surprising number of murders and accidental deaths. children are at risk because it takes only a few leaves to kill them. a southern california woman tried to collect on her husband's life insurance by putting the leaves in his food. she is now one of 15 women on california's death rowan the only one who attempted to murder with a plant. >> people who may haven't been to their cons tore or been to -- do serve tore or their botanical garden, it gives them a reason to come back. you think let's go and look at the pretty flowers. these are pretty flowers, but they are flowers with weird and fascinating stories behind them. that is really fun and really not what people normally think of when they come to a horticultural institution.

>> "wicked plants" is now showing at the san francisco conserve tore of flowers. unless next time, get out and play. ♪ >> hello, and welcome to the department of elections right choice voting instructional video. it is part of the department of elections right choice voting outreach campaign and is designed to educate san francisco rig franciscoht choice voting. today we will learn what it is and who is elected using this voting method. we will also talk about with the ranked joyce l. looks like and

how to market correctly. finally, we will see how the ranked joyce voting process works and to you an example of an election using ranked choice of voting. so, what is ranked joyce voting? in march 2002 san francisco voters adopted a charter to implement ranked choice of voting, also known as instant runoff voting. san francisco voters will use it to elect most local officials by selecting a first choice candidate in the first column on the ballot and deborah second and third choice candidates in the second and third columns resect to do -- respectively. this makes it possible to elect local officials with the majority of votes. more than 50% without the need for a second runoff election. in san francisco, ranked choice of voting is for the election of members of the board of supervisors, the mayor, sharon,

just -- district attorney, city attorney, treasurer, this is a recorder, and public defender. ranked joyce voting does not apply to elections for local school and community college board members. number the election of state or federal officials. ranked choice of voting does not affect the adoption ballot measures. when voters received their ballot, either at a polling place or an absentee ballot in the mail, it will consist of multiple cards. voters will receive cards with contests for federal and state offices, as well as for state propositions and local ballot measures. for ranked choice voting contest, voters will receive a separate ranked choice ballot card. it will have instructions to rank three choices, which is new. the ranked choice ballot is designed in the side by side

column format that lists the names of all candidates in each of the three columns. when marking the ranked choice ballot, voters elect their first choice in the first column by completing the aero pointing to their choice. for their second choice, voters selected different wind by completing the arab pointing to their choice in the second column. for their third choice, voters elect a different candidate by completing the arrow pointing to their choice. voters wishing to vote for qualified write-in candidate can write it in on the line provided. and they must complete the arrow pointing to their choice. keep in mind, it voters should select a different candidate for each of the three columns of the ranked choice ballot card. if the voters elect the same candidate in more than one column, his or her vote for that candidate will count only once. also, a voter's second choice

will be counted only if his or her first choice candidate has been eliminated. and a voter's third choice will be counted only if both his or her first and second choice candidates have been eliminated. we have talked about how to mark the ranked choice ballot. now let's look at how ranked choice of voting works. initially, every first choice vote is a candidate. any candidate that receives a majority, more than 50% of the first choice to vote, is determined to be the winner. if no candidate receives more than 50% of the first choice votes, a process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes begins. first, the candidate who received the fewest numbers of first choice votes is eliminated from the race. second, voters who selected the eliminated candidate as their first choice will have their vote to transfer to their second

choice. there, all the votes are recounted. fourth, if any candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, he/she is declared the winner. if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, the process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes is repeated until one candidate has a winning majority. now let's look at an example of an election using ranked choice of voting. in this example, we have three candidates. candidate a, b, and c. after all the first choice votes are counted, none of the three candidates has received more than 50%, or a majority of the first choice vote cast. candidate a g-205% ofb the votes% received 40%. and c received 35% of the boats. because no candidate received a

majority, the candidate who received the fewest number of first choice votes, a candidate a, is eliminated from the race. voters to pick a candidate a as their first choice candidate will have their but transferred to their second choice. and the voters to pick and a, 15% chose candidate b as their second choice, and 10% chose c as their second choice. these votes are then applied to b and c, and the votes are recounted. candidate b now has 55% of the votes. candidate c as 45%. candidate b has more than 50% of the votes and is determined as the winner. >> thank you for watching. we hope you have ranked choice learned ranked choice of voting and was elected. you have seen the ballot, learned how to market, and learned how the voting process

works. if you have any further questions about ranked choice voting, please contact us at department of elections, city hall, room 48, 1 dr. carlton be good lit place, sentences go, california, 94102. or 415-554-4375. visit our website, www.sfelections.org.

