inter- tied for emergency purposes. this is going to allow them to more fully understand the impact on their system as well, and they are now supportive. >> you're welcome. >> any other comments or questions. >> thank you very much. >> any public comment? >> thank you. i want to thank many for pursuing this effort, which must be frustrating to just move a little bit of water a little bit differently, there's always something changing in california water. we worry about fire sent earthquakes and environmental protection and all these things, it's great to be able to do things differently even when there are so many institutional constraints and so forth, so i hope you folks will work with

them to make this happen, it doesn't mean any water transfer is a good idea, i'm always sensitive as environmentalist, do you really need the water, and that sort of stuff, but that aside, working with other parties, we will be working with others in the future on some bigger deals and can be of benefit to communities here in the bay area and the central valley as well. who does to them for pursuing this. thank you. >> thank you. any other comments? next item, please. >> item ten is a consent calendar. all monitors -- matters listed are considered to be retained by the san francisco p.u.c. and will be acted upon by the commission. they will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commissioner of the public so requests, in which event, it will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item. >> are there any items you would

like removed, commissioners? to the public? any item to be removed? may i have a motion? >> move to approve. >> second. >> further discussion? all those in favor? >> i. >> motion carries. next item. >> item 11 is discussion of possible action to adopt a resolution regarding the san francisco p.u.c.'s participation in negotiations with state agencies and stakeholders for a voluntary agreement and an alternate to the amendment to the water quality control plant. >> good afternoon, commissioners steve ritchie, general manager for water. i don't have any slides to present today. we've talked about the state board's action, the bay delta plan several times, and unfortunately i wasn't here at the last meeting where there was a draft resolution for you and

as i understand, an alternative resolution was brought forward that time, and so we worked on that in consultation with a couple members of the commission , and have a resolution that we are happy to recommend to you today for your consideration and adoption. i think it hits the mark of presenting the commission's feelings on multiple issues, but primarily that we are committed to environmental protection, there is no question about that in my mind, as well as to the reliability of our water supply for our customers, i would be happy to take any questions on it. >> commissioners? >> i would like to hear the public comments before it comes to the commission. >> okay. >> the first speaker is konrad fisher.

>> thank you. again, it is konrad on behalf of the water climate trust. it is clear to me from the draft resolution that you all care about the aquatic ecosystems and i commend you for holding up the biological metric as opposed to financial and physical. there's a cut above a lot of processes like this. however, i'm concerned that the resolution continues to assume that we must choose between a reliable municipal water supply and the flow regime that came out of phase one of the bay delta plan, which is our best available science right now. the resolution before you today explains why the city and county of san francisco joined a lawsuit to oppose this regime. if i am allowed, can i ask who here believes that statement?

is that a no or i'm not allowed to ask. >> you can speak to us, we can't really respond. >> okay. so i guess my ask of you today would be twofold. number 1, support a flow regime now based on the best available science rather then supporting further delay while we wait for minor studies on necessary lawsuits and very long settlement process, and the way you can do this, i guess you would suggest that the sfpuc is in a great position to become a leader among california municipalities and support alternative ways rather than take a bite out of what scientists say the salmon needs. there is low hanging fruit. and i talked about this last time. such as soggy public parks

doesn't alleviate the program -- the problem that we are here to talk about. on the supply side, there is municipal water transfers. there's also a possibility of legislation just for that, so that in the event of an emergency, there is a provision that would safeguard human right to water, municipal needs so that cities don't have to try to take a bite out of the apple of what scientists say salmon needs this is not an easy task, but it is the only path to have the future of california that we want to where humans can coexist with our most iconic species like salmon and the orchitis that rely on them for food. >> thank you. nicole.

>> good afternoon, commissioners i am pleased to speak in support of the resolution before you today. i appreciate the effort to incorporate the modifications that you had requested or asked last time. i actually do think this resolution goes a long way towards documenting what i believe is the region's commitment to protection of the resources in which it is entrusted, but also reflection of the need to figure out how to balance that with the water reliability needs of the millions of customers that rely upon the system as well including silicon valley, all the businesses this entire area, that is not an easy job, but i appreciate the work and effort inputting this forward and i think it will be helpful as we continue our work on the discussions with the state. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. stanley mitchell?

