our counsel. i do not know the extent to which the ethics commission would make a presentation and how it what happened in a land use proceeding. there might be limitations on what ethics can actually say. to the extent that ethics acts as a body, i don't know that one individual can come down here and make the presentation. i like what supervisor campos is talking about. in some ways, it speaks for itself. that will be a question to our counsel.

>> thank you. the issue here is a little different from a planning commission hearing. the ethics commission does not have a staff member with expertise in misconduct that can answer questions in expertise. they make recommendations and pass those on to you. it is an issue as to whether or not you could ask them questions. those recommendations were voted on by the body. somebody may not be comfortable or be in a position to explain beyond what the written document is. it is a unique situation. as i have been council for the

ethics commission, my interpretation of what the ethics commissioner would do when it comes to you is provide you with a written record, be here to describe the process that they went through if you have any questions about the process that they went through, answer any questions. i think it would justifiably be uncomfortable trying to explain or expand upon any recommendations or findings made. those findings were made by the body as a whole. as a background, the fundamental issue is the party is being provided with due process. i do not think this issue is a due process issue. whether you want to hear from the ethics commission, whether you do not want to hear from them. whether they talk to you for 5 minutes or 20 minutes, i do not think it is a due process issue.

>> if i could follow up with one question, you said the amount of time, five minutes or 20 minutes, does not necessarily affect the due process issue. you could have a 5 or 810-minute presentation instead of a 20- minute presentation. i would throw that out there as a possible idea. supervisor tells burned. -- elsbernd. >> you took the words out of my mouth. i appreciate the theoretical legal discussion we're having. let's also consider the practical. i have heard supervisor campos and supervisor avalos. supervisor cohen nailed the point of what we are doing. we would be asking them questions to understand their rationale there is probably

going to be an hour, 2 hours to question. they are still going ot speak. i am all for cutting it down from 20 minutes to 10 minutes. they are going to be talking for a good deal of time. i would expect us all to have questions. that is one of the reasons they should present, especially for the public. we have all experienced the way the media summarizes things. they are not necessarily right. the public would very much benefit from their presentation. the broader sunshine.

and disclosure point would be better served. let's be real. they would be up there for a very long time. >> i would not be supporting the motion by supervisor avalos. it might do understand -- i do understand his point. i do not see any downside to a provided for a presentation by ethics. it could be a very brief presentation. there is not very much they can answer depending on the questions that counsel has raised. it could be very beneficial for us to hear the rationale orally,

or whenever it is that they can say. for the public to hear that and not just to have to go on line somewhere and find a document and read it. we want to make sure that whenever we are doing that it will be broadcast as widely as possible. people understand the recommendation and not ultimately understand the decision of this board. the supervisor is ultimately right. any member of this board can say, and ethics commission, can you please describe to be your recommendation and the rationale for it? they would have a 20-minute presentation. having a structure in place where they get a maximum allotment of time with the ability to communicate that

information would be useful. i do not agree with that for a couple of reasons. i do not want to predict how ethics will communicate its recommendation. it would be healthy to speculate one way, that could be talking about both sides. i do not want to presuppose about how they make a recommendation. this is a board of experienced, sophisticated elected officials who make decisions. there are plenty of times when you have public comment or emails in one direction.

i am not concerned that we will be unduly influenced if there is more time based on the recommendation of ethics. >> colleagues, i appreciate the discussion. i want to first say thsat the challenge and the structure is that we want to hear that the ethics commission does not use their time to argue. they are simply laying out what is potentially in their written record. i also agree with the sentiment that if we don't give the ethics commission any time to present, it will be confusing to the public as to what will be an contextual.

