item 25 is a resolution delaying the intention of the board of supervisors to expand the benefit district >> colleagues can with he do the same house, same call. this resolution is adopted >> item 26 is the zoning map to reorganize the map. >> colleagues can we do this same house, same call. it's passed on the first reading >> item 27 is an ordinance to require the new buildings to have drinking foundations. >> thank you, colleagues i appreciate your consideration of the legislation that we have in front of us. i hope to improve the public's access to clean free drinking water. i've been a advocate for

reducing our plastic water. every single 27 hour period americans consume water bottles around the glob. we ask this be installed in the drink tap stationed. bringing more drink tap stations would mean easier assess for san franciscans and the reduction in our plastic bottles. we're lucky to have the drinking

water. we have the tap in our airports but we need to do more. i want to take a moment to thank the puc and in their assistance in crafting this legislation. i also want to mention i'm currently reasoning on the reduction of the sale of plastic water bottles. i do have one quick technical amendment. right now the language states that the any drink tap needs to comply with the american standards of disability acts. we ask that comply with the building inspectorss.

supervisor mar >> thank you so much to president chiu and advocates of reimbursing the use of plastic water bottles. i want to thank the groups that have been working on the strategies to reduce the waste of plastic water bottles. this will increase the tap stations. and it will go a long way. i also want to acknowledge i'm working with president chiu on the meeting that will explore the city's opportunity to have more tap water stations. i look forward to working with

president chiu on working on that thank you very much >> colleagues can we take this same house - >> do we have a motion. >> we have a motion by president chiu to amend. we have a second. can we take that out objection. as amended can we take that same house, same call? >> next item please. item 28 is to require the application codes for the buffer district. >> colleagues can we take this item? it's passed. >> item 29 is to have the unexclusive folks. >> i want to have my name

added. >> thank you, mr. president, and to my colleagues supervisors (calling names) for being co- sponsors. i think it's really important for san francisco to send a clear message we don't believe that we will have expensive immigration reform underlines the lgb community is included. comprehensive reform without the lgb community being part of it is not comprehensive. you can't have legislation coming out of congress that is a broken system if you leave out of the process that the thousands of lgb couples are left out. what we're talking about in washington is not including

them. we ask the whole state of california to stand up for the lgb community. it's unfortunate that the senator has not supported the efforts that would keep the policies to help these folks. this is not consistent with the legislation we have in california and it's not good that we put lgb families against the comprehensive reform. it's not the fault of lgb folks if their reforms are not included. i think it's important to have san francisco so say that lgb couples need to be given this opportunity >> colleagues without objection this resolution is adopted.

mr. clerk call item thirty >> item thirty is a resolution to transfer the type of 21 from fetter street and in district 3 for the cafe for the necessity of the city. >> colleagues this is a resolution occurring a liquor license transfer - oh, i'm sorry. >> this is item thirty. >> my apologies. i'll save my remarks >> same house, same call. item 31 was referred without recommendations. this is the on sale general

license from 493 district street would serve the public. take it away. thank you, mr. chu. we have two for consideration in front of us. the liquor license when this item first came to committee the police department recommended this approval because they had only heard from the opponents. at committee at the neighborhood services and safety committee a few weeks ago we heard from tremendous support. and i appreciate the committee pit this forward to the committee and the colleagues i've circulated this to those by

the police department and my office to be recommended. those are conditions that insure w that there's no sale of beverages for the folks under the age of 21 and to deal with windows closings them and make sure the entertainment is limited after midnight and insuring that this takes the public into account. i want to thank the staff and everyone and with that ask first that we adopt the amendment i've circulated and ask for approval >> any comments?

can we adopt those without objection? is there a second? mr. clerk can we adopt those items without objection? >> and can we have the same house, same call? thank you >> next item. >> item 32 is a motion appointing this lady to the committee of the advisory committee. >> colleagues can we do this same house, same call it's approved. 2001 to ask for - >> supervisor al loss. thank you, president chiu. colleagues i had a chance to meet with a few folks. i feel like this is a board

appointment to the ethics commission. i just did not have a strong support - with the positive research center and his work as an advocate i've worked with him probably since 2006 to anyone miss any cuts and he's been an incredible advocate but when it comes to the commission we want to find someone who has a great expertise in ethics policy and even law. i got brets letter for his own support and it was based on his community support but his

commitment towards ethics and there was small points toward f

>> have been tremendous and i have nothing but respect for him but we need people with tremendous experience and perhaps others we should be keeping this only to find the best possible people for this.