>> good afternoon. i work with the river trust. i would like to share some comments prepared by peter, she is attending the meetings. he writes, dear commissioners, thank you for your efforts, especially by commissioners to improve upon the draft resolution prepared by staff. we have appreciated the progress , but still think there's room for improvement, i would like to comment on two items, peer review of the irrigation district his model, and adaptive management. the fish model upon which the sfpuc and irrigation district base their proposal is heavily dependent on manual predator suppression, however, the federal energy regulatory commission stated in its draft, environmental impact statement for the licensing that we do not

recommend the permanent barrier accounting or implementing a predator control and suppression plan, because they would likely not be effective and could have adverse effects on federally listed steelhead. similar predator removal efforts by the california department of water resources did not noticeably reduce salmon mortality and the permanent barrier counting where it could act as a migration barrier to salmon. based on this assessment, peer review of the fish model is more important now than ever. we also believe the p.u.c. resolution should reflect the need for a comprehensive adaptive management plan, including the implementation of higher instream flows should than on flow measures failed to achieve the desired bylaw and environmental goals and objectives. as you know, on december 12th, 2018. the water board adopted a flow regime of 30 top top 50% of unimpaired flow between february and june each year. this allows for a wide range within which the water agencies

could work to identify the best combination of flow and nonflow measures. we hope the sfpuc will endorse the water board's approach to adaptive management. thank you for considering these comments. next speaker is teresa hardy. >> i'm here for the san francisco bay water chapter and here with firmer comment -- further comments with the river trust. he did send a letter to the vice president and the commissioners

any voluntary proposal for bay delta flows should meet the biological outcome goals being established that just nearly committing to making specific efforts without requiring actual outcomes is not adequate, and the other concern, which has already been addressed, but i will briefly address it also is the importance of an independent peer review for any voluntary proposals that just coming up with a plan for one paid consultant does not make the plan valid, and in this letter that peter addressed, he did state that the trust is disappointed in the draft resolution and feels it does not adequately reflect commissioner

requests. the draft resolution repeats false and misleading statements. it reaffirms sfpuc's commitment to plan for its design drought, however, the river trust believes it is time to reassess the design drought in light of the crisis facing the river and the bay delta ecosystems. on december 12th, the commissioner did state that our draft voluntary settlement agreement does not really deal with what adaptive information looks like, and what the project objectives are, and we need to come to grips with that. the river trust supports the emphasis on setting of realistic objectives on an ongoing process

to assess progress, and to take corrective action where that information is indicated. we encourage you to look at these comments, and also to take them in stride and address them, because it is not just the people of san francisco, the waters of public trust and all the residents of california have an interest in that, and we all have an interest in water. if you can look at these comments and concerns, we appreciate it, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker is michael burton. >> thank you. i'm the executive director of a group called the public trust alliance. and what the last speaker said is true.

water is a public trust and there's a law that goes with that that some things are so important for public use you don't treat them like private property, and the science changes as well as you get into large systems which involve high levels of uncertainty and the concerns of the river trust and the sierra club and others about peer-reviewed of science is extremely important, and we should actually be doing the best with what we know, and we should be using what we know and my organization is a long time intervener before the state and public utilities commission, and they have been dealing with changing circumstances as much

as you have, but one of the real problems is that lawyers have established themselves as experts and many times they don't know anything about either engineering or economics, they just do law, and they know about winning cases, and with the notion of a public trust, you have to look at problems differently. i was interested in the report you got on this outreach about the head works. we went to all these places because we wanted to educate them about their sewer surface, or their sewers and our plans to help out, and the thing is, that

the water is the property of the people of california, and as managed interest for the the benefit of those people and future generations, and in taking a look at long-term water problems, we request, again, with the other organizations that the peer review stuff and just making sure that adequate measures for science are taken into account and the proper expertise is directed toward it, and it is not lawyers instead of engineers and scientists. anyway, thank you, very much. >> thank you. the next speaker is bearing nielsen.

>> thank you, madame chair and commissioners. i am with golden gate -- just a context first. we are in the middle of a salmon setting season, and the debate in the season every year is how much of a normal season we are going to lose because of the damage to our fisheries. that is the life that every salmon fishery faces. that means every year salmon fishermen wait to find out how much of their normal livelihood that we have seen for decades will be shut down this year. this year probably won't be as bad as the last two years, but it isn't a good salmon season. i think it is really important to highlight that because this is not just about ecosystem health, although it is also about people his lives, including people in your community. i only like to talk about two issues today. one place where we have made real progress in the resolution, we have made real progress. your new resolution states at

