especially the financial reporting and ledger team in finance and the entire clean power s.f. team. we also thank kpmg for the courtesy of their audit team and timely completion. add this time, i'd like to introduce lisa avis, managing director of kpmg who will deliver the presentation of the audit results. >> welcome. >> good afternoon, everyone. again, lisa avis with kpmg. so you have our presentation here in front of you. so, when we're here, that means another audit is done and in the books. we received full cooperation from p.u.c. management and staff and because of that full cooperation, we were able to issue within the set time line. and as stated, we usual ewe add clean opinion on the financial statements which means that they are fairly present as of june 17, 2017. i'll go throughout the highlights of presentation.

on slide two here, as ms. homs stated, our responsibilities under generally accepted auditing standards and government auditing standards is to consider internal control. we do not do an audit over internal control. but in accordance with government auditing standards we're required to consider it. should something come to our attention, we are required to report it to you and nothing came to our attention that would merit that level of reporting. we design and implement our audit providers to gain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement and also in accordance of government auditing standards we have to consider the entity of compliance with laws and regulations as it relates to these financial statements and we opine on the financial statements based on the results of our test work. we issued two reports over the financial statements and unmodified or clean opinion on the entities, water, waste

water and hetch hetchy water and clean power. not listed here but it is on the next slide. and we also issue a report on internal control. it's sort of like a negative assurance report in that nothing came to our attention that was a material weakness or significant deficiency in the design and control. and we are independent of not only p.u.c., but the city as a whole as it relates to our professional standards. we reviewed p.u.c.'s significant accounting policies. they are described in a footnote. based on our analysis, not only are they in accordance with generally accepted accounting princele s, but they are consistent with industry practices and standards that we've seen in other utility entity tas we audit. the financial information was first available in may of 2016. and so this is the first year that we've had a full year of activity to report in the

separate fund under hetch hetchy. there are some accounts that are a little more challenginging to audit during the audit. it is not like revenue or expenses where we can vouch information to third-party invoices. but there is accounts such as the damage and claims liability, workers comp, pension liabilities that require estimates in order to present them as of june 30. and so we used our actuaries and other audit procedures and came to the conclusion that the liabilities were fairly stated without management bias. we have to consider management override of controls. it is a risk of fraud and nothing came to our attention at p.u.c. this is a rebuttal risk that we have to consider under our governing body. management is in a unique position because they have

oversight over records and journal entries. we performed a number of procedures. nothing to report and nothing came to our attention. as stated, there were no audit adjustments noted, no term weaknesses or significant deficiencies. we did not encounter any disagreements or difficultis with management. as i stated, we did receive full cooperation. there are new accounting principles and standards that come up every year and we had no concerns regarding the principles in the current year and to the best of our knowledge, management has not consulted and tried to obtain other opinions during the fiscal year. no significant matters were noted and no instances of noncompliance were noted as it relates to the financial statements.

there were no major issues that were discussed with management prior to retaining us as auditors. at the end of our audit, we receive a representation letter from management that the letter outlines things that they take responsibility for, such as fair presentation, the financial statements, compliance with laws and regulations. so, we have that signed document within our file. and we also execute add letter with the controller's office as part of our audit engagement. with that, are there any questions? as it relates to the audit? [please stand by] of financial

>> for those that have seen the hetch hetchy reservoir it's severe but it got worse the next year there's just not a good picture of that compared to this one. those are conditions we hope not to see again.

our objectives for water supply adopted in 2008 by the commission is to survive a specific eight and a half year plan scenario from 1987 to 1992 followed by 1976-77 back-to-back with no more than 20% rationing. there's a lot in that and that means at the end of the drought we're down to zero water. that's survival. that's not being able to do anything else in the future. that's a whole other question but that's the basic scenario. and it's shown graphically here we start out with 1.68 million acre feet and then you see along the bottom line there's a series of fiscal years with '86 to '76,

