the when the wet weather flows come down to the blocks -- to the box, and you will see a cross-section of the box in a minute, it is conveyed directly to the treatment plant. the second is called the decant chamber. the flow would flow into the decant chamber and then again over into the outflow. as an avid flood -- added level of treatment. the unfortunate part is that these three discharges, as shown here, when they do overflow, the discharge right on the beach. these are not submerged discharges. when we look at them, you can see here the dissenting discharge going on the beach. you can see how it displaces the sand and how it is not near the shoreline. of note here also is lake merced. it has a high value to the west

side. on the left, you'll see the historic greek spirit again, many of them are in the southern part of the -- the historic creeks. again, they may be in the southern part of the system and we may have the benefit of keeping them out of the water flow system, but they will have the merced system as well. what is interesting on this side is the total predicted in the annual simulation is just over 228 million gal. versus the 1.3 billion on the bayside. it is a much different animal. in looking at existing conditions, again, on the oceanside, the plan treatment itself is a much smaller system. seven tsd's 200 million on the

other side. however, three of these discharges are to be beach area. .wrn discharge after the storm that occurred in january. what we are looking at here is the fact that the top picture shows that the west side historically is in the sand dune. we see sandy soils, unlike the fell on the bayside that it's consistent the -- that is consistent to the drain. the challenge on the west side is not of a immediate concern because we are in compliance. however, in the future with these three beaches in particular, there may be a driver to reduce lower. as karen mentioned, we will be looking at a target for this

discussion of, let's say, three discharges. i will focus on the three lincoln way, this antique, and lake merced. -- on the 3, lincoln way, vicente and lake merced. we do not know whether it will go to three or two one. that will take place within a year. the discussions that take place on southeast will probably give us an indication of where they will come down on the west side. our analysis looked at this range. we also looked at most of our alternatives, as you see, are related to pumping additional flow from the west side transport. that is because the existing southwest ocean out fault was designed for 570 million gal. per day of this charge, and at present what whether we are

putting 170 million gal. per day out. we have an existing infrastructure in place that can handle more outflow and the option is to take advantage of that. again, we look at current and do nothing options, which basically, we have the existing seven discharges at about 164 million gal. a day. then we looked at various levels of increased pumping. 70 million gal. a day. that gets us to four. it does take a sizable chunk out of the volume. the 100 and g.c. gets us to the target of 3 and ends up with less than 30 million gal. per year in a typical year being discharged into the beach area. the 200 million gal. mgd would get as to less than one. it would handle the storms in a typical year. however, there are storms larger

than the typical year during which these discharges would still occur on the beaches. when we look at the terms and levels of service, once again, the options are crossed the top and the levels of service are down the right. everything is neutral for existing combines because we are in compliance. we do not have to do anything for the discharges that are allowed. however, if we want to look at future reduction, the do-nothing option will not help. we get one plots for the 70 mgd because we are reducing it, but the target was to get to 3. the options that get us to four are higher because they get us to treat. they're pretty much -- get us to 3. they're pretty much equal. the analysis we connected to get us to three, we identify option

3 because it meet that objective. the cost is about $277 million. however, one of the targets we have is, once again, to incorporate green into these solutions. if we were to, again, back off to the 70 million gal. per day tunnel pump station, is there a combination of green projects that we could implement in the west side area that in conjunction with the 70 pump station would get us to three? the analysis on the bayside shows that there is. when we look at that, we find that this combination could work the same way it could on the bayside. however, we would want your the implementation projects to bear out the performance.

in these cases, we are tying and regulatory requirements -- compliance requirements and we want to assure ourselves that we will meet that criteria. in looking at it, we would recommend that we use the two hundred $77 million placeholder and that we continue with the watershed assessment process. we determine the regulatory requirements because they may play out anywhere between the eight and a one. and we assess the performance. and then whenever target we end up with, we go through this exercise to find where the cost- effective mix is for the gray and green compliance objectives that we have. one of the other things you will notice here when we put the two hundred $77 million into the charge, -- $two hundred 77 million into the charge, this

is over a decade. this is primarily due to regulatory uncertainty, the jaidee performance issues, and in order to maintain the split that we had targeted toward progressing. and with this as the last piece of the collection system for components, would you will see? -- you will see that we had almost total spending between the two decades of two billion dollars. if you have thoughts about how this mixes with the gray and green -- 9 >> yes, we need to talk about it more. -- how this mixes with the gray and green -- ? >> yes, we need to talk about it talk about what is going on at ocean beach.

