similar with dealing with sea level rise and other problems with building levees instead of by doing what is being encouraged, which is a very extensive program of creating wetlands mitigation for water so that we are not battling with the addition, we are working with the ocean, and we are working with the bay, and i would just come back to what commissioner caen were in the pointed out very early in this meeting today in that where we need to be targeting our waters strategies is on storage. but we have not even touched the tip of the iceberg on storage. wedone in places in australia, providing rain barrels to every single location that uses water in the city and massively storing up water.

that is how to solve water problems, not by using huge amounts of energy to remove salt and chemicals and other materials from water in a way that will endanger wildlife or directly harm wild wild life. we need to rethink this, and i think it is very premature for the sfpuc to join in with a desalination program like this, and as i believe that commissioner tom t -- commissioner torres one discuss this before we move forward with this, and he is even in favor of desalinization, so i really feel we need to have that conversation before you move forward to moving to wonder thousand dollars in desal. thank you. president vietor: thank you.

any other public comment? commissioner: i the question for mr. brooks. it is unfortunate that commissioner torres is not with us today. at the part where that we are investigating water supply options that helped more reliably serve customer needs during. the short fall or during emergencies and skipping to the relevant provision, the party's proposed to continue investigations and analysis in the development of the joint desalinization project. this was not in any way contemplated prior to this meeting? because i am seeing action, i am seeing a commitment to continue investigating and analyzing.

is this still going too far from where you thought commissioner torres was coming from? >> it is possible that the commissioner would even be favre for this, but his opinion was that we needed to flesh out. also, your environment to a chair is not here, and i would think for us to move forward with this desalinization, which is a very controversial thing if not outright bad, i would want to see the full commission here and give us some time to get some public comment out here to say what we think about desalinization and then decide on whether we're going to do it to moderate thousand dollars appropriation. i think the appropriation is the issue. $200,000 to a desal project, it is that, to a public hearing before -- i watch e of these he.

this is quite a surprise, but it is an action item already. commissioner: have we gone too far, in your mind, without commissioners torres and vietor here? >> yes, i think so. but it's like the idea is to study desal,. if there is no reason to do this today, i would say to wait until we have a full compliment

of commissioners until we can get the word out to other groups, like save the bay and others, and we need to have that full conversation, and i do not feel that had happened at all, so i would encourage you to bomb this until we have a full complement of commissioners to have a more in-depth -- i would encourage you to bump this. commissioner caen: this has come before us today. this is not new. we have already agreed to go in concert with three other districts to investigate it. that is all we are doing, and we agreed to do in a while ago. mr. ritchie? 2003. >> that is a long time. when i emailed people, they said

they were surprised this was happening so fast. vice president moran: commissioner courtney's question. >> i was at a hearing last week for cal water, and the chair from the san mateo planning commission was there and ask a lot of good questions, and one of them was, well, with less local water available and other restrictions, where is our water going to come from, because i been approving a lot of housing developments assuming the water is going to be there, but your plan does not convince me, and whether it is was, "well, we are going to look into desal," and she said that did not make her

more comfortable because there is a lot of controversy over that. climate change, using all of this energy to produce a water source piccata adding to greenhouse gases, so i think it is a good point. you're going to hear from organizations that are concerned at some point, and maybe it is better to hear in the first place, because i do not think people believe things are moving forward with dessal, -- desal, and $2,000 is a lot of money, so i think it would begin to notify people that this was on the agenda. vice president moran: any other further comments? at the wing commissioner caen: 's -- echoing commissioner caen's comments, as we go into

this planning effort, none of this stuff is simple. the fact is that if he tried to do more storage any meaningful way, rain barrel do not get you there, very frankly, and its storage is the answer, you may need to look at increasing the size of existing reservoirs, and i made the wrong end am delighted to be wrong, i do not think this is what you have in mind. as we look at all the pressures that are on the system, if we cannot work with a little bit -- local options, we have got to go back to the other. it is not simple on any side, and i think we're going to get there, and when we get there, i would like to have as down a

base as possible about what the dissemination efforts are so we can have a conversation about that. it is also an old project that has been around a long time. it is a new project to be here asked -- as an mou. i, for one, am very comfortable proceeding to this step, and i am sure we will be joined with lots of notice in do time. and with that, if i could have a motion? commissioner caen: i would like to move. vice president moran: is there a sudden? i will seconded. collins' favor? any opposed? the measure carries. -- all in favor? we need three votes, not a

majority but the majority of the commission. commissioner courtney: i would like to move that we carry the item over. vice president moran: we can have a motion to move to continue it. opposed? it carries, said that will be continued to a future meeting. -- so that will be continued. secretary housh: item 12, the discussion possible action to approve the plans and specifications and award water and a prize water system approved a program funded a contract, the calaveras dam

replacement project, a joint venture to construct a new earth and rock fill dam to replace existing calaveras dam in alameda county and perform project-related work in santa clara county. >> commissioners, and julie -- i am julie labonte. sometimes we get complacent, and we get a lot of approvals, but it is good to sit back. but we were very pleased with receiving five bids on this key projects. the lowest bid turned out to be responsible responsive, and we are pleased to secure approval for the award of this critical contract. i would also like to point out by the way that the winning bidder did commit to a

participation of almost 7%, which was higher than the goal, which was 5%, so i think this shows a good favor. >> do you have a specific question? or would you like me to take you through a general overview? do you have a specific question on the process, or would you like -- newmont -- commissioner caen: just to read it through it. >> to be able to complete the work. the apparent low bidder did not submit or we did not find when we went back and look at the