that is clear as stated in the right -- resolution that the ethics commission may make an oral presentation is not to exceed 10 minutes. at that point, we can ask as many questions as we want. it can extend the time. i want to mention for the public watching this discussion that it is our practice that as long as colleagues can ask that. i would like to make that motion to move this conversation along. >> is there a second? at second by supervisor weiner. >> i am willing to reese in my motion. i would like you to restate years. >> the only thing that would change about my amendment is changing the time frame from up to 10 minutes to up to 20

minutes. the rest would remain the same. >> that is only pertaining to the ethics information, correct? >> just to be clear, that is only pertaining to the ethics commission. both the mayor and the sheriff would continue to have their opportunity to make presentations up to 20 minutes. >> this is a question to our counsel. we are talking about 20 minutes versus 10 minutes. that could be extended. what would they be saying if bay are not going to spend a ton of time arguing? >> i do not know who would be making the presentation. i would anticipate that if the

ethics commission made findings and they had written explanations as to why they found that and they transmitted that to you, if you asked a represent-representative of the ethics committee, what is really meant by x, this is the way they want to transmit their findings to you, the representative might say we cannot really tell you anything more about that. that doesn't mean there aren't a range of questions about the process. the qualification i am giving you is you may not have somebody feeling comfortable collaborating upon a finding that has been voted on.

the collaboration might not be voted on by the majority of the body. >> i agree with supervisor winner. we are experienced in dealing with these issues. i do agree that to provide context is important. they might only be reading from a written record to begin with. something close. >> it is hard for me to speculate. i will not be making the presentation. one would expect that they might not want to stray very much from the written findings. they might not want to stray from the findings by the commission. >> supervisor campos. >> i am grateful to my colleagues for this discussion. i think it has been a very thoughtful discussion.

i do not know what the right answer is. i think the point that supervisor avalos makes is a good one. i think the approach that president chiu has outlined is good for many reasons. there might be a benefit to a presentation. the second point is that it recognizes that it is a different kind of a presentation. it does not need the same amount of time. i think that it is a good way of compromising and addressing some of the concerns. >> any additional discussion? at this point, supervisor avalos' motion has been rescinded. can we take my motion without

objection? the amendment is made. unless there is further discussion, can we take a roll call vote on the memo to be approved? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. . aye. >> it aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> there are 11 ayes. >> item 72. >> a motion cauterizing preparation for written proponent and ballot arguments for some middle to the voters on the november 6, 2012 consolidated municipal election. >> colleagues, we have circulated an amended copy of

this particular motion. i just want to summarize the assignments as they are laid out, which are the various sponsors of the amendments for the proponent and the proponent rebuttal arguments for the consolidated elections. it was suggested that supervisor weiner be in charge of those arguments for the housing trust funds. i am happy to handle that. for the motion regarding the citizens united related measure, we have united supervisor avalos with rebuttal ballot arguments. colleagues, unless someone would like to be assigned to any of the measures that do not currently have an assignment, i

would suggest that we strike items on page 4 through the end of page 6 and state that supervisor elsbernd will handle that. do i have a motion to that? we have to take the amendments and then vote to approve. can we take those amendments without objection? on the underlying motion, can we do this? the motion is approved. i understand we have one imperative hide them from supervisor mar. >> it is a resolution commending the chinese progress of revolution and declaring august 4, 2012 as chinese

progressive day in san francisco. >> colleagues, supervisor mar has provided us with the resolution. they have made a motion to that of fact. seconded by supervisor campos. any public comment on this item? colleagues, can we take this item? without objection, this should be the case. with that, could you read the en memorials. >> this will be adjourned for will lakevil -- late violet b. king. >> i know we have had a long seven months. i hope everybody gets a chance to take a break. ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned.

>> -- supervisor mar: good afternoon, everyone. i am eric mar. i am the chair of the committee. our meeting is televised by sfgtv. [unintelligible] >> please turn off any cell phones or electronic devices. any speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. items discussed today will be a book on the september 4, 2012 supervisors agenda. supervisor mar: please call item no. 1. >> i am asking to accept and

expend the polo fields for the golden gate park. >> thank you. this is my item. this is an important resolution. the board needs to approve a gift from the baker street foundation to accept and expend this gift to hire one of the gardener for assistance in maintenance of the polo fields. because of budget cuts, they are only maintained on a part-time basis. staff determined adding gardening staff was a high priority to preserve the quality of the turf at the 16-acre sports and events complex. it is particularly critical with the upcoming large-scale events at golden gate park.

