we're measuring just the performance of the green infrastructure itself, correct. good point.

so do you have a guesstimate of how much was not captured? we can probably get that, i would imagine. we can look at what's happening around the facilities. but for this monitoring project, we wanted to see how is the green infrastructure itself. i think that's something we should measure because with intense storms, you may get a lot of water and it diverts what gets in there and is full and water bypasses it. i think we just need to know how effect iive when water ents into it versus how much water can't get in there so that we have that understanding as well. wouldn't that potentially have implications for future design? because if the basin isn't big enough or sloped properly or something, the flotation isn't

quick enough. there might be a design that's able to capture more, especially if it's absorbing this much. we do conduct flow testing after we construct each bio retention planter to make sure that a substantial volume of water is getting into the inlet and not by passing. so that's probably why i would pull up that data to see what flow rates are we putting into these when we're testing them to insure that they're capturing most of the water. i mean, i can verify that yes they are capturing most of the water, a surprising amount. but we can definitely look into that further. slides, please. where'd they go? there they are. this is just another graphical representation of the monitored, measured reduction on the right hand side with 85%, which was much greater than the model predicted reduction on the left. we attribute this -- this is a pretty substantial difference from what we anticipated. and we think that this is mostly because of the soils

drained, the infiltration rates were much greater than we anticipated when we were doing the site investigations and modeling of this project. so, sorry, but that's a pretty big difference. does that mean that something is wrong with their model? there's actually a national trend happening with these green infrastructure modeling exercises, especially when it comes to the way the water gets out of a green infrastructure facility before it overflows. when you're creating the model, it's looking at the footprint of the facility and how fast is water draining down through that footprint. it doesn't account for once that water gets into the ground, it starts to move laterally. and we'll see with the sunset results the difference wasn't that drastic. so the soils along the panhandle are highly variable. and so we were really conservative with our model estimates to make sure we were getting -- we were building new green infrastructure to manage that storm water.

and it turns out we built plenty of green infrastructure to manage the storm water. that's an interesting national trend we've been learning about at the national green infrastructure conferences. a lot of people are seeing this trend, so our data kind of follows along with that, which is interesting. so looking at the sunset model block, these are the results from the first year of monitoring, which was 2016-2017. we just wrapped up monitoring this past rainy season and those results should be ready to share the next few months. again, this project was outperforming model predictions. although not quite as drastically as fell and oak. we saw that the block infiltrated 93% of the storm water that flowed through it during the 2016-2017 rainy season. which is a very substantial number. i'm gonna reiterate and turn it on its head and say that means that only 7% of the storm water that flowed to the model block went to the sewer system.

there's a substantial reduction with these rain gardens. and again, just reiterating the model predictions were slightly under what we measured. and again, that whole piece of the soils are infiltrating faster than we anticipated. and the west side, there wasn't as much of a difference as there was with fell and oak. so what's coming up, this upcoming winter we'll be monitoring -- we just wrapped up mission valencia. this upcoming rainy season we'll be monitoring mission valencia, holloway, sunnyvale. and to wrap up, looking back to when we were first digging into the design and develop mement,

looping back into that, the spirit of our goal to build knowledge, all the monitoring reports and data are available online at the website. we're also presenting this data at a number of the green infrastructure conferences across the country. and we're uploading this data to the international database so that other people can look at our data and make their own conclusions. and that's that. any other questions before i hand it off to sarah? thank you. i just want to say thank you. i'm just thrilled to hear about the performance results. i think that, you know, we as a commission knew that it was some what of a risky venture

and it's just really wonderful to see these results. keep up the good work. thanks. hello, commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to present today. per your request, i will be providing an update on the eip lessons learned that we have collected to date. we started this process back in late 2014 using a series of work shops to collect the lessons learned from the different eip project teams and we held a work shop for each specific phase of the project. and through that process, we collected a lot of lessons learned. today, i'm going to share with you just the top ones and the ones that we felt were most impactful as we move into phase

two. our first lesson learned was to establishment cost effective metrics for our green infrastructure projects. and what we did was do an in-depth cost analysis of the different eip project budgets, looking not only at construction costs but also at soft costs related to project delivery. and we took that information and used it to inform our metrics that we are using to screen our capital projects in the next phase. as you can see, we have three main metrics that we're carrying forward. the first one is a minimum drainage management area, which is a proxy for project size. the second is a maximum cost per gallon of storm water removed entirely from our system. and the third is a maximum cost per acre of our impervious acres managed. our second lesson learned is to