'77 following that. the blue line shows the decreasing level of storage through the end of the year. as we got to different levels of storage available to us because ours say storage-based system, you end up with a new level of rationing as it gets worse and worse. interest in the middle of 1988 we go to 10% rationing. in the middle of 1990, 20% rationing and this goes to 25% rationing because we still have a small bit of drought supply, 2 million a day of drought supply we haven't achieved we'd have to go through as we go to the next to the last year of the drought. this ends with this sequence with us getting to del -- dead pool and that means there's some

left in the reservoir but you can't get it out. you throw a hose in and pump it out in an abnormal way but it can't be released through normal mechanisms. this is how we track our work over time. so for the last drought, we followed this basic scenario of getting to higher levels of conservation driven by state water board measures and i was asked by a conference what would have you done different if you had known we were getting into this drought and my answer is nothing. this drought-planning scenario serves us extremely well to meet obligation to our customers here in the city and outside. which means, if the drought isn't that severe, yes there'll be some water left over but we don't really know for sure about that. that led me -- as we prepared our comments to the state on the water quality control plan to look at more documents. there was a declaration by the

general manager at the time when considering the factors associated with the city's entitlement to water and systems and consequences of just being wrong is the forecasting the leng length the drought, i can't not say they were overly conservative. i like to cite a sitting commissioner and former general manager who is the general manager through the '87-'92 drought and that was a horrific period for water managers in california. that's what we used going back to 1994 our drought-planning process adopted as part of the water improvement program. we can look at other alternatives but it's a matter of how much risk we're willing to take on. that's a very important question for us to consider. i wanted to summarize what we do, why we do it and how we have

used it so far. are we going to a new drought? could be but we're prepared for it. that's our response, being prepared as if we're getting into a long period of drought no matter what. we plan that way. you saw this being drawn down and it gives me a twitch. if it rains in january we'll shut the project down and take the water. it's more important to get the water than to finish that. we can do that at a later time. we'll have to balance that risk though. and it's in our planning scenario and we'll be happy to answer questions. >> commissioners. >> on the drawdown, that affects

and it's on the progressive curve you showed. how's that affect your first-year actions if it turns out to be the first year of a drought sequence. and if droughts don't last longer, does this change your thinking about a first-year event? >> not particularly. we talked about the eight and a half year planning sequence but i think what's built into that is the first year assumption that you're probably not going to over react because you don't know you're in a drought. when we talk about operationalizing new projects we assume that is going to cover a seven and a half year period and kick in at the end of the first year when we say, gosh, that was dry. we have to act as if we're in a

drought sequence now. in this case that would take us down 200,000 or 250,000 acre feet of storage which is halfway down the first decreasing year. it would accelerate us getting into a first-year drought is what it would do for us. >> it does give you less resource if you were to -- in fact enter a critical period -- >> that's correct. >> feel the loss of that but at a later year? >> yes, it would. >> you brought out one comment. the picture at the beginning of o'shaughnessy as the island was appearing, brings me flashbacks and nightmares and that. it was a very serious time and

that be resulted in a bunch of things. it resulted in changing our operations so we were without any ambiguity of water-first operations and power would not be generated in a way that would compromise our long term ability to produce water ability and prompted an extensive and deep analysis of what our hydrolgy can be operated in order to maximize our resiliency, if you will, during a drought sequence. so when you look at the curves you have and the rule curves we have in place, that was the product of deep and sober

thoug'thought and modelling and consideration. the policies that were generated were not without cost. they cost us in our ability to generate power. they cost us in our ability to certify water supplies. there's no part of that that's back of the envelope calculation. there's no part of that is aimed at anything other than preserving the ability to serve in a reliable and responsible way. i do get concerned when numbers are cited out of context. that impugning and integrity of the planning process and i take that personally. i think what san franciscans can

be confident in and what our wholesale customers can be absolutely confident in, is that the operating criteria we're using and the planning criteria we're using are not scare tactics and they are not conveniently conservative numbers. they're very carefully derived numbers and cognizant of the cost in terms of money. in terms of social impact, in terms of economic viablity -- viability of the area and there are serious feelings. i wanted to share that with you. we had other numbers presented today that would cast that in a less than serious light. i think that's important to discuss.

>> commissioners, anything else? thank you. >> we have two gentlemen to speak on public comment on item number nine. first is mr. peter dreckmyer. welcome back. >> so it's interesting that mr. moran's quote from 1994 suggests that people were saying the drought plan at that point or whatever management of the system was 14 years before the 2008 design drought. i would beg to differ with you, mr. moran. i think the design is arbitrary. it's two droughts combined. i don't think there's science behind that. in 2009, the state adopted the co-equal goals of ensuring

reliable water supply and protect the eco system. i think san francisco's a little behind on the second of those. i will give you credit. in the upper tuolome stakeholder group meeting on friday, it's people from state and federal agencies and ngos talking about biology. it's a great, constructive collaborative process and we need something like that for the lower tuolome and there was a climate change study. i don't think any of that was reflected in the design drought. if the concern is climate change, why don't we look at the science. it will affect things in positive and negative ways. the first 2400css belongs to the

irrigation district and between april and june the climate study said more precipitation will fall as rain and not snow and the snow will melt earlier shifting to the season when it benefits the fpuc. the last year was the second wettest year on record in the tuolumne water shed but yielded the most run off ever probably because of the fire and less taken to vegetation. that's probably what we'll see in the future and it does have a positive as far as the water supply, negative for the environment. i hope the state will do more. the proposals focus on measures.