without attention, gophers and heavy traffic will undermine the quality of the turf. the rec and park commission voted to accept this gift. i am recommending this resolution go out with the committee report in order to help the department and with the huge crowds for the concert coming up in august. we are approaching this move forward to tomorrow. lisa branson from the rec and park department is here to answer any questions you might have. if there are no questions, we will go to public comments. seeing none no questions, is there anyone from the public who would like to speak. great. thank you. colleagues, can we move this forward as a committee report to go to the july 31, 2000 -- july 21 -- july 31, 2012 board of

supervisors meeting. thank you. ms. miller, can you call item no. two? >> ordinates amending the san francisco help code by adding article 12c. >supervisor chiu: the legislation that we have in front of us is designed to encourage onsite water use and when the bill the. we opened a new puc building at 525 golden gate. this building is our real landmark. the building will use 60% less water due to a system that meets 100% of the toilet flushing- irrigation needs for water. it will be recycling 5,000 gallons a day of waste water. it will be storing rain water in

a basement cistern. in recent years, it has been challenging for developers installing the systems in major buildings, but i want to take a moment and think the staff of the puc who have worked closely with the department of building inspection and the department of public health to solve these challenges. the ordinance before us will developers install these water systems in new, large developments. it will streamline the process in maintaining great water, rain water, and blackwater. i also want to thank the puc for setting up the grant program for commercial developers who want to install the water testing process. it will save the of the environment -- save the

environment and money. with that, i would like to recognize the staff of the san francisco puc and see if there is anything staff would like to add. i know they were here briefly. i want to thank you and your colleagues for all the work you have done on this. if there's anything we have missed -- colleagues. >> we just want to appreciate your considering of this ordinance. just by way of context, we hear residents' use about 85 gallons of water a day compared to 150 gallons per day across the state, and that is because of many ordinance is that the board of supervisors have passed historic the, the many programs we have in place that really helps. as we look for new opportunities, we find it is on

the commercial side. we appreciate the board leadership. we have a number of staff here from the puc to answer any technical questions. again, thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public who would like to speak? please come forward. we're going to limit it to two minutes per person. >> two minutes, while. my name is scott. i represent a water machine system. the company provides waste water treatment management technology. i also want to think the committee for this opportunity to speak in support of the water reuse ordinance. through this ordinance, the puc has really provided visionary

leadership by saving money, addressing regional water issues, and promoting development as well. in terms of the benefits, i will put them quickly into three categories. economic benefits, community wide benefits, as well as environmental. the economic benefits include reduced capital cost. these on-site systems cost less than traditional systems. they create jobs, green jobs. they provide a clear path for developers. they also reduce the load on existing waste water infrastructure. community-wise, but these types of water reuse systems provide resilience for water shortages. the enhanced san francisco -- they enhance san francisco. the whole country is really watching what san francisco is doing as far as water.

we are not the only technology. my time is almost up. thank you for the opportunity. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. thank you. i am with spur. we have had the opportunity to consider this ordinance going back several months now. as you know, but such systems can factor in the reused water on the site. our reuse for non potable sources -- we really think we should be moving away from

using our wonderful hetch hetchy water for these types of uses. in the process, the puc has been putting this in place to make it easier for developers to consider and hopefully to include on-site treatment systems in the new building san francisco will be getting in future years. so, these treatments systems can generate significant amounts of water, as you of heard. about 25% of potable water. as president tchiu mentioned, they have created a system to help some of the system's. that is 40%. the significant. hopefully, we can get more significant types of systems going forward. i want to conclude that i recently got to see the living

machine at 525 golden gate. i was encouraged. not only does this mean the sustainability goal, but these types of systems are really beautiful as well. i would like to conclude by saying that we support this ordinance very strongly. thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is laura allen. i am here to speak in support of the non potable water use ordinance encouraging the use of non potable water towards a sustainable future. these water use projects in the past have impeded implementation of water systems -- a