commissioner elsbernd: you live outside of san francisco now? >> yes. commissioner elsbernd: mr. upshaw?no.

commissioner elsbernd: you live outside of san francisco now? >> yes. commissioner elsbernd: mr. upshaw?no. is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. the matter is in our hands. commissioner farrell: as a matter of process, i would be open to either scenario. given that we have a lot of applicants and just a few people here, do we want to wait to hear from everyone to appoint folks, or do you want to take

commissioner elsbernd: you live outside of san francisco now? >> yes. commissioner elsbernd: mr. upshaw?no. is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. the matter is in our hands. commissioner farrell: as a matter of process, i would be open to either scenario. given that we have a lot of applicants and just a few people here, do we want to wait to hear from everyone to appoint folks, or do you want to take action today? there are probably problem with both. commissioner elsbernd: i suspect there is some sort of communication breakdown because we only have three applicants here. it may do a disservice to the other applicants if we took action without giving everyone the opportunity. i am inclined to continue this item to the call of the chair and let supervisor king worked with the community to make sure that everyone gets an opportunity. >commissioner farrell: i support that. commissioner elsbernd: respectfully, thank you to eu3 who showed up. will be something that i remember. if you cannot make the next hearing, it is understandable. supervisor farrell

commissioner elsbernd: is there any staff on this item? this is relatively pro-forma, by a margin we hold off. madam clerk, we will delay this until the last item on the agenda. move to item four. >> item 4. hearing to consider appointing two members, terms ending september 1, 2014, to the assessment appeals board no. 1. there are two seats and for applicants. -- four applicants. commissioner elsbernd: mr. robinson. you are the incumbent. i am. i have been on the board for a while. i am a commercial real estate appraiser. my expertise is in hotels. as well as offices. commissioner elsbernd: if i could interrupt you, don is not here and i keep on putting the answer. could you tell me the difference between no. no. 1 and 4 number two? >> number one is mostly commercial properties, number two is mostly homes. i do enjoy contributing to the city. are there any other questions? commissioner elsbernd: no questions, ok. i do not see mr. gallagher here. mr. campana. >> i was here the last time that we went through this for the commercial position.

commissioner elsbernd: thank you for your work. mr. pitts. >> i wonder if you could open a public comment on items six? commissioner elsbernd: we had already done that. this is item three. seeing no other members of the public, public comment is closed on item three. can we send this item for without objection? commissioner farrell: that will be the order. commissioner elsbernd: you were not here when we did item three. -- item six. we are going to reopen the item. we have continued into the call of the chair. >> i appreciate it. for me, the thing is, when i looked at the quarterly report, i felt like there was not

commissioner elsbernd: thank you for your work. mr. pitts. >> i wonder if you could open a public comment on items six? commissioner elsbernd: we had already done that. this is item three. seeing no other members of the public, public comment is closed on item three. can we send this item for without objection? commissioner farrell: that will be the order. commissioner elsbernd: you were not here when we did item three. -- item six. we are going to reopen the item. we have continued into the call of the chair. >> i appreciate it. for me, the thing is, when i looked at the quarterly report, i felt like there was not enough ideas regarding recommendations. i think there were only several. for me, all my three years of experience, i feel -- attending several meetings between mental health and sro task force, local homeless coordinating board, i just believe it could've been done better. i think i have several things --

supervisor elsbernd: thank you, mr. president, and thank you, supervisor kim, for coming forward with this legislation. the amendment that you are introducing is exactly what supervisor farrell and i have introduced. i just want to point out a couple of things that perhaps have not been thought through. first, a rule of the board, and a supervisor can divide a question -- any supervisor can divide a question. if the intent of this is to ensure that there are eight votes, let's use me as an example. you will not get me to vote for the supervisorial races. i will divide the question. by not moving forward with the the item today, i will say that we'll need a budget analyst report as well, because this is increasing the cost of government by increasing how much candidates will have. you are opening up a six-week period where there will absolutely can be a lawsuit and attorney fees. they are now on record saying that you agree with what supervisor farrell has done. presumably you vote for the way that you said you agree. th

supervisor elsbernd: thank you. i just want to follow up a little bit on supervisor weiner's points as one of two members of this board that served during the passage of the health care security organs. that process was extraordinary. we work with everybody. i was one of the last people who agreed to support it. labor and community representatives came to talk to me. how many visits do you think i got on this? not one. the process on this is not comparable. whether you have a good process or bad process -- i just want to make the comparison is nowhere close. when the sponsor of the legislation tables their own item right before we go on recess, and that motion passes 9-2 -- it was safe for me to assume it was not going to get jammed through after that. i think a lot of other people recently assumed that. i think there is a question of timing, and the elephant in the room. there are a lot of people who may disagree with this point. but i do not think it is a coincidence there is a mayor's race five weeks from today.