>> supervisor wiener. thank you, mr. president, i'll be voting against the motion and will be supporting this appointment as recommended by the rules committee. this gentleman is a super candidate. he's in the lgb community and the african-americans community and the hiv service community and beyond. in addition the ethics commission right now has no lgb team members no african-american members and that's not acceptable. i want to just respond to the

claim that some how you have to have been e percent in the san francisco iblths word or b be some kind of expert. i think that is completely not true. when he look for commissioner whether it's an ethics commission or the police commission we're looking for citizen representatives who bring their experience to be able to exercise common sense leadership no overseeing different departments. this is true of the ethics commission as well. and mr. adams brings that from the community. we're not looking for people who only work in this area or that's their april focus.

we have an experienced staff. we are looking for folks with common sense. when you look at the commissioners on the commission now we have someone when we say a media professional and someone whose a retired lawyer. we have an attorney who did legal malpractice cases and other context cases. we've got another one who did advocacy around transit. we have an ethics commission of very experienced members of our community who bring different life prospective's and different expertise to this commission. and mr. adams brings significant

and expertise to this commission. he's a very thorough person and has significantly run on

>> and the only reason i met with anyone candidate is one reached out and the other did not. and i'm not supporting this motion because i think the names have been publically noticed and if there were any problem with the names they should have been dealt with. a lot of the work happens in this body and the committee made the decision i will be supporting bret andrews today.

i think what we need in my opinion is someone who is fair and open-minded and fair. a that's not easily situated to the right ever or left and keep a cool head when difficult swaktsz manifest. i think this is one of the characters and that's why i stand by mr. andrews as a commitment. >> this is not on easy choice for me. i agree with what supervisor wiener said he's universal respected in the community. he's done tremendous work around

the community with hiv and he's definitely a regarded leader. for me, the question is this the right fit for the ethics commission. i appreciate where my colleagues are coming from and i don't want to vote against mr. andrews. you don't have had to have experience in the field but i do think there has to be a special interest that the candidate has. and ethics is something they want to decade their lives to. i think that if this gentleman had been named for the right

fit. maybe in the end he truly is the best candidate we can have. i believe that the rules committee did work here and most of the time when the recommendation comes out of rules we support that. i think that's the right and appropriate way to handle such appointments. but i do think there are times when even though a vacancy has been opened and we have to go back and see if there's a way to reach out for more candidates. that's what i hope he happens here. it could be we come back to the same conclusion and indeed mr. that andrews is the right person

but i'd like to take our time to get to that point. there are many things that are going to be happening with the ethics commission in the next if i months. there's a report that compares rules like from los angeles. and there's a number of remedies to be made and there are proposals by the city attorney and president chiu around the ethics that are going to be important. we need consideration of that commission. personally don't believe there's anything wrong with taking our time and if it is the case that mr. andrews is the right choice then taking our time will only confirm that. i will be supporting the motion today. i want to thank both candidates

for their interests. for me, the question is the nucleus us with the commission >> thank you mr. chair. first of all, i want to acknowledge that we have two excellent candidates in front of us. they could serve the city. i will be supporting the recommendations of the realize committee. in my time on the board of supervisors i'm currently sponsoring a ethics reform issue to tighten up lobbying to ask for more transparency and sunshine. ethics is important to me and to all. i have had conversations with mr. andrews and to constantly

update and i can purport he's willing and eager to have confidence with the board and the public. and in particular he wants to open up dialog with the outside ethics. i do want to take a moment to thank the friends of ethics. i understand while we support another candidate mr. audrys is willing to work with them and any other advocates who are interested in this important issues. at the end of the day we need to make sure our government is transparent and has rules that are equally and actually enforced and i know mr. andrews supports that so i intend to

support the committees recommendations and a colleagues i have not talked about with others to form my opinion. i hope i don't mess this up. there's a great movie called dr. strange love and there's an assembly of genius and in the pentagon room called the war room and an russian consul is in there. and the president says gentlemen i've never seen such behavior in the war room. we're in a room where politicians happen everyday. and trying to explain this is

absurd. we have our opinions and to say that, you know, i'm voting my way because i talked to friends of ethics because that's how i fofrmd my opinion. i met with mr. andrews and he didn't have anything to say about it. i want to have someone who has some knowledge and passion about ethics. so i stand by my motion we really need to have some people who have a passion for this and who can be part of the watchdog. it should be a strong commission and i hope we can look at another colleagues >> i want to first of all, acknowledge that the rules committee did in particular i -

but if it is that not every member feels comfortable making that decision today i'll support a motion to turn this over the committee. but at that point i'm happy to support the decision. i did have an opportunity to sit down with the two candidates. i was impressed with the lady because she attended the ethics meetings. i appreciate the fact that she this because we have others who don't attend the meetings. i appreciated her passion for this issue. i really appreciate mr. andrews

and his presence on the commission. i'm more familiar with his works on the hiv issues that were although he didn't have as much expertise on the commission i think he has a commitment to the issues. i will be supportive of a referral because i want everyone to feel we've had adequate time inform review the candidates. supervisor cowen? okay supervisor yee >> i want to say that i agree that both candidates is are good potential candidates.

and i judged it as one has the capacity to look at complex issues whether they can be fair in the judgment and whether or not they put the time into it. i feel like i could loopholes look and possibly have even a better candidate, however, i didn't - i wouldn't vote for somebody who wouldn't qualify. i feel like mr. andrews does qualify for this and i'm going to stick to our recommendation >> colleagues any further discussion? okay supervisor al vascular has made a motion to refer this back

to committee. could you please call the roll on the motion to send it back to committee >> (calling rolling). >> there are 4izes and 7 notices. >> it fails and unless their any discussion let's take a role call vote to approve mr. andrews to the