identify site constraints earlier on in our project selection process. we found that site conditions had major impacts on design and project costs of the eip's. especially because we're building in such a dense environment in san francisco. in addition, our design teams were unable to get accurate information on where utilities were located within the street and other things like that. so moving forward, we're going to be incorporating new utility locating technologies such as ground penetrating radar to get a better accurate look at what's under the street. and then we're going to be doing those investigations earlier on in our project phase. our third lesson learned is to use a programatic approach. we found that we were able to get very cost effective green infrastructure when we supported other people doing

green infrastructure in their projects. so moving forward, we're going to be implementing a grant program to target storm water management on public and private properties in san francisco. and we'll be doing a street scape synergy program. and both of these programs were approved as part of the ten year capital plan. but we'll be coming back to you with more details on each project proposal as they are developed. it's a separate program, but it is the same approach in terms of being a program. our grant program will be focused on more larger parcels and performance based green infrastructure. so they'll be required to install technologies like rain gardens and cisterns.

our fourth lesson learned is leveraging our key city partners. we found through our experience and through experience from numerous other cities that in san francisco, public and private parcels account for over 50% of the impervious surface that we have. going forward, we'll be focusing our projects on opportunities for regional storm water collection and reuse on large public parcels like schools and parks. and our final lesson learned was our need to develop standard green infrastructure project delivery processes. when we started the eip's, green infrastructure was very new to our city family. we found that many of our

project delivery processes were not appropriate or suitable for green infrastructure. going forward, we'll be delivering standard project delivery processes. we've developed a 65% design checklist. there's a lot more tools that our team still needs, so we'll be continuing this work as we move forward into phase two. u a couple questions, how many projects do we have currently? we have our eight eip's and then we have our cesar chavez

project. in terms of the whole suite of projects, we now have hundreds and hundreds of projects from the storm water management ordnance. and then we have grant funded projects from our water shed stewardship grants. but the smallest sliver of that is our capital work which is the eip's. so all of these lessons learned will be influencing the next phase of capital work for phase two. and within that, i think we're starting with just two projects in phase 2a, i think. so it will be a gradual roll out. how are we maintaining the current projects that exist? they're being maintained by job order contracts put forth. we developed a green infrastructure labor model so that we could understand all the different tasks, how long they take and who needs to do them.

however, we do see that potentially working out like sewer work in a way where we'd have a core team that is the crew, knowing that there may be certain specific tasks that we'd have to contract out. we also have our ngicp program, which you all have supported which is underway right now which the training in green infrastructure inspection and maintenance. we're really trying to build that knowledge across the industry so that folks can be engaged in those kinds of jobs. not only for our puc capital projects, but any smo projects, storm water management projects that may need to hire individuals to maintain the

green infrastructure that they are responsible for. public works also? we're partnering with public works on the sunset boulevard project. they're heavily integrated primarily for trash pickup as well. we're finding synergies with their crews out there on sunset boulevard. for drainage specific items and sub service infrastructure, puc is still taking the lead there. but we're partnering on the tasks. and that's one of the things i definitely want to hi highlig highlight. the storm water ordnance on private property, they're responsible for maintaining it. so we just inspect and make sure that they're actually doing what their permit allows

them to do. we're realizing that the green infrastructure is growing and we wanted crews, so i put a crew in the budget. and then the other issue that we're finding is the maintenance. the maintenance is different. now we have a lot of green infrastructure and dpw saying they're collecting trash. instead of being all in the streets, it goes right to that green infrastructure. and i mentioned to the director of public works, he should pay us. now it's just in one spot versus all over the street. but he's not buying that. [laughter] and so we're trying to work out an agreement to maintain our infrastructure when dpw goes out there. so we're trying to work on that agreement. it doesn't really make sense for us to have crews when their crews are just going right up and down the street.

we're trying to work that out with public works. so you answered my questions. thanks for that. i think what i'd like to see, because somebody mentioned that we haven't heard back about the grant program that's gonna be a little more robust. i think this is great work. but when you talk about triple bottom lines and social justice, etc, the jobs piece comes to mind. sometimes what's convenient isn't necessarily what's right. so i'd like to see a little more thought given to that piece. not on the private parcels but on the public parcels in particular. there's opportunity for us to skill up some folks from communities that we identify as being underrepresented and

underserved. put them on a career pathway, evaluate their performance, etc. it's not always that sexy. and it's a little harder than just delegating it to dpw. but that doesn't excite me when it comes to career pathway development as much as it does us having that conversation in a real thoughtful and deliberate way as we move in this direction together, but thank you very much. one of the things that we could do is part of the grant process. we're in the process of developing that. and so that could be a criteria. like we had as part of go solar. we had to have people from the communities participate. we can definitely talk about and hopefully incorporate some of the stuff in there. i know it's not on a major scale. this is small. small, yeah. but every little piece that we don't get ends up being a lot that's gone.

