>> i have a question. so as i heard you correctly, as phase two and three begin to get more firmed up and rolled out, you will be coming back to us as we go and i assume that throughout our budget hearings as well, we'll be better understanding different components of that. and i'm assuming that specifically in the central bayside tun fell project, we'll haefr more about where that stands and sort of would love to get an update on that because i know that there has been some shift on size and cost. as we've gone along. but that is phase two, correct? >> yeah. that is part of phase two. remember, phase one was to do the initial planning which we have done. i think we've brought to you what is the, we felt, the appropriate size and that was

based on high rate treatment if we wanted to move in that direction to reduce the amount of volume so we can treat more and that was really the indication of the size. and then, you know, as part of phase two, if we want to move into construction, we will come back to you to present what the budget is. i think one of challenges is that the actual location of some of the shafts for the tunnel, that is somethinging we're trying to finalize before we move forward. we're planninging to come back and one of the things that we to do, based on the last conversation that we had, is really talk about what we're trying to solve with the sewer system improvement program. you know, it's broken down into three components. one is the treatment. one collection.

and one is program matic stuff. and i know that collection is where green infrastructure is, you know, the main force of green infrastructure. and some of that is not only in the sewer system improvement program but is really in the whole waste water capital. so, one of things that we would like to do is just talk about the whole waste water capital program because there is a lot of things that you may be interested if it is not in the sewer system but a 10-year plan. >> that would be great. >> we just wanted the. -- when you focus on just the sewer system and improvement program, you miss all the other things that we're working on that is probably equally important and kind of get a sent of how all that is tied in. >> that would be great and i'm hoping with the budget hearings, taken from a dollars and cents perspective, in addition to programatically to

understand the bigger picture would be helpful. >> we have an opportunity. we're meeting with spur -- >> yeah, toper. >> yeah. what we'll do is talk globally first because if you just focus on what is in the sewer system improvement program and not look at the whole thing, you kind of miss all the things that we're doing on climate change and -- so -- >> right. that sounds good. one other question, too. i have heard through some of these other conversations about green infrastructure, about the high cost can of the early implementation projects. i'd like to get a better understanding. i heard it was three times as much as some g.i. projects in other places. i don't really have an understanding of if that's true or not or what that means why. i'm most interested in if that's really true, then it has been quite expensive. why? and we don't have to answer that right now, but as part of these conversations and whether it is on the ssip or capital side as we move into more money talk in the new year to really

understand what that is. is it an efficiency issue, a charging issue, contracting issue or what? >> and just through the general manager, there's been a lot of lessons learned so we do a correspondence or follow up with a presentation and pull in sarah and our g.i. team. that would be great. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? >> that actually concludes my report. thank you. >> thank you. next item, please. >> item eight is the annual financial audit report. >> good afternoon gefrn, president and commissioners.

nancy hom. i'm joined here today by my colleague lisa avis, managing director for kping who will later deliver the second portion of this presentation. i'm pleased to report to the commission that the sfpuc issued its fiscal 2016-2017 audited financial statements on november 8, 2017. this is also the first year that the clean power s.f. program reported its own set of financial statements as a subfund within the hetch hetchy enterprise. kpmg note add clean audit with no material in the financial statements. in summary, the awe to objectives were to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements were free of material misstatement, but not to express opinion on the effectiveness of said internal control. they evaluated appropriateness of accounting policies and reasonableness of significant accounting estimates used as well as those presented in the

statements. notable highlights include, again, this is the first year for clean power s.f. to present their operating results separately and there were no material misstatements and no internal control deficiencies for the nineth con >>tive year. we think that all p.u.c. staff that provided financial and operating information to auditors in a timely manner, 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.