we don't see those working in the absence of higher flows and sfpuc hasn't supported the idea of if the measures don't work we need more water. that's adaptive management and we hope to see that and there was an agreement in 1995 that said the state agrees to support the negotiating position regarding volumes of water to be supplied during the mediation professional and during proceedings relating to the fish flow issue. it seems like you're contractually obligated to follow the lead of the irrigati irrigation district for the tuolumne. >> next mr. dave river. >> it's a pleasure to speak to you again. i think the way i'd like to approach this is to -- i think

commissioner moran, back when you were going through this problem and i can feel the emotion of you saying the challenge of going through this was an outstanding job at the time. the thing that was missing was the environmental aspect. the questions i'd love to see you guys asking are what environmental unless was done when the current design drought was created. what is the environmental impact? what were the measures implemented to mitigate that impact and does the measures make a difference? i think that's really what san franciscans today would like to have. they would like to have a great, reliable water supply but done with great environmental support. i think we've only got half of that. another question is, how often do you regularly get updates on the environmental damage going on at tuolumne and the chinook

salmon possibly going extinct? another question is how did the drop planning mile compare to history. peter covered that. do you note the results of the last drought was not merely as long but it resulted in us having three years of unneeded storage and that would have been terrifically valuable to the fish. you can ask questions and find solution that's are win-win for both the habitat and for the water reliability which you so wonderfully provided for s citizens. i does notice in the 2015 urban water management plan there was an assumption household demand for water increases as affluence increases. i think we may have seen the opposite. another question that could be asked -- and maybe it doesn't go anywhere but worth the discussion, is what if we

changed that assumption that affluent households take the drought more seriously. they implement more planning measures so we see the demand for those households go down? if you model that, what does that do to overall demand? does that give you more options for dealing with achieving drought goals and protecting the environment. thanks so much. >> thank you, mr. warner. any other public comment on item nine? next item, please. >> i have a question on where we are in the whole process with the state conversation and negotiations. >> deputy general manager, that's covered by a confidentiality agreement we can discuss that later on the agenda. >> okay. is there a public piece to where this process is -- >> for the state and water quality control plan and the

substitute environmental environment the control board took comments on march 17 in 2017. there has not been the release of comment doc. we can only rumor when they'll release that. we hear it's maybe february but that's a rumor. it's not official. maybe they take it up some time in april in may but they don't have a schedule posted on their website at this point in time. >> that's helpful. thank you. >> last call for public comment? next item. >> the clerk: item ten is a bay area water supply and conservation update. >> good afternoon,

commissionerers. i was extremely saddened by the news of the mayor's passing and his loss will be fell not just by those of you in san francisco and by many including those at bosca so i appreciate the difficulty in going through today but government business must go on. i intend to focus my remarks on primarily two things and i'll keep them short. last month dan wade, the program director, came and spoke to the board and provided an update. it was well received and appreciated by the board. this year, parked the anniversary the three years passing one allowing representation and the one bill that allowed san francisco to

rebuild the system and the last bill that created a financing authority to assist in financing that rebuild if necessary. together, those three bills have created great results. we now sit at 90% or more completed. and essentially the seismic reliability is there for the community. that's a great accomplishment. so you now have you before you with the latest quarterly reports projections for a release of the schedule. full that engaged with your team on that but it certainly reflects kind of what we think is going to happen as the program tries to wind down. that schedule there's pressures on that schedule for other

things as well. the concern is that may not be the end of it with the latest e re-baselining. we'll continue to work on that. as necessary, once the schedule gets firmed up we do anticipate reaching out to our legislative contingency to extend the oversight from the sate and we'll work in collaboration with your staff on that and there was support when we went through that process the last time but that state oversight from our perspective is beneficial and helpful so we want to make sure that continues. on the second point, if i can look at the slides, i did want to provide a regular update on the total water use in the service area. as a reminder, the top line is the pre-drought for 2013 water use all supplies on a monthly

basis. the bottom red line is the lowest use in the 2016 calendar year. and the green is where we are at currently. we're right now tracking 12% less than 2013 in october. that's an increased reduction compared to last month which is about 8%. the interesting thing -- and we'll continue to watch this in the summer months, how much closer to the lower line does the demand go. or does the reduction stay hardened in through the winter. the weather this year and the lack of precipitation will be an interesting part of that. my board has asked me to continue to present on that and we will do that. lastly, just to add a few comments to the drought discussion you just had, i sincerely appreciate commissioner moran's thoughts on that. it is never something that a water manager wants to go through as a drought.