>> good morning. today is wednesday, september 21, 2011. this is a meeting of the abatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call] we have a quorum. the next item is the old spirit will all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand? where is the other gentleman?

ok. commissioner lee: we can do that later when he comes back. >> i did not think will work first on the agenda. >> we are doing the oath of office. i am side, the testimony. will all parties giving testimony today please stand and

raise your right hand? do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? >> yes. >> thank you. this is an abatement appeals board meeting of the process of the department. the department has seven minutes. then the appellate has seven minutes. each side is allowed three minutes for a bottle. item number c is new appeals. order of abatement. cases 6750, 619 diamond street. all our record lindsay chambers. action requested by appellate -- reversed the order of abatement due to active building, plumbing, and electrical permits on 619

demonstrate that correct the building violations caused by the previous owner in 2008 -- 619 diamond street. the communications and the perception in the building department or that the act permits took care of the nov's once completed. commissioner lee: thank you. i guess we will hear from the department first. >> good morning, president, board members, active senior building inspector wrote code enforcement. the appeal number, the address, complaint 200840567. in your package, you will see the dates for the notice of

violation. the particular violation in this case is removed all wall and ceiling finishes of the entire building interior without a permit. on march 24 of this year, a director's hearing took place and an order of abatement was issued with conditions including file for building permit for removal of interior finishes and said it collected plans and finally 90 days to complete approval. there were two permits issued in 2008. one was to deal partially with a notice of violation, a separate case from the one we have today. shortly after that, there was a

revision to that permit. both those permits expired. earlier this year, this permits were renewed, but they have had -- those permits were renewed, but they have not have final inspection yet. a permit was filed in september of this year, a revision to the original permit. the permit is still in filing status and has not been issued, so take into consideration that no permits dealing with the violation was issued, inspected, and signed off before the hearing and has not happened to date. staff recommends to uphold the order of abatement and to impose assessment of cuts. that concludes our report. commissioner lee: any questions? commissioner murphy: i have just one question -- these walls that were removed -- are they all interior? >> yes. >> i understand the september

permit application is for the extra work that was not included in the first two permits? >> it is for extra work of different types, but it does not refer to language in the violation which relates to removal of the interior wall finishes. still, there is no specific reference to the particular violation. >> so the violation, the permit application for september -- that is all for violations? -- with that solve the violations? >> not completely, no. >> so it is different? >> yes. >> of these interior walls, were any of them structural and/or would have required to be upgraded to meet current structural requirements? >> whenever there is work done without a permit and any

material is removed, until you get the permits and have inspection is going on, it is only then that you truly get a clear picture of exactly what went on. often a permit can be got, and then after the first inspection, when the inspector corresponds between the violation and the description on the permit, they may discover that it does not entirely deal with all the issues, or they may discover other issues that were not apparent when the initial notice of violation was issued. that is what this whole process is. we need a permit that deals specifically with us and under the inspections with that permit, and the other issues. commissioner lee: thank you. and the other question, commissioners? ok, we will have the appellate,

the homeowner. you have seven minutes. >> hi. i am the owner of the property. i guess the question i have is that i have a permit here from 2009 that says clear nov's with a bid. it was a revision to the permit that was pulled by the previous owner. that is what i have. this is a printout from online. this is the actual permit. commissioner lee: thank you. yes, please continue. >> that would be it sounds to me

like the main point of contention is that i do not have a permit that explicitly states that this permit is to clear the notice of violation, but that permit explicitly states that its intent is it is supposed to be able to clear what it has been idle, which we do not have a final because we have not completed construction, that the nov's will be cleared once the permit is final. >> did they disclose you to you -- did they disclose this to you when they sold the property? >> i was aware there were nov's on the property. they said they cannot be cleared until the permit was finaled, but this revision permits, the particular one i have handed you is final, and they would be cleared.

>> that has not been funneled -- finaled. i am with the prior owner is well known to the building department. he went through bankruptcy and left a number of these properties all in the same condition. a lot of notice of violation. it was a very complex case. the district attorney has a case against the former owner. he must have had 20 of these properties throughout san francisco, and this is just another one that he had. you have investors now picking up the pieces to this property. they are getting permits. they are doing the right thing, but they are still being whacked as -- for past deeds for someone that owned the property prior to them. that is probably the best way to put it. >> let me ask you a question,

mr. sweeney. what does this woman need to do to resolve this? >> i believe she is pretty close to finaling this. she probably needs a little more time. she would get cfc and that would clear all the violations. that is what she needs. >> my contractor said he should be done by november 1. >> what is the current fees on this? that john would be better off on that. >> if anyone have any questions for me. otherwise, i do not have any testimony. thank you. commissioner lee: ok, do we have public comment? no?

