provide redundancy and reliability. there is a price tag. when we step back from that -- remember, one of our drivers was also green infrastructure. so, we look back at 23 foot diameter tunnel and say -- what if we took part of the money that rose he was talking about and what if we were to practice green infrastructure in the tunnels? these other types of analyses that will continue to play out during the watershed process and central basin project. various sized tunnels will be looked after to get us to first, the 10, in the one that point

so, -- in the one point. so, that gives us a 1-2 budget, but as we continue our studies that we look at, tunnel size, in my not being -- it might wind up being a, not shown here. when we look at this in terms of how we place it in the schedule, because we definitely want to resolve redundancy issues with a price in place that would guess fan. you are in compliance with of the discharge and you had the option to go lower, if possible. >> that is the approach that we considered for the baseline.

>> commissioners? any questions? >> i guess this is an observation. the placeholder in green infrastructure is out there. when we come to this one, we also had a place holder for the more expensive version. in this plan we have not said it be believe, so i guess a couple of questions. one, is the timing of this such an important thing? what would be the impact of

making the timing such that you could -- basically, polled $300 million out of the program as a whole? people figure that they are only going to spend money once. is that process? -- and none reasonable process? what am i missing? >> the 340 was my is the early implementation stuff. what's the difference between them on this particular project, the difference between the price tag that is not in front of you is about $60 million. so, the discussion was -- you would go ahead and budget the amounts that would raise 1.2.

if he wanted to do the green, you would take 60 out of that 340. one of the other options that you might get is a 27 or 28 foot tunnel. as we hired the engineers to look at it, that will come back to you with maximum options that they think work. we do not know what that is yet. if we took it out of one or the other, if we took all of that money out, you would have no green for anything else. >> i was thinking if it was -- one amount of money was in their unspecified. the idea was that money went through the early implementation projects and we would figure out if it was better. >> we are looking at what you're talking about, using the early implementation projects to basically give us information that says -- if we put this kind

of project in place, it will be monitored and we will accept performance. then we look through the watershed characteristics to kind of say -- where else can we put additional green projects or technologies? and then we can be assured, more so than today, that that technology will perform in we will actually get volume reduction in activation reduction needed for compliance. the idea at that point in time would be to say that we can afford to downsize a tunnel because we were implementing and getting to the same benefit. but i believe that the way it is set up, commissioners, is that we are carrying the $1.2 million in the tunnel because it gives us a lot of flexibility. and it will work long term, if

we have to go through reductions. >> just to make it easier, can you go back to the slide and with different options? i am trying to make sure i understand the question period between options three and four, you need $350 million. are you talking about putting that into a different pocket? >> i am suggesting that maybe we have -- >> i will get there in just a second. on the next line you have a footnote regarding the 23 foot tunnel. >> the price tag for that would be $1.3 billion. >> ok. do the math again. >> the price tag for the 20 foot

green tunnel, plus the green to get to the same level of currency would be $1.3 billion. in total. to get to the 23 foot tall, you have $255 million to get to that option. with another $60 million on top of that. >> ok, we have the same thing in the next section as well. what we show in here is a place holder for the 1.2 and the 400. >> here there is a 1.2, where you need to take $60 million out of that pocket. >> what you have not included is the inflationary costs, correct? >> actually, these are all

escalated through filming over the next couple of years. >> one way of raising what i am getting at is -- i have been thinking, and there is a lot of talk about gray and green, solving these different problems there are different ways that you can go, choosing one over the other. the way this makes it sound, it makes it sound like it is great plus green. -- grey plus green. those are different concepts. i think earlier you said you might consider the grey plus green as those things that green cannot simply accomplish. it feels like we are double counting.

we are patting it with extra money is because of the uncertainty around the performance of the green projects. if there is a way of getting, a staging this so that we can make certain decisions -- >> the schedule that we have now for the finished project, we finished the assessment for the end of next year. the planning for the central bayside project is three years. then it goes into two years of design. during that timeframe, we are hopeful to get some of the results from the early implementation projects. we hope to get the regulatory determination so we know what the ultimate target is at the end of the day. one of the other things not to decide on is one of the other reasons that we pick the 30-foot tunnel is because we know we will get it to 10.

and in order to be in compliance with existing requirements we can do this, and to be in a stronger negotiating position with the regulators, that we are doing a project that will get us to meet that. the balance is the reality that says in this process, if there are ways to lower the investment in the gray, bring in some green and has other multiple benefits up in the system, and we can get to that same end target cost effectively, we can do it and spend the same amount of money, or close. >> and my question is whether it could be less. we that forward to the next workshop and whether we will have to balance these increases against the rate increases and we explore these -- the way in which these decisions could be

integrated in order to manage the cost. also, just an observation, any guesses as to what the ceiling height is of this room. -- of this room? somewhere in the 18 to 20 ft., maybe? >> more than that. i would say 30. >> he would say 30? >> yes. >> four point of reference, these are huge tunnels. what is the height -- the diameter of those things? >> 30 by 40? >> close. >> the one out at ocean beach is about 60 ft. wide and about 40 ft. deep. >> sometimes we forget how large the stuff is that we talk about

another point of reference is on the bayside. the existing boxes provide about 126 million gal. worth of storage. this 40 ft. tunnel would increase that by 55 million. it would almost be a 40% increase in a storage volume that gets added protection of the 400 million gal. reduction. >> this is in addition to the current ones that we have now. >> yes. >> at what point do we reach the maximum -- the maximum before we encourage your logic is used? this city rests on a very delicate balance where the will earthquakes that we may not even feel are occurring. and that is one of the benefits of being in rock. but these tunnels will be in rocket? >> yes.

-- >> these tunnels will be in rock? >> yes. gregg's and there may be limitations geologically as to the size of the tunnel as well. >> any other questions? all right, let's proceed. >> go back in the slide, please. >> we are going to continue now with the west side. the west side can this of the three watershed's shown, sunset, and lake merced. these are part of the ongoing sunset process. we have presented this slide to orient you. what is shown here is the block that tommy just referred to under the highway. a. basically drains to the ocean and it is conveyed to the

oceanside plant. we have a video that basically shows how the west side system operates in dry weather and did what whether -- and in wet weather and how it occurs to the beach. we have three examples of how it charges to the ocean beach. in dry weather, you can see the daly city down to the right. you see the sunset area. as it comes closer to the great highway, they are conveyed in a great storage blocks down to the website punt station. the first little circle -- the west side pump station. the first little circle. when rain occurs, will we see is, again, this same process. the combined sewage flows the same way. an increase through the box on the west side and an increase in

the tunnel prepared -- in the tunnel. when higher rains occur, the box system cannot contain the rest of the flows, and that -- and what happens is that three locations to the west of the beach, we have three discharges. now we are going to look at the lincoln way out fall. 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 fi