we've had several difficult conversations and didn't get as difficult as it could have the last time. this service area, in many ways, is unique because it does not have a significant access to an alternative water supply source. we don't have a connection to the delta or have the backup available in the event the hechy goes dry and that drives the appropriateness of the planning and something bawsca appreciates so i'd just add my thoughts to that. thank you. >> commissioners, any comments? any public comment? madame, secretary, please read the consent calendar. >> item 11 is the consent calendar. all matters under are considered to be routine by the san

francisco public utilities commission and acted upon by a single vote of the commission. that will be no separate discussion of the items unless a member of the commission or the public so requests in which event the matter will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item. >> commissioners, do you wish to remove anything from the consent calendar? >> i'd motion to move the consent calendar. >> second. >> any discussion? public comment? okay. all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> the clerk: item 12 authorized memorandum of understanding for improvements on illinois straight between 18th and 19th street in concession with the mission bay loop project in the amount not to exceed 8 64,96.

>> any public comment? all in favor ? >> aye. >> opposed? thank you. >> item 13. [reading item] >> may i make a comment on the item? i'd like to make a motion but before i do that, i'm wondering if as part of our budget discussions or maybe even to come before the commission, i'd like to get a sense of -- i believe our grant program is about $2 million now? >> that's correct. >> i don't have an understanding how that compares to other cities when they do apples to

apples who have these similar flooding issues that they're dealing with and have grant programs. at some point i'd love to get an understanding if that's sufficient with technical assistance and what's being approved today. >> to touch a little bit upon it and the previous presentation, the grant programs ranges from $30,000 and non-engineer. we're actually trying to do something that's different and so we are providing a budget amount of $2 million just to kind of see what the appetite is and if with we see that we would need more we will come back and talk to the commission about needing more resources out there to address.

now, the program is for folks in those flood areas and not everyone. there's a limit and also we're working with the applicants on solutions. so it's not like everyone that we will look at the situation case by case. so we can kind of give you more of an update -- grand -- >> and i know the storm water fee is coming and how they interface together. would potentially there continue to be a grant program? would it increase? decrease for the folks not in the flood zones or who may be but then they would be pegged fees instead. >> i think to talk about about what our strategy has been, the

storm water fee in the first stage is to acknowledge that's a component we'll put on everyone's bill. the second part is for folks who do not receive a puc bill because they don't receive a water bill, is to submit a bill. so if you have a parking lot and you don't have water service, we want to make sure we capture those folks because they're contributing storm water to our system. that's the first phase. the second phase after we roll that in, we are looking at size of property and see if there's pavement and there's multiple factors we haven't fully baked out. so we can maybe talk about where they are as far as run-off if you're on top of the hill verse this bottom of the hill.

those things haven't been ironed out yet. >> i think there may be two different grant programs we're talking about here. one is an investigation for a future green infrastructure grant program. that's correlated to the storm water rates modification and that's for installing storm water management and the flood water grant program which is the agenda item, is for structures on existing properties experiencing flood damage due to rain-induced flooding. and trying to find ways to protect properties in low-lying areas. i mean at the end of the day it's the same property have the flood risk with every storm because it's a matter of topography. so to try to provide assistance to those property owners who are

always going to have flood risk no matter how -- any capital projects we build to try to manage storm water a bigger storm would bring flood risk to the same vulnerable properties and we're trying to help them to take measures to flood-proof their property. we'll see how it gets deployed and see if it's the right amount or more or less needed. >> i'd like to make a motion. >> second. >> all in favor? >> public comment? discussion? all right, all in favor? opposed? next item please. >> item 14 authorize the issuance of the 2017 series defg water revenue bonds to advance