the top of page 3 that an additional resolved that says that your position is that new contributions in the voluntary agreement should be in addition to flow obligations and other required mitigation measures as of the date of this resolution. first, as i've said in the past, frankly, some of the habitat restoration is just phony. it is counting stuff that's really -- already legally committed to in some cases, and already constructed, not by your agency, but by others. this is helpful in moving the process forward to getting that phony stuff out of the voluntary agreement that frankly makes all of the water uses -- it helps the state waterborne actually analyse the proposal. right now they can't analyse a proposal because right now it isn't coherent, without a baseline, they measure water and habitat against, it just doesn't

mean very much, and finally, a potentially could be helpful in resisting efforts by some water uses in particular about the trump administration, changing rules in the delta, to be blunt, they can steal your water. this is not theoretical. the trump administration has released an analysis of how they plan to implement these and they are planning to pump any additional water that you release. that is clearly not acceptable to the people of san francisco. but i want to touch on one last issue and that is the peer review. this is, in a lot of ways, the core issue. the standards we are looking at now have been in place for 25 years. the state waterborne did an exhaustive peer review effort regarding the science from bay delta issues a decade ago. water users have had a decade to put together a counterproposal, and no point in that process have the water users stepped up

and said -- [indiscernible]

[indiscernible] >> thank you. the next speaker is mr. dacosta. >> commissioners, i spoke on this matter some time ago, for thousands of years, the indigenous people who always respect mother earth, they vetted spiritually the free flow

of the salmon. at that time that i spoke, i spoke about the rituals that they had along the rivers, and then came the so-called civilization and this notion of damning the rivers, and all this mickey mouse of having escalators and elevators to move the fish artificially from one area to another area, spiritually, we all know, because we have a conscience that if we harm the salmon, they are doing injustice, not only here in california, but all over the world. in california, as has been

stated, the rain, every drop, the water is public trust, which commissioners do not understand. you hire their attorneys, and you use legal jargon to lie. nobody wants to speak the truth. you want to negotiate so that you profit from the negotiations you don't go to the source and see about the health of the river. you don't go to the source and see about the harm done to the salmon. you don't go to the source and see about climate change, and all the contamination and all the pollution. you don't even read what lewis

and clarke wrote and reported in less than 150 years you have destroyed what was pristine for thousands of years. this commission, this city, named after st. francis xavier should think in a holistic manner, not decide that you know better than what the indigenous people know, and the indigenous people had at the table. thank you very much. >> thank you. are there any other speakers at this time? >> thank you. as i've said on several occasions, i am moved to say,

why not participate in the peer review. is there something to be afraid of? i've reviewed your proposal, there's lots of interesting elements in it, and why not? i have two and a half minutes. why not? >> thank you. >> any further comments from the public? so now i will turn to the commission. who will speak first. [laughter] >> i was going to deferred to another commissioner, but she is pointing in this direction, so i will go first. first of all, i think that the resolution that we have here is

a pretty good product and it doesn't satisfy everybody and it never would or could or will, but i think it is pretty decent, and i think it says, at its heart, a lot of things that we all believe are important, and that doesn't include a commitment to improving the fishery, to adaptive management, to having a biological objective , and it does deal with what is our fact, which is there is a tension between some versions of doing that and water supply, and we need to reconcile that. we don't have the luxury of being in an advocacy position where we can just state a point of view. we have the responsibility of reconciling that to the world that we live in and that serves our planet.

one thing that i do agree with, and i would be prepared to make a resolution at the appropriate time to amend -- this is the next to last resolve that barry was talking about and that was also addressed to insert the word before, signed -- scientific review and put in the word independent, which i think gets as pretty much there. [please stand by]

>> and we need to do something about it and the commission on the puc to regard water as the public trust and be able to meet our obligations to our residents as well as our contracts and our

obligations to both of those entities. that was the frame and the real issues that we'll reiterate and have been repeatedly to put on the table were as a reminder, first this question of outcome and what would success look like. what are the biological items and the settlement process, our hope and directs for the resolution and our hope was together p.u.c. staff would come up with and the commitment once get into it whatever the outcomes are, we're adapting as we go so there are specific bench marks and if the fish

continue to decline we would then be there to say we're not doing something right and have to adjust course. that's the idea behind adaptive management. there's now a directive in the resolution to hold the process to address that and come up with an adaptive management plan with benchmarks. get the environmental review lined up as soon as possible to make that happen we cannot wait longer. the fish was in decline and there was a commitment to that and the question of peer review which keeps coming up. i for one agree with and think we should be reviewing it. i don't think there's anything to hide. the p.u.c. staff feels strongly and believes in the model developed with the directs but