even today on our agenda we had something continuing those planning efforts. it might in the long run, or even in the short run -- we do not really know. it makes sense to move that transport tunnel away from where it currently is for a variety of reasons. is that factored in? >> in the studies that we are doing consistent with the master plan, our assumption is that the puc infrastructure will be protected. and the planning horizon for the ssit, that infrastructure will exist and be functional. >> i believe they were looking out with different horizons, and the work that we're doing would be before any of the spur horizons. they have talked about moving the lake merced tunnel on the southern side in a 50-year timeframe, possibly pureed but

that -- possibly. but the basic great highway, if you make that go way, you have lost a big chunk of the sunset district to the ocean. most of the work on spur has not really continued to talk about getting rid of the great highway tunnel. >> the road, yes, but not the tunnel. >> we have talked about making it only one side of the great highway for traffic and then having one site for pedestrians and bikes and having one side of the great highway for two-way traffic. but moving it is not just a huge thing for our system, but it is the dike that protect a major portion of the sunset district of san francisco. >> you are working on some of those assumptions that spur is coming up with, with the cfd pieces of it, with backflow and protection and whatever needs to be in place. >> yes, and in fact, the video

that we used we prepared for the spur phase one master plan. >> having as reduce our discharge on the beach would be a positive impact of this per record. that is what we have been focusing on as much as anything else. >> questions? >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we have one wrap up section. >> a submarine -- in summary, what we have presented to you our liability improvements, which at the general manager described, are kind of like the fix your system into a state of repair of concepts and approaches. just over $800 million.

the investment of $400 million in green infrastructure, and then that the strategies for the bayside and the west side system improvements. they totaled $2.7 billion. all of these projects that deal with redundancy issues, existing regulatory compliance, and flexibility with future compliance. what is noted is that the consistent work will be shown in two decades. the requirements that will be negotiated with the regulators, many of those will probably be third decade system costs as well. finally again, as we mentioned, we did the two $0.7 billion -- $2.7 billion, and we coupled this with the workshops, we are $3 billion into the second

decade, and a total of $7 billion consistent with the parameters that tied it laid out in the workshop. we believe that the ssip will put puc in the position of ensuring that the proper moves are made with waste water. it will ensure its status as a world-class with water utility. -- wastewater utility. >> the future requirements, is that any long-term financial planning? -- in the long-term financial planning? >> i'm not sure i am understand. >> there are dollars there, we but we are projecting that the light does not stop at the end of this program. do we have an idea of what that might look like?

>> we go out 10 years with a fair amount of certainty, but there's a lot of stuff we do not know. 20 years with less certainty. after 30 years, we do not really go out 30 years with a lot of specificity or certainty. we know $7 billion could fit into the average rate affordability over 20 years. but in years 2330, that is not part of the financial marled -- in years 20 through 30, that is not part of the financial model in the years that we have done to date. >> which makes sense, but when we look at 15-year rate increases, there is something that happened after that as well. >> it will not go to 0. >> that is right. [laughter] it never does. >> well, thank you. we had a lot of information to

cover in a fairly short time. a lot of the points that the commission is looking to for clarification may be slightly ahead of where our analysis is. we may be slightly at of the meeting it internally. -- i have the meeting internally. it makes it challenging. this was a bit of a tougher one to get through because it was more of a conceptual discussion than the -- then something the treatment plant has broken. this is a little more difficult. we definitely do appreciate your direction. we will be revisiting the levels of service. i.t. people, can you put that -- thanks. we will be revisiting the levels of the strategy that were

discussed today. and at some point where the greens -- green kind of overlap. -- the green/green kind of overlap. >> did you have any suggestions for that overlap? >> somewhere in between, i like maximize and integrate. >> i like maximize. it is a noun. what are we maximizing? >> i would even go for maximize green infrastructure to manage storm and minimize flooding. i know your concerns. i heard them earlier around what the implications of that are. >> we are not that far off. we typically do not get into maximization processes. we do not usually have that option.