ok, rebuttal. >> in response to that question, the initial fee at this time as $1,326. commissioner murphy: has electrical sign off or plumbing? >> i am not aware of that. the history of that seems to be of not getting permits signed off. there was reference made to other permits issued. there can be permits issued, but the goal is to get the permits signed off. in doing so, we can verify that the permits of the violations, and then we can close the case. commissioner murphy: i just wonder why this ended up here in front of us. >> as the secretary mentioned, there was a change of ownership,

and it is difficult when a new owner comes in because they are not familiar with exactly what went down, so they depend on their own research and any help we can give them. i do acknowledge that is difficult. commissioner walker: the $1,326 represents fees only, no penalties? >> that is the cost we incurred in handling the case at this point. commissioner lee: anything else? thank you. homeowner rebuttal? >> this is in response to whether there are active electrical and plumbing contracts on the property. we have asked the plumbing and electrician to boulder on permits. i apologize. i lay have what i pulled off the online web site, but there was the midpoint inspection this year for plumbing and electrical as well as the

insertion of a fireplace. but they have not been a final -- they have not been finaled because the house has not yet been inspected. we have not have final inspection. thank you. >> commissioners, it would appear all the rough inspections have been done on the property and we are awaiting final. commissioner lee: ok. any more questions? ok. >> it is always troubling to me when, you know, in the midst of a house selling that had previous problems those issues have not been shared with the new purchaser. i think that is an ongoing problem. however, it does not deal with the fact of the violations here,

which is what we are asked to look at. it looks to me like the department recommendation is an accurate one. and that i would recommend or suggest or make a motion that we forward the staff approval that we adopted, recommendation of the staff, but give time to the owner to complete the work. maybe 30 to 60 days, two months. i pulled the staff recommendation and give the homeowner two months to complete the work. commissioner murphy: i would like to add to that. i would like the owner to least get 90 days. >> ok. i'm fine with that. commissioner lee: i think i agree with 90 days. i think the homeowner said something about november. >> i'm happy to amend my motion.

>> is there a second? >> second. commissioner lee: any other comments, commissioners? >> i do. i think as a result of some of the condition of sale on some of this distressed property that we always will and most likely should at least be aware of what these properties have by virtue of their -- they are essentially a land mine for those that purchased it. somehow, the realtors are just in their to sell the property without the recognition that the impact on the buyer does have some repercussions. do we have and should we take

into account that these properties are -- and put the new order at risk? >> in the case of how this particular former owner had bankruptcy problems and legal problems, he really did leave behind a mess. i have met with many people buying his properties, and all having the same problems as ms. chambers. it is very complex. when you buy it from bankruptcy, you buy from a bag. the disclosures are not as much as you would have on a regular sale. the buyer as the buyer is at a lot more disadvantaged. you need to be very sophisticated to buy property out of bankruptcy, especially one in bankruptcy that has been torn apart and has notices of violation. >> you mentioned something

interesting. did you meet with the property owners or the new owners before they owned the property or after? >> unfortunately, i usually meet with them after. a couple of them i have met with prior to buying, and i tell them as soon as i hear this particular name, i said, "watch yourself. you will probably discover all kinds of unpleasant things." >> when you take on one of these projects, the properties are usually discounted. you take that into effect. you also take into effect that you take the baggage when you sign on the dotted line. whatever is on there, you are responsible for. i think the buyer in this case has shown very good faith in coming forward and getting permits and doing all she can to legalize it. we have given her time.

so that is where we are at. >> ok. if there are no more comments, we will take a vote. >> on the motion to uphold the staff decision with the amendment to give the owner an additional 90 days to complete the work, president lee? commissioner lee: yes. commissioner walker: yes. commissioner clinch: yes. commissioner hechanova: yes. commissioner mar: yes. commissioner romero: yes. commissioner murphy: yes. >> the motion passes unanimously. commissioner lee: thank you. next case, please. >> added two, case 6751, 250 kearny street. owner of record and a palette, henry karnilowics.

a year is requested. it has not been signed off yet because there's notification regarding planning it number 173705. for some of this is for the facade of the ground floor commercial space. although the hotel is separated from the commercial space on the ground floor, the planning department will not release permits until such as the it was mckay's has been debated here testimony, deliberation and possible action to uphold, modify, or reverse the order of abatement. commissioner lee: ok, the department, please. >> appeal 6751, complete