documentation that affidavit. the city attorney's office reviewed all of the documents and the specifications as well as the law on the matter, and they deemed that it goes towards its responsibility to perform its work, not its response of was, so we deemed the protest without merit. vice president moran: commissioners? any of the questions? public comments? >> a great project. so please do got here. kudos to your staff -- so pleased it got here. vice president moran: thank you. commissioner caen: i would like to make the suggestion that we

add something to the resolution, and this goes back to my desire for more storage. when this project first came to was, which was in the year 2000 perhaps, i wanted the dam taller, of course, and under the description of scope of work, it is stated, number one, that the design that could accommodate its enlargement but future generations -- i would like that wording put in the resolution because the scope of work can change, and i want to make sure that this is constructed so we can make it larger in the future if need be, so i would like to add in the last result where it says "approved plans and specifications which includes a designs that could accommodate potential enlargement by future

generations." vice president moran: ok. we have a motion and a second. any discussion on the commission? any public testimony? [laughter] any other public testimony? ok, i have a motion and a second. all of those in favor the motion carries. a contract for a little over quarter of $1 billion. secretary housh: mr. president, perhaps the next two items -- wait a minute. i have lost myself in the agenda

here. vice president moran: mr. secretary, let's just do them one at a time. secretary housh: i know of 13, -- i the number 13, discussion possible action to approve additional increases to the cost and schedule contract contingencies in the amount of $339,000 for a total amount of almost $3.50 million and 705 consecutive calendar days. vice president moran: commissioners, we have the package in front of us. would you like to have the presentation, or do you have specific questions could ok,

then if i could have a motion? moved and seconded. is there any public comment. secretary housh: we have no speaker cards. vice president moran: ok, the motion carries. secretary housh: the next item would be item number 14, the discussion possible action to approve increases to the existing contract cost and schedule for water and a prize, water system improvement program hh-935a, and to authorize the general manager to consider it is appropriate to approve my invitations to the contract amount and duration for a total of over $16.50 million in 621 consecutive calendar days. vice president moran: ok, do we

have questions, or would we like the presentation, or should we vote could -- we vote? do we have a motion? at a second? is there any public comment. -- and a second? is there any public comment? secretary housh: we have no speaker cards. vice president moran: the motion carries. secretary housh: i no. 15, the discussion possible action to approve modification number 92 water enterprises, water system

and prevent program funded contract number with a time extension greather than 10% of the original contract duration. vice president moran: 80. commissioners? any questions? -- thank you. to what have a motion? -- do i have a motion? commissioner caen: second. vice president moran: a motion and a second. secretary housh: we have no speaker cards. vice president moran: all of those do we have anything for closed session? secretary housh: i do not

believe we have any, so if you wish, we can take that off of the calendar. then we can move to additional new business, item 21. vice president moran: ok, commissioners, is there any new business? hearing none, do i have a motion to adjourn? commissioner: adjourned. commissioner caen: seconds. vice president moran: all of those in favor? the motion carries. secretary housh: we are adjourned.

>> the meeting of the entertainment commission. please call the roll. [role being called] we have a quorum. >> members of the public may address the commission on members of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. with respect to agenda items, members of the public may address the commission for up to three minutes as such time as the item is called. is there anyone here that would like public comment?

seeing none, review and approve the minutes of april 26th, 2011. >> i move that we continue the minutes of april 26th as we did not have a quorum to vote on them. we can vote on the minutes of may 10th. >> second. >> is there any public comment for commissioners comments on the minutes? same house, call. >> i want to identify if you have a proper quorum for the minute you're trying to approve. >> i move to approve the minutes of may 10th.

>> second. >> any public comment? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> number 3, report from the executive director. >> good evening, commissioners. quickly, i wanted to update you on ab74, previously called the rave safety act.

i attached to this memo the latest version that was amended on may 11th of this bill and now it is called the concert and music festival act. basically, this is a bill that requires any state facility seeking to hold an event with an expected attendance of over 10,000 people to create an event action plan which include specific permission considering health and public safety and law enforcement concern. this is fairly short. you can read it if you are inclined.

commissioner mako, can you update the commission. -- commissioner meko. there has been a request made by supervisor wiener to amend code section 1070 which is a police code section that we work with regarding extended hours permits. he is asking the city attorney to draft an amendment to exempt restaurants from security plan requirements. in 2009, when we had a schedule change, they were basically made it to mirror each other in terms of almost every aspect including

security plans and the corrective actions we are about to do now. it has not happened up until recently that an applicant came forward wanting to do basically food service after 2:00 a.m.. we have not faced this issue before. it was made clear to this applicant that we were previously the bagdad cafe. we will be required to have security and they requested that the supervisor make an amendment to the law. it has not been drafted but it has been assigned to -- because he has familiarity with 1070. i don't know anyone ceiling on whether this is appropriate or not but as this legislation

comes forward, it will not go through its paces to have a discussion. i wanted to let you know that the staff participated in small business week this year. it was last week. we had participated in the past at the taste of san francisco which was more of a social event. this year, we decided to have a table at the small business expo. lots of small business owners came through the expo and i repeated a lot of questions about what the entertainment question did and i handed out a lot of cards. -- and i answered a lot of questions about the

entertainment commissioned did. many get a bill from the tax collector, six or seven times of year for various licenses whether there is fire, entertainment, police. some businesses have quite a few of these things. they're trying to consolidate. one bill comes in march of each year and with that of the different licenses that they have to pay for. we will be working with the tax collector. we don't have that many in number like other departments

have. we will be working alongside the other departments to make what i believe will be a positive change for the city. it will not make it cheaper, unfortunately, but at least it will be more efficient. there's nothing to report for me on corrective action taken in the last two weeks. >> i have a question for the director. regarding this possible legislation, we have had a number of after hours restaurant who have come before the commission over the last many years. in several cases