supervisor elsbernd, have you withdraw your motion? i am sure the naysayers know what they're doing. i will leave it to them. supervisor wiener: we all know this will not be fixed in two or three weeks. it has to go through the ethics process, through the committee, through this board. it is a lengthy process and not something you're going to want to rush. you want to do it the right way. supervisor elsbernd: supervisor mirkarimi was not here. there were only three people who voted no. perhaps supervisor mirkarimi will vote yes. if he votes yes, we will not have to have this, so i vote to continue it for one week. president chiu: i have one question for our attorney. could be a menace to include other aspects of the public financing? or does anything have to go back to the ethics commission? maybe we could ask our outside counsel. i think i know the answer to that, i think it is no. >> if there is a substantial change, it has to go back to -- president chiu: supervisor farrell has introduced this in response to the supreme court case.

elsbernd: on page two, line 19, add the clause,

supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: no. supervisor mar: no. supervisor mirkarimi: no. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: no. supervisor campos: ho. -- no. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. president chiu: given that this ordinance would have required eight votes, the ordinance fails. supervisor kim will be introducing her ordinance, which includes many aspects of what supervisor farrell proposed today, as well as other changes to the public financing system that the ethics commission will be reviewing in a few weeks. let us move to the next item, item 12. >> ordinance authorizing settlement of lawsuits involving mitchell engineering, and authorizing bonds and appropriation of funds not to exceed $15.75 million. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: items 13 through 15. >> res

supervisor elsbernd: we have served together.may be appropriate that we are redoing this up here. you know it can sometimes be a pain to be a providing officer -- presiding officer with me in the body. he handed me perfectly. you are a fantastic share. you handled all of us well. you handled the issue well. i really learned a great deal from working with you, and you really epitomized for me what a public servant is. it was a true honor to serve with you, and i hope i get that opportunity again, and truly on behalf of all of the members of the system and all the residents of san francisco, thank you for all of the great work you did for the city on the health service board. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor elsbernd. \ -- another one into the year, but she is stuck on another board, but she wanted to say something. would you like to say something? >> i will say a few words, knowing how time is spread out and that we look down from the podium. my kids should be sitting here, listening to their ears burned about their dad. [lau

supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. >> there are 11 auye.s supervisor chiu: the ordinances are passed, the resolution adopted. >> item 3, changing the street name to correct a discrepancy in dole street names and eliminate confusion in delivering public services. supervisor chu: in 1913, this was part of the roadway considered great highway. signs were stolen and replaced with incorrect labels, which is reflected in our labels. we had heard of the problem when many of our residents were having their mail not delivered to their homes. we have since worked with the post office to make sure that mail was going to the addresses even if they were incorrect. but also make sure that the department of public safety, that there was no confusion with those agencies. we thought the problem was solved, but we continue to hear that there was continuing confusion, people not be able to get credit cards and other things. so we want to make sure it is proper the great neck -- properly named great highway, so i

commissioner elsbernd: i think that is nine counties. does that mean a san francisco can help carry it over if we paid 80%, but say sonoma is down around 30% -- >> correct. we found this in sb 375. for that region, it is a region- wide authority. in at the southern california region, it is either scag-wide, or they can delegate to individual counties. there was significant discussion in the weeks following the introduction of this language here in the bay area about a return to source guarantee. several of the counties were present for that. ntc seemed willing to put it in there. they fell to return to source with foul their findings process and get them around proposition 26, so they rejected a return to source. that is in play. i do expected to come back. it may need certain further refinements before we see it again. but it was in existence for at two weeks, and then its evaporated. but it is in play in sacramento and ready to come back in 2012. commissioner elsbernd: i have another question about another bill. assembly member hill --

supervisor avalos: thank you, supervisor elsbernd. i am wholeheartedly in support of a woman's right to choose. i looked at the memo that we got from the city attorney. i was expecting that we would have more information about what kind of advertising we see in san francisco before us, but did not see that. i think it puts at risk our ability -- since we do not have a record -- to prevail in court, if there is an appeal on this legislation. but i do believe -- i need to see evidence for myself whether there is value. i was wondering why we were getting yelp produce more than anything. just like when i pick a restaurant, i do not always pick those reviews to be gospel. wondering that i would like to do, and i hate to delay, but can we have another hearing where we can get more information to do that? i would love to be able to support legislation supporting a woman's right to choose, but i cannot tell actually what the experience here isa

i am sure supervisor elsbernd probably has more insight on that than i do. but when i know there will be a couple of cut out so if a caltrain vehicle broke down, the high-speed rail vehicle could go around it. but that would only be in a few areas, so there are significant stretches on the peninsula where if a caltrain vehicle broke down, that would just gum up high-speed rail. i do not know how realizable those are or what that experience is. -- i do not know how reliable those cars are or what the experiences. i thing this is a once-in-a- lifetime kind of opportunity. >> if i may, that is exactly the kind of pushed that we need on policy issues like this. let me clarify that the position that we have been an evolving on this is only intended to throw some technical light on these issues you are mentioning. because we believe that pushing for the final system that needs to be in place in 2050, and pripet -- pretend the only way to get high-speed rail is to have that, and that is potentially a red herring for those communities that are trying to fight that v