but thank you, thank you. i'd like to make a comment on that, too. thank you for making those comments. i actually do believe that this could move from a minor scale to a major scale. and i think the work force component is key. the certification program, apprenticeship program. how are we gonna skill up and train up those communities that are looking to get engaged from low income communities that could use opportunities like this. i think there is gonna be a shift as we see some of the tsunami go through and what does that really look like. i would welcome your partnership. i know that there's been some thinking from the gi team on this question as it relates to contracting, who's doing the work. is it with dpw, does that make the most sense. what can we do internally. i think there's a very rich

conversation. i just want to make sure that dpw, since they're cleaning the streets, it makes sense for them to clean trash versus us go to eight different locations. that's one model. the other is that we have job order contract iing until we he staff and actually do that work. i just wanted to make sure you understand that there's intentionality in what we're doing. absolutely. i wasn't actually talking so much about the clean up part as much as green infrastructure as a business. the design, the modeling. it's a whole new business and industry that could emerge that could provide some real opportunity to the underserved. along those lines, i clearly understand the intentionality and the

operational need. and we could skip the whole career pathway thing and meet those operational needs. that's what frequently happens. that's why i'm raising it. and i'll just leave it at that. it would be good to update you all through a memo about the work and how the pilot went. because we're just now finishing it. we're gonna have 20 folks sit for the exam and then we can get back to you on the next cohorts that we'd like to be able to engage in that training. because i think it's directly relevant to what you're talking about. and assumptions get made sometimes that just take us right out of the game. i mean, there's assumptions about cost that are perceptions and not realities. i mean, when you're talking about skill sets in our industry, in the construction industry, it's pretty clearly set forth what per vailing wage rates are.

when you're getting people job experience in the area of general maintenance work, it's a completely different ball game in terms of costs. i'm not sure we've even had those conversations, so i certainly look forward to it. while we have your ear right now, i did want to just clear up one thing that i'm not sure if we're perceiving the same way from the monitoring presentation. polly, correct me if this is wrong, but i want today make sure that you understood the percentages that polly was presenting, such as a 75% reduction. that meant out of all the rain that fell on the drainage management area for one year, 78% was taken out of everything. including large storms, small storms. that's an annual amount. and because most storms are small, it's able to take out a lot of rain. just want to make that clear. not that it's all going past the inlet. yes?

so does that mean that all storm retention is not created equal. is that what you're saying, basically? yes, yes. but i didn't want you to think that it's in each. for a smaller storm, 100% of the water is going to go in and be infiltrated by the green infrastructure. in a very, very large event, not all of it will. if 100 gallons fell on the drainage management area, 75 gallons were gonna be taken care of by the green infrastructure and 25 would not. thank you. thank you. any public comment on item 9? so, my friend who runs a

construction company, bruce and myself, attended the very first work shop on green infrastructure that was held. one of the first things i noticed was there wasn't anybody from the community. all of the people that attended this work shop were contractors. and the work shop was given by consultants. nobody from the sfpuc. after that, there was no follow up. we passed the test. apparently, they have a list on some website. we weren't given a certificate. one of the concerns of the contractors was that in the

united states, there isn't niko that produces the material, the pipes, the suctions, pumps. most of it comes from china. so when we talk in this grand scheme of things, and if you go to the bottom and see who really constructed whatever was constructed at cesar chavez or who really constructed the stuff on valencia, these are contractors who more or less did it without a baseline pl plans. now, there was one frame there that says sfpuc is going to do this and this and this. but they cannot do it all over the

city. it has to be incorporated in removing all the concrete in front of your house so that we do it just like they do in the advanced countries, okay. all of the greening that was done in the visitation valley wasn't done by sfpuc. that was done by grants, by people getting other contractors and doing it. whenever we talk about this, the main thing is as one of the other commissioners says, it's work shop, work force and equity. they talk about equity a lot. but when it comes to this type of what i started a long time ago, we had equity to give people a good salary. thank you very much. thank you. any other public comment on

item number 9. next item, item 10. item 10 is an update on federal legislation and appropriations relevant to the sfpuc operations. good afternoon, commissioners. my name is emily and i'm the director of policy and governor affairs for the sfpuc. i'm here today to give you an update on federal legislation appropriation. washington dc is currently consumed with issues involving north korea, iran, venezuela, immigration, international trade and most importantly, at least in the eyes of congress, the upcoming midterm elections. so in the energy and water space, the administration is fixated on providing government intervention to assist struggling coal and nuclear power plants, altering a host of environmental policies and programs initiated during the previous administration and expanding opportunities for