refund a portion of the 2011 series a, 2011 series b and series c and 2011 series d and 2012 series a and 2012 series c water revenue bonds to achieve debt service savings. >> i have to jump the screen. >> the monitor's moving. >> okay. i have problems with my monitor and when he came to try to correct it he explained the monitors were very old and you can try to plug and plug it back in but it's a bit of a lost cause. >> thank you. >> apparently they don't have immediate plans to replace them either. as we struggle with our

monitors, it's a pet peeve but we're in the technology capital of the world and we don't have screens we can read documents on. >> no comment. my wife's in charge. >> we need a solution. >> good afternoon. i'm the debt manager at the sfpuc. i'm here to present item 14, the water enterprise refunding bond transaction that we're about to -- with your approval, embark on. before i do that though, i want to spend a couple minutes giving you a quick briefing on an earlier transaction we did that you approved november 14. this is for the new money water bond sale we did. those bonds sold on november 30,

approximately 339 million bonds sold in the 2017 series a, b, c, water revenue bonds. successful transactions around we had seven under writers and the winning bid result in 3.8%. to put in context, we assume 5% for debt issuances so to come in below that is a good thing. also, i wanted to point out the bond rating agencies affirmed the water bond ratings, moody's affirmed it at aaa3 and standard at poors at aa minus. it's scheduled to close tomorrow, december 13. happy to answer questions on that transaction before we jump into the item at hand.

>> i'd like to move the item. >> second. >> discussion? any public comment? all in favor. >> aye. >> thank you. >> approved, thank you. next item, please. >> the clerk: item 15 thorse a memorandum of understanding with the office of the treasurer and tax collector bureau of delinquent revenue to provide special collection services for delinquent water, sewer and power charges. >> i have a question on that. i would like a better understanding how that will impact low-income residents who may not be able to afford to pay and what that entails. >> this is an arrangement with

the tax collector. currently he is working with an assessment of fees and how it affects low-income customers. >> since this is a continuation i would ask maybe through the general manager, once he finishes that assessment we can understand that better because i do have some concern around the rate increases espescialr espec especially on low-income folks and get payment but consider them. >> that's the work we're doing on affordability. >> thank you. >> we had a motion. second. >> i think there was a second. >> any discussion? public comment? all in favor?

opposed? approved. >> next item. >> the clerk: item 16 authorize the san francisco public utilities commissioner waste water enterprise to accept and expend the green infrastructure leadership exchange in $29,000. >> move for second. >> discussion? public collect? all in favor? opposed? approved. next item. >> authorize san francisco utilities commission water en prize to accept the port for a 30-year term. >> second? >> discussion? public comment? all in favor? opposed? approved. next item, please. >> the clerk: item 18 authorize

a general manager to execute a second amendment to the site license agreement dated october 6, 2015 between tri star investors llc and city and county of san francisco and locate additional telecommunicati telecommunicating equipment and in the increase of subject to 3%. >> i move the item. >> second. >> any discussion? any public comment? all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? it passes. >> the clerk: item 19, authorize the general manager to execute a memorandum of standing between the treasure island development authority and continue to provide utility services for the naval station at treasure island. >> i'd like to move the item. >> second.

>> discussion? public comment? all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? it is approved. next item. >> item 20, authorizing the general manager to execute 15 to 25 grant agreements to support san francisco youth and young adults engage in project-based learning opportunities. each grant agreement will provide approximately 25,000 in grant funds per year to the grantee and have a duration of three years each. >> i'd like to comment real quick if i could. so i wanted to make sure that my colleagues understood i'm supportive of the effort and i also wanted to thank staff, especially ag ellis for pa

painstakingly go over the details and what are career and pathway programs and what is good work in the field. i think what excites me the most, is through the efforts we'll begin to compile data useful for both the efforts and the career pathway development proposals currently on the table. specifically knowing what the wage rates are and the minimum qualifications and whether you need to possess a california driver's license or ged. i'm excited about moving this item forward. i'm excite about the dialogue i'm having with agency leadership and i support it but if there's something that you feel you should add please go ahead and do that. >> i'm the acting community benefits workforce manager.

i don't think i have anything substantial to add to that. this is a project learning grants is around our eco literacy strategy and linking concepted to project-based learning that exposes youth to career opportunities around the puc and partnership with union so what you're speaking to is these grants support that first-touch point and reaching youth 11-17 on track to the workforce development programs. >> i would add from my seat i appreciate the work you're doing as well in this area from an environmental stewardship perspective. it's an incredible opportunity for careers going forward i

support the program as well and thank you for your work on it. >> thank you. >> one of my colleagues at my day job said it was a big moment to teach kids where milk comes from and where it goes eventually but the program is great work. >> thank you. >> i'll move the item. >> second. >> any discussion? any public comment? all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? approved, thank you. okay. we're moving into closed session. will agree closed session items. >> item 23 is anticipated lake litigation with two cases as plaintiff. item 24 is existing litigation versus the city of san francisco and items 25 through 31 will not be heard today.