we do trade-offs. one of the more useful tools that we are in the process of developing to make those trade- offs is the bottom line analysis. i would welcome language that basically says something to the effect that in the meeting of the goals that we set for ourselves that we would use a triple bottom line announces -- analysis to do something. >> whenever language we use -- whatever language we use, it will not be legally mandated anyway. it is all aspirational. >> and we do have five weeks to figure that out before the next meeting. >> we will not try to have options for you. >> -- we will try to have options for you. >> and something different than the double bottom line. i hate to put out an additional goal, but i think this green infrastructure piece, i think it

has great potential. it ties in with the technology policy. it ties in with the csp numbers that we're talking about. it ties in and makes it very dynamic and a current program. and with a lot of other added benefits. i thought maybe we could leave it to the staff. >> and my guess is that we will have lots of chances for both of us to interact with staff in the next five weeks. >> we will be inviting you over for meetings. i think it was a really good discussion. i definitely appreciate your leadership and guidance. the next workshop is going to be on the 28. hopefully, we have an early time slot that day and can get through this and start moving toward implementation thank you so much.

i think we can probably get through that discussion in two hours with the homework that we have committed to doing between now and then. >> commissioners, any other thoughts or comments? public comment? mr. pilpel had asked for public comment. >> i want to start off thanking staff and consultants. i know a lot of people here have spent a lot of time on this and have done good work. i wore my greyish green shirt today because i thought back i wanted -- i wanted to highlight that it is not gravers is green. >> it needed to be washed. -- it is not great verses green. >> if needed to be washed. [laughter] >> thank you.

i thought it was a good discussion about using the vip projects for validation -- the eip projects for validation and so that we are sizing that appropriately. the southeast project is the signature portion within treatment. it is what i call the channel tunnel, although staff tells me i need to refer to it as the central based hudson improvement project. it is this significant project within the collection system. but i also think the ip -- eip a segment of the green project is just as critical. i am hopeful that the two big projects, plus the eip program will be looked at separately for project-level environmental review, which may result in an

eir, what ever is the appropriate environmental clearance so that we can move those projects as soon as possible. they really do inform the program going through. you did get a cac resolution as part of your communication. news of what the cac has recommended as part of the c i p. the west side project needs a better title than just 70 or 100 mgd. a title is significant and important, both from an occurrence and volume standpoint. we will talk next time about the rate impact. i'm assuming we will see the rate charged over 30 years and what the percentage is and how that rolls up. at some point, we will see a

list of categories within the programs, within the overall -- there are a lot of ways to roll this out. i really support the staff recommendation. i believe this is ambitious. this is necessary. we have really gotten to a point where we need to move the critical project ahead and see how this all plays out. thank you. >> thank you. mr. acosta. >> commissioners, when i spoke to you the last time and we had a workshop at pier 40, i spoke to you about some issues and i will repeat them again. when two men, two white men came here may be too moderate 50 years ago, lewis and clark --

maybe two hundred 50 years ago, lewis and clark, and they saw that everything was most pristine. today in the year 2012, we need developers who are on this project -- and i briefly worked for one gentleman who is a consultant to tell us in the year 2012 in a forum like this what is best for this great city and county of san francisco. on the one hand, we have the city. they are not capable of looking after our trees, some 26,000 trees that we have not factored into this equation. we do have the ability to work on what i call repair and

projects, which i have always that -- already brought to certain people in sfpuc to look at nine months ago. looking just to inform you, to give our young people a chance to work on a nursery, eggplant, work on -- of plants, work on repair projects and have the ability to maintain the trees that the department of public works and the city has neglected, or is going to neglect. i look forward to all of the good people that are talking about whatever is green, to work with our work force to train and somehow -- they are going to do it. so they can participate in the

year-end projects for the next five to 20 years. that being said, we need a steady to know how healthy lake merced is. when we talk about our peers that have not been mentioned, we need to get empirical information to know how to fix them. i will be participating slowly and steady -- and steadily on the practical aspects. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? >> i just want to say that the mexicans were here first before lewis and clark. [laughter] >> thank you. and with that, thank you to the staff and all of the consultants that have contributed to this. this has been helpful.

and we look forward to the wrapup session in five weeks. we are about to go into closed session. is there any public comment to be discussed in closed session? seeing none, if we can start that process of clearing the room. >> item 16, pursuant to code, section >> the public utilities commission is back in session.

regard and abiding past -- item 16, the commission unanimously approved a list of candidates to be sent to the mayor. the commission will not release the names or the number of candidates. could i have a motion regarding whether to disclose? >> disclosed the action? >> this is a motion whether to disclose. >> i moved not to disclose. >> second. >> ok, that carries. is there other new business? do we need to open the doors? [laughter] >> david is out there.

[laughter] [inaudible] >> this meeting is adjourned.