energy production and export. importantly to us, the water resources development act is one of the few legislative items that is likely to move this session. it's reauthorized every 1-2 years. and it is meant to improve the nation's water resources infrastructure. the house bill passed hr8 last year with bipartisan support. the bill was narrowly focused on authorizing individual u.s. army corps of engineers water resources projects. and senate bill s-2800 is awaiting floor consideration after passing the environment and public works committee. now, the senate bill is much broader and includes many items of interest to sfpuc. but today, i'll just highlight two major areas, financing and work force developmen an al.

this is a modified version.

we've worked really hard for the last four years to create this program in partnership with the water agency leaders alliance and the national association of clean water agencies and the u.s. water alliance and others. we have been working closely with senator booker's office who recently sponsored a stand alone piece of legislation to promote this. and who is a key champion in this issue area. and we'll continue to track that particular piece of legislation to see if it can make it into the bill or other pieces of legislation. on the appropriation side, congress' most basic and pressing function is to exercise its power of the purse to fund the federal government. however, for more than a decade, congress has failed to pass the 12 individual

appropriations bills necessary to do so in a timely, efficient or predictable manner. in large part, this failure is due to the increasing politicized atmosphere in dc and they now have a trend of including authorizing language, ie policy writers and partisan report language on appropriations bills and their elimination of congressional earmarks.

for his part, senator mcconnell recently announced a return to regular order by focusing on appropriations bills and moving them through the senate committee and floor.

the appropriations bills currently under consideration beginning october 1st 2018. we're now working to insure that the energy and water bill includes funding from the army corps.

the senate bill will be marked up this week and senator feinstein is the ranking member of the interior sub committee. the last bill is for the commerce justice science and related agencies bills.

democrats opposed the amendment but it passed by majority voice vote. the bill now goes to the house floor. we'll continue to track the appropriations process as it moves forward this year. and i'm happy to take questions. i have a question. that was a lot of information. thank you very much. so the national fisheries appropriations bill, what are the implications of that not

passing? that's passing? i think michael might be better position to answer that question. do we want that to pass? sorry -- that's all

we have had a conversation with her staff and she's just being briefed now and we don't know what her position will be at this point in time. so our team is briefing her? her staff is briefing her. her staff is briefing her.

but my interpretation of what i just told you is the same interpretation i've

i don't know where we are with that. i'd love to get an update. i know we got a note from the river trust on their response to the alternative. i kind of would like that to have a more robust presentation and conversation through the chair. i'd like to call peter

mangarella for public comment. trout unlimited is a private non-profit organization dedicated to preserving, protecting and restoring north america's cold water fisheries and their water sources. i'm a board member of the north bay chapter which includes the city and county of san francisco and the president of the east bay chapter that includes alameda

the new dam is currently planned for relicensing. i urge the commission to protest the congressman's proposed rider to federal appropriations bills regarding the re-licensing. it's essential an end run around the principle of transparency and inclusiveness that is sfpuc has exhibited in alameda creek. please come forward on this issue and join those of us who believe in dialogue and cooperation, not political maneuvering, to achieve lasting solutions to california water issues. thank you. thank you. our next speaker card i have here is john mcmanis.

please come forward. good afternn. i'm the president of the golden gate salmon association. we represent those sport and commercial salmon fishermen and related businesses. i'm here today to urge your opposition to this rider that would prohibit the national marine fishery service from doing work that it's authorized to do in re-licensing procedures. here's what i'm talking about. right now, the national fishery service is looking at the re-licensing of don pedro and they're considering whether or not they should require some type of mitigation to reintroduce salmon above the dam. others have looked at it and said it's impractical, costs too much money. it costs a lot of money. i will admit that. but here's what i want to say. there's power generation that's occurring in the dams upstream that you folks are involved in. and the power generation requires -- basically leaving

the situation as such that waters are rising and falling quite a bit as peak flows are being released to spin energy. if salmon are put up there, the fear is that they'll lay eggs, the water will drop, the eggs will dry out and you'll have a whole new problem on your hands. what i want to point out to this body that you may not be considering is that if you make an exception and carve out an exception to the authority here, it's only a matter of time before every other water operator up and down the sierras and the cascades and all the way up to the canadian border start coming to congress and looking to carve out exceptions for their river.

