process is a secret process? you would have to pick how to go forward on these. >> so, that is a place holder

some at the moment? >> yes. >> any questions? >> one of the benefits that you listed, a beautification peace, goes back to the framing. we will do is bring the entire project online. by putting these pilots out there, it shows we can beautify the city and create jobs with ancillary benefits. really educating the public as to what green is and what it means. i wanted to flag that in the reflection of these people as f program. >> i have seen this in other places. a lot is accomplished just by

sine id. someone notices that something is cool, then they find out the reason it is there. so, that can be a vague part of it as well. whenever is going on at turkey and franklin, there are a couple of around their, and there is a war conservation. -- water conservation. >> thank you. >> now i will call upon them, from the science team. >> thank you, rosie. commissioners, it is a pleasure to be with you again today.

back here. and this afternoon we will go through the options in two sections. first, the bill go through the base side, which consists of 65% of the city. then we will look at the west side. on the base side. this area conveys a flow to the southeast plant. these are currently undergoing the watershed assessment process, to be completed at the end of next year. we do have a series of homs

visions in the late 1970's it friday hyatt of in terms of the vases side it in the -- the bass site itself, there are many creeks that go to the bag. many of which are part of the combined sewer system. rosie mentioned that some of the green opportunities are to possibly daylight some of these creeds. also of inches on the base and, which creates seismic vulnerability issues that we will talk about in a few minutes. there are 29 locations that

discharge collectively about 1.5 billion gallons in the five watershed areas. now, as we look at existing conditions, we have four areas of concern to us. one, lack of redundancy. this is primarily focused on the talk earlier mentioned in the channel. the channel for a week inveighs 70% of the flow that gets to the se land for treatment. constructed in 1978, essentially we have had four failures of that pipeline in the 30 years it has been in existence. it is vulnerable and because it is a single line, it is something that is important. i mention of vulnerability needed, which factors into how we provide redundancy. we also have issues of

operational constraints which, because of complexity, the operators have a lot of options in terms of sending the flow southeast. a lot of decisions that the system itself helps to maintain and we need to protect that. regulations rate compliance is to hold you are on the channel on this list. we are reporting greater than the design criteria within the permit. this is not a violation of the permit, however, as we are looking to improve the situation and we look at this redundancy, we want to make sure that this can give us to the 10 and has the flexibility to give us lower so, the project drivers are forced to maine redundancy.

to put something in place that but get us to the area. to be flexible in the future regarding production. this will play out in the short- term. the south park -- se permit expires in march of next year. the city will be submitting its renewal application of that time, when we enter into negotiations with the target of 10 being reduced in the area. last month, i wanted to remind you, you gave a notice to proceed to look at how we will solve this risk redundancy issue you are from mission creek and they channel -- issue.

you are from mission creek. the red line shows one of many potential options for either a redundant forest or a possible tunnel. reasons to look at a tunnel or threefold. in terms of reliability, it will also put the facility into much more resilient earthquake occurrences. it would provide flexibility, because the tunnel itself would provide a degree of storage, as well as managing those flows, using the system to contain the flow is, minimizing the discharges to the overall structures. the last one was the added stories that date, would provide to the existing storage.

so, we put together a series of options for the treatment plants. in this case we identify current conditions, focusing on the channel, with 1.3 billion gallons of discharge. this is a significant amount of low, given total affinity. our model projects 13 occurrences that they provide for. the do nothing option would maintain things as they are today. option number two looks at providing a redundant force, and putting in a new force on line to go into the existing forest to realign its and wind up with two means of conveying flow from

channel to southeast. now, that would cost about $400 million and does not change the existing amount of discharging occurrences on the volume discharged to the receiving arms. the three tunnel options don't are shown here. there are many other sizes that we could look at in future studies, but when we see the 23 foot tall, it does reduce discharge and volume by 200 million gallons, which is significant, but it only knocks off one occurrence. if we look at the 35, we do get to attend. we continue to reduce volume. you are looking at a situation that says the target, if you recall the level of service, was to get to 10 with this project,

that would be done with something larger. each of these options was to be looked at against the level of service. we have had a couple of issues with this. looking at the regulatory compliance, what we are kind of saying is that we are in compliance now, however the do nothing option does not give us to the target and discharges options 1 and two do not let us do that. all the tunnel sides give us the flexibility as it in half the general area