>> so is there any public comment or matters to be discuss during closed session? is there a motion to assert the attorney-client privilege as conference for legal concert. >> move to assert. >> okay. >> second. >> all right. all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? okay. >> motion not to disclose. >> second. >> those in favor. >> opposed? >> passed. as we adjourn the meeting i'd like to officially do so in

memory of mayor lee and if i may say so i think it is again all the priority of the commission and staff to continue the work of mayor lee and to support the acting mayor. with that the meeting is adjourned. happy holidays, everyone.

>> (clapping.) >> in san francisco the medical examiner performs the function of investigating medical and legal that occurs with the city and county of san francisco from a variety of circumstances in san francisco there is approximately 5 thousand deaths annually i'm christopher director for the chief mr. chairman the chief my best testimony a at the hall of

justice on 870 drooint street that is dramatically updated and not sufficient for the medical chairman facility i've charles program manager public works should a earthquake of a major are proportion occurs we'll not continue to perform the services or otherwise inhabit the building before the earthquake. >> we're in a facility that was designs for a department that functions and in the mid 60s and friends scientific has significantly changed we've had significant problems with storage capacity for evidence items of property and also personal protective if you're doing a job on a daily basis current little storage for prirjs are frirnlsz we're in an aging facility the total project

cost forever ever commercial is $65 million the funding was brought by a vote of go bond approved by the voters and the locations is in the neighborhood the awarded contract in 2013 and the i'm the executive director we broke ground in november 2015 and that started with the demolition of existing facility we moved into the foundation and january so pile foundation and then with second construction of the new facility. >> one of the ways that we keep our project on time on budget and we're having quality to have regular meeting and the variety of meetings with construction process meeting as well as cost of control meeting and i'm a project manager for

public works the office of chief commercial we want walk the project site when we sign up and also with a contractor insinuates for a change over we need to verify what or what was instead of. >> the building is 42 feet tall so it is two stories and 46 thousand square feet roughly we're that's a great question to be on time and budget have the roof complete a the exterior moving with the site work. >> and as you can see we've got a lot of the interior finishes installed. >> in an effort of an differentiate the facility that designed to work for 72 hours. >> not taking into account there was a lot of structural updates made into this building not seen in other construction throughout san francisco or other barriers we have friday

morning examiners from 8 to one public comment monday to friday because of air circulation we literally have to shut the doors and so the autopsy is done without staffing being able to come and go or exit the space and literally lock down the autopsy in the new facility we have bio build one door opens and closed behind you you can gown up and go through a second seizures of doors that has its own independent air supply and now in the exterior opt space having that middle space have greater flexibility of staff as they move in and out of the area. >> in the current facility investigative unit has small

tiny, tiny place in the area of the new facility is almost doubled in all divisions from the current facility and the new facility. >> the planning we have here gives them the opportunity to have the pool needs to complete theirs jobs in a much more streamlined fashion. >> we're looking forward to have secured parking to minimize the egress of you know visiting and the members of the public but really to minimize the investigators remaining remains from our advancing and so the facility. >> we have a new visitors area we're building that is a little bit more friendly to families. >> one thing you may notice in the room no windows there is no natural light not good for most

autopsy but in the new facility at new hall we made that an objective they want to insure we were able to look up in the middle of exam and see the sky and see natural lights. >> that's one of the things the architect did to draw in as much light as possible. >> we have staff here onsite we insure the design of the new design enables the investigators and other investigators skiefksz to consider to house on site this meant we needed to design and plan for locker room facilities and shower rooms the ability to sleep. >> third of the construction going into the building has been by contributions of small businesses. >> part of the project is also inclusive to the sidewalk have

all new sidewalks and new curve cuts and landscaping around the building we'll have a syrup in front of the building and rain guardian. >> the medical examiner's office has been a several if in their contributions of the understanding the exception and needs. >> it's a building that the chief medical examiner has been looking forward to quite a few of the. >> it is extremely valuable contribution to the, neighborhood address san francisco as a whole. >> the building will allow is to have greater very much and serve the city and county of san francisco and the neighboring