i don't think the public utility commission with its greet green environmental conditions wants to be party to this type of activity. i can tell you also -- i mean, to move forward with this is basically like saying we're gonna take the fish out of fishermen's wharf. we've got salmon fishermen throughout this city, we helped build this city and this would be a stab in the back to salmon fishermen. i just want to make sure that's on your radar, thank you for your time. thank you. next speaker card i have is

no no noah oppenheim. good afternoon. if we allow irrigation districts that are working in very close collaboration with staff of your commission to dictate environmental policy for projects that this

commission uses to deliver water to your rate payers, then we will be aggregating the environmental stewardship values that this city holds dear. we will continue as the previous speakers have mentioned, to allow and facilitate the decline of commercial and recreational salmon fisheries throughout our state, which would be to disastrous effect. i urge you to oppose the rider. i urge you further to oppose any policy offered by any member of congress in any legislative vehicle that would prevent the national marine fishery service from implementing its authority under the federal power act. these are -- the people of san

francisco's opinions matter. i urge you to oppose this and to work with the city urgently before it's too late. thank you. thank you. next speaker card i have is peter dreckmeyer.

good afternoon, president kwan and commissioners. peter dreckmeyer with the tuolumne river trust. i think you both know that president trump has launched a war on the environment and on the state of california. the big question is where does the sfpuc stand on these issues? i believe they've been very aware of what's going on. they might not participate in some of the meetings, strategically, but there comes a time when silence is betrayal. words of martin luther king jr. and just standing by and allowing things like this to happen is not okay. now, i think your staff is well aware of senator feinstein's position on these issues. last fall, she sent a couple of letters with very strong language telling them to back off.

we got suspicious and we filed a sunshine ordnance request and we found a whole paper trail of sfpuc staff and lobbyists in dc working on these letters. feinstein sent another letter to the department of commerce last friday. does staff know about that, of course they do. i think you need to sit down with staff and have a real heart to heart. we came and we discussed the rider three weeks ago. and we asked sfpuc to put an issue on the agenda. and we wanted them to oppose it. have a real dialogue about it and discussion. you're representing the environment on this commission.

you need to really push hard. ask staff, what did they know and when did they know it. get to the bottom of it. we want to support you when you do the right thing. but we don't have faith in what staff has been doing in dc. taking full advantage of the trump administration to try to kill environmental improvements on the tuolumne. and really, decisions need to be made based on the best available science. we're willing to sit down, discuss that with you, try to come up with ideas that can save money. there's a lot of things we can do together. we feel right now we're not at a fair table with your staff. and we need you to step in and change that table, make it more fair. thank you. thank you. those are all the speaker cards i have. any other public comment? commissioners -- forgive me, i'm sorry. i do have a speaker card from

mr. barry nelson. excuse me, i'm gonna call mr. nelson up first. pardon me, please. thank you, chairman kwan and members of the commission. barry nelson working with the golden gate salmon association and the other organizations here today on the issues in washington dc. to put this in a slightly larger legislative context in dc, the salmon fishing community is fighting at least seven different riders like this appearing in congress. as you've heard, this is very much a coordinated attack on the salmon fishing industry coming from the trump administration and very conservative members of congress. we're not asking for your help on all of those things. we're only asking for your help on that one attack on salmon that effects your river. and there are three reasons why it really makes sense for the sfpuc to speak up, given what's likely to play out in dc in the

next several months. this rider is in the cjs, the commerce justice and science appropriations bill. what we've seen in the past is that these riders will often pop up again and again and again on multiple vehicles. and one of the reasons you should take a position now is because we don't know whether this will be acted upon in two weeks, whether it will be acted upon in a month. or whether we might not learn about it until a couple of days before it happens on the floor of the house of the senate. so if you wait until this rider is farther through the process, by the time it's clear what's happening, it may be too late for you to act. i think it's very clear that while it's being considered now at cjs, it makes sense for you to act so that you can weigh in. clearly, inl, your senators want to know what your position is. second is the reality of how washington works. if the sfpuc doesn't object to

being prohibited from protecting salmon on the tuolumne river, that's what this rider is meant to do. the message that sends very clearly is that the sfpuc doesn't oppose prohibiting protection of salmon on that river. if they're silent on this issue, i've worked in dc for 25 year

years. if it finds its way in somewhere, we may be in a very tough position with the measure and some action. thank you, thank you. come on up. commissioners, you heard five gentlemen give very astute statements about something that you, commissioners, each one of you and your staff did not pay attention to.

what you do pay attention to is when you get a phone call from dianne feinstein. today, we will listen to dianne feinstein when she says that our water should go south. and y'all don't pay attention to the pristine water that you get. you heard somebody from communications