what was in the tuolumne management plan. i would agree and with that amendment there needs to be an in depend en -- independent review as part of the process and would support that amendment. i would go a bit further and add two other small amendments for my fellow commissioners to consider. i also had a question about the same comment that was raised about posing significant adverse impacts. and i would feel more comfortable to use a language significantly impact instead. oppose significant impacts whereas in the clause. i understand there's harm that will be caused and we need to address the water supply issues and there's economic concerns

and impacting on rationing, all sorts of impacts but i look forward to naming specifically and looking for solution to address but i would be more comfortable with that language as a friendly amendment. then the last piece and i would just kind of put this to my commissioners and i'm not sure if it could or should appear as an amendment but the word sustainable has different interpretations. i just want to go on the record. because we have not yet come up with what specific outcomes are, sustainability and sustainable has a lot of room for interpretation. i would feel more comfortable with language along the lines of fish populations that are growing and become self-sustaining. short of a specific outcome.

sustainable just feels wishy washy to me. it's still short of the outcome or specific bold goals that i would love to see in a resolution like this and that i'm hoping the state will come up with and the p.u.c. will work with the state to meet that bold goal and meet our water supply obligations. so with that i have three proposed amendments, one which is to add the word independent. second is to change the post significant adverse impacts language to significantly impact and third would be the word sustainability changing or sustainable changing to fish population s that are growing and becoming self-sustaining. >> would you like it submit

those separately or all together?becoming self-sustaini. >> would you like it submit those separately or all together? >> separately. >> commissioner: separately i suppose. >> could you indicate which clauses those are. >> i know it's hard because they're not numbered. so the independent word would appear which is the first amendment we'll address is the second to last further resolved and would appear before the word scientific.

>> i think i followed closely enough so i don't know if you want to move to independent or separately, your pleasure. >> we'll take it separately. i would move to amend introduce an amendment adding the word independent in the second further resolved clause. >> i will second that. >> further discussion? comments from the public? all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. >> commissioner: okay. thank you. >> i think you're kaushging about for the -- talking about for the second potential change in the fifth whereas on the page on the third line that starts the state's proposed flow regime

will limit it's ability to meet supply obligations an strike the word pose and change significant to significantly, delete adverse and take the "s" off impacts and add the word on. to read to meet supply obligations an impact the over $2.7 -- $2.7 >> 2.7 million people. >> and i'd like to propose that as an amendment. >> okay. do i have a second? any comments from the public? further discussion on this change? >> i will vote for this. the main reason si -- is i

don't want to spend our time talking about the intent is to deal for the fishery issues. will state for the record i believe the original statement and there are significant adverse impacts in one way or another will affect our service area. if for no other reason it will be spend money and everybody will pay rates and it would affect everybody different ways but effect everybody one way or another. i believe it's a true statement. i will support this as a don't think it really retracts from the statement and not what i want to talk about on the resolution. i want to talk about the resolve and what our commitments are. >> do you have any comment? >> i have to agree with the change and i think commissioner moran when we talk about

significantly impact by increased rationing or spending substantial funds for new water supply is significant. i'm good with that. >> okay. all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. the last one, steve, you still with me here? >> i think the third page the second further resolved that this commission direct staff to look at outcomes and voluntary agreement that will strike the word increased fish populations and strike the to make them sustainability and replace them that are growing and becoming self-sustaining. >> and become self-sustaining. >> i would ask a question. what does it mean for a population to be self-sustaining?

>> i think these are all words that really specific definition the concept itself of self-sustaining is that it doesn't need artificial support. and there's a question on the system we haven't really spoken to except in some comments the influence of hatcheries in california and the strain of fish into different rivers makes the question of self-sustaining a difficult one to get around. but soon we have hatcheries and stray i don't know if we'll be successful and know if the state is really willing to grapple with that issue because the department of fish and wildlife is strongly in support of

hatcheries and thinks they're an important tool. they are, but it moves you away from self-sustaining. i think that's just maybe it as long as we all recognize that issue, i think it's something i have no objection to but it is a big issue. >> and the board states things like doubling or viability and it's hard to find the right word because there's a lot of connotation in each of those words . self-sustaining i wasn't even thinking about the hatchery issue because you did have enough fish coming from a hatchery and if they're reproducing enough they're self-sustaining and doesn't matter where they come from but i provides more on the question of sustainability.

>> if the existence of fish having their hand on the valve i don't know they'd be self-sustainable in a natural way. >> i don't think it says whether it's a natural or not natural environment. could have a self-sustaining population that's not natural but we're in the talking specifically about the impacts. my hope is it's not opening a can of worms, so to speak whether the fish or native or hatchery by saying self-sustaining. the idea is the population is going to grow, doesn't matter the source. enough to become

self-sustaining. so there is a large enough population to be viable and sustainable. whatever the word is. >> i don't really see where that language is that much different from what's there now. this is one i don't mind leaving as it is in it's vagaries because of where the v.s.a. process is. i would be okay not having that amendment move forward at this time as long as the conversation goes on record this is really part of the urgency of this sto get to those outcomes so we really know what a sustainable population of fish is for the health of our future and our future eco system and future generations. that's the main intent of this. the idea behind tightening that

language is an effort to get there and it's certainly not as far as we need to go but going on record saying sustainable is not as clear or as far as we should or could go. and with that, i withdraw the amendment. >> you don't have to withdraw it. >> commissioner: it's a little bit vague. >> to me sustainable means that. >> so i would introduce the amendment and we can see if there's any public comment or commissioner comment and then vote on it.

>> commissioner: sure. >> commissioner: so the amendment would be fish populations that are growing and become self-sustaining. >> commissioner: i think the issue is defined self-sustaining versus manmade environment. you can put words in there but it gets more confusing when it seems we'll have goals set soon. >> it's supposed to create more definition to that because sustainable is self-sustaining to me in my view is the opposite, if you will, of going extinct. they are able to sustain themselves and they're growing. the growing word is important too.

>> are you saying we shouldn't have hatcheries? >> no, i'm not getting in the hatcheries. i'm trying to avoid that. i did not bring that up. were the fish come from they're able to grow and maintain that growth and state the population well if they can grow to 100,000 or sustain themselves at that number and we're creating the ideal environment for that to happen. >> i do support the sentiment. i don't support the words. it talks about increased populations to make them sustainable. that's clear when you introduce the concept of self-sustainability it raises questions instead of resolving them. >> so the amendment is on the table? >> no. >> if you moved it, then you moved it. >> second. >> is there a second?

>> if there's no second, it doesn't move. >> so any other public comment? >> it's an interesting code. it was once called the legislative embodiment of the public trust doctrine. and i think it's fish and game code section 5937 which places a responsibility on owners and operators of dams to take responsibility for maintaining fisheries in good condition. fisheries that are established or may become established. that's been their a long time.

and i'm sation -- saying here is where public trust and sustainability do a lot of overlap and interplay and economics and science has sort of separated the tether betwethg and i support the efforts completely of the vice chair to try to establish good intent and good practice in this commission. >> speaking to letter and intent of the public trust doctrine is in good and the species act 5739, not so much. just keep fish in good condition. so those existing laws, the letter and intent is very good as a goal.

speak from experience in other wathersheds there's been harvestable levels for fisheries an tribal uses so that's another way of stating the goal. >> and first, i present the fishing industry. we're supporters of hatcheries. they were built to compensate for the damage to our rivers done by dams and diversion projects. that's what they're there for to maintain fisheries at a healthy level. that's not the same as self-sustaining. our goal would be a truly self-sustaining system and the biologies wrestle with this a lot saying self-sustaining means populations that sustain themselves without hands-on

management. there's a difference between a hand on a valve and a hand on a fish. that's what the managers talk about. once you take it into a hatchery and physically manipulating fish one at a time, it's hard to call this self-sustaining. there's a difference between turning a valve to make sure there's healthy river flows or provide habitat that allows the fish to be self-sustaining. there's some gray territory there but i think there's a distinction between the hands on management of individual fish and ways in which we try to restore healthy eco system functions. the third comment is we've been wrestling with this for a fair amount of time. one way the state and feds and state board have wrestled with this is by coming up with a specific metric. the state passed the salmon doubling metric. that was adopted by the federal government in 1992. that is the doubling of

naturally producing salmon compared to the baseline of 67 to 92. that's the federal metric for restoring salmon for sustainability, if you wish. the state board also adopted that and in the legislature the congress and state adopted that. that's a healthy metric that's been around 30 years at this point. it doesn't use the word sustainability but it's also more specific. i'll leave it there. thanks. >> i would just like to speak briefly to the state doubling. i've been trying to get my head around that through the whole conversation. the reason i fell away from that and didn't really like that is because i think there's a lot of questions out there on which baseline you're using. if there's only 2,000 now, i would not be okay with 4,000. so i think the state has some of the same questions.

which is why i think leaving it slightly open with a directive from this commission to come up with bold goals and specific objectives around what it's going to take to create a healthy fishery may in the end up being a better goal or outcome at the end of the day than the doubling. i just wanted to respond to that because the doubling one is a tricky one. and i do know that's in the state law right now and a wouldn't be surprised if questions at least to establish a baseline of what doubling means would come forward as part of these agreements and i would encourage it and if that emerges what it's the mean double from what to what. >> okay.

mr. rishie do you have any comments? >> no, i think you've heard a lot of things here and i think actually make sure you're aware, the state water board is actually commencing a process. the plan to establish biological goals nor -- for the plants which they didn't have one and they've convened a scientific panel and they heard information from them and there'll be more over time. >> so, now, i need a motion for the item that has been amended. >> i believe we passed both the amendment and i'd like to move the adoption of the full resolution. >> as amended.

i will second that. >> any discussion from the public? any further discussion from the commission? all those in favor. opposed? motion carries. yea. yay. okay. next item, please. >> clerk: item 12, 12. authorize the general manager to execute a memorandum of agreement with the united states department of the interior, national park service, to fund comprehensive management, collaborative environmental stewardship, and security for the watersheds within yosemite national park supplying the san francisco regional water system, for an amount not to exceed $33,257,629 and with a duration of four year subject to board of a[speaking french] supervisors. >> motion carries. next item.

>> clerk: item 13 13. authorize the general manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the treasure island development authority setting forth the terms and conditions for the sfpuc to continue to provide utility services for naval station treasure island, with a retroactive start date of october 1, 2018, and ending on june 30, 2020. >> any discussion? all those in favor. motion carries. next item, please. >> clerk: item 14. 14. authorize the general manager to negotiate and execute a cost share agreement with contra costa water district, zone 7 water agency, alameda county water district, bay area water supply & conservation agency, the city of brentwood, east bay municipal utility district (ebmud), grassland water district, san luis & delta-mendota water authority, and santa clara valley water district, for funding costs of planning for the potential expansion of the los vaqueros reservoir. with this authorization, the sfpuc increases its maximum contribution to the cost share agreement from the $300,000 approved on march 12, 2019 to $354,129, with no change to the duration of the agreement. >> move approval. >> any public comment on this item?

discussion from the commission? all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. next item. >> clerk: item 15, 15. authorize the general manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with the san francisco recreation and park department setting forth each agency's respective responsibilities for the construction, operation, and maintenance of green infrastructure on el camino del mar in lincoln park. >> move approval. >> second. >> public comment? further discussion? all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. >> clerk: would you like for me to read the closed session item prior to public comment? >> yes, please. >> clerk: item 18, existing litigation david

alfaro, et al. v. city and county of san francisco san francisco superior court no.: cgc-15-547492 date filed: august 20, 2015 proposed settlement of action as to property claim of victoria sanchez in the amount of $97,500. >> any comments on closed session? seeing none can i have a motion to assert. >> assert. >> second. >> all those in >> the commission is now back in open session. the announcement from closed session is item 18 would settled. -- was settled. can i have a motion whether to disclose the discussion? >> move not to disclose. >> all those in favor. the motion carries. is there any other new business?

seeing none, this meeting is adjourned at 4:03. >> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their business in the 49 square files of san francisco. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and right vi. so where will you shop and dine

in the 49? >> i'm one of three owners here in san francisco and we provide mostly live music entertainment and we have food, the type of food that we have a mexican food and it's not a big menu, but we did it with love. like ribeye tacos and quesadillas and fries. for latinos, it brings families together and if we can bring that family to your business, you're gold. tonight we have russelling for e community. >> we have a ten-person limb elimination match. we have a full-size ring with barside food and drink. we ended up getting wrestling here with puoillo del mar.

we're hope og get families to join us. we've done a drag queen bingo and we're trying to be a diverse kind of club, trying different things. this is a great part of town and there's a bunch of shops, a variety of stores and ethnic restaurants. there's a popular little shop that all of the kids like to hanhang out at. we have a great breakfast spot call brick fast at tiffanies. some of the older businesses are refurbished and newer businesses are coming in and it's exciting. >> we even have our own brewery for fdr, ferment, drink repeat. it's in the san francisco garden district and four beautiful muellermixer ura alsomurals.

>> it's important to shop local because it's kind of like a circle of life, if you will. we hire local people. local people spend their money at our businesses and those local mean that wor people willr money as well. i hope people shop locally. [ ♪ ]