had that was abuzz and did a god job getting out the vote. and then the office closed down and was empty. and the results came in, and we saw a high voter turnout supporting mayor lee. and it felt strongly that this system -- it was one people understood, voting how they wanted to vote and in high numbers, resulting in the outcome we came up with. i looked at the outcome of the election. the way the tabulated votes came out, split by about 60-40%. the way the election was divided in 1999.

in a lot of ways, the demographic ways people voted, it made sense this outcome was the way it was and i felt like the way it came out was validating in terms of what the voters wanted to express. i also have the opportunity to -- i wondered what it would be like to be in a runoff election. i don't know, in terms of personally, the way that my family could continue another month and a half, i did not see how this was going to be possible. i thought the right choice was going to be one that would help to assure that candidates like myself could be part of the election. for the mayor of san francisco. i also felt that there was

discussion about whether we had missed the opportunity to have a real policy discussion about how the city could move forward by not having a runoff election. i actually do not tend to agree with that. there was some incredible policy discussion that happened in last year's race. president chiu understands the nuance of public policy and i think that this gave him a lot of positive feedback for the voters about how to look at this. as a candidate for mayor. i truly believe that. my positions support that and, i do believe that we have that if you were paying attention. we have other changes that happened, -- to help to obscure

what the elections are about. they cannot all be tied to the number of candidates that we had that made it difficult to understand. i believe this is a disservice on voters, and so i am in support of trying to give a rambling speech but support the amendments that the president has put forward. i am in support of the right choice of voting. i would -- will continue supporting that, with one exception, on july 10. president chiu: it sounds like we will move these proposals out to july 10 for consideration. just talking about last year's experience with the mayor's race, i have heard supervisor avalos said that he was fine without the runoff.

this is a complement to supervisor avalos. many would have benefited from a real discussion between the supervisor and merely -- mayor lee -- the reason people want to have a little change is to see the different visions fleshed out in a different setting than 16 mayor -- male or zero candidates. it would have been a long and exhausting time -- but one that would have benefited the city. the second thing is on the issue of september vs. november. as i look at these dates, it is clear that this would fall in or around labor day, or close to september 11. as i look at the state, if we had that this year, it would be september 11, 2012.

those may not be ideal days of us to focus political campaign attention on us. it would probably reduce some interest on the part of the electorate. i think what we would want to see it -- we all share the goal of wanting to make certain that the dates maximize the turnout. for me, this is the paramount issue. i think that november or december is what i hope we end up doing. supervisor campos: i will keep these comments brief. on the issue of what the benefits of the runoff would be, i think that there are differing opinions on that. i know that within the progressive community, there are different perspectives, and as much as i can see the benefit of a runoff, i also know that when we have those runoffs, that the

progressive candidate has been outspent, and i am not convinced that this is necessarily the best thing to do. with respect to the amendments that have been made, i am not convinced that these amendments are necessary, and i am not certain what i would do if i was going to vote on them today. i do believe that in terms of the marriage of these amendments, president chiu's amendment is better than that of olague. i have concerns about the elections in september. with the practicality of the department of elections being able to manage that, there are many questions around that and i worry about the voter turnout,

especially in certain communities, if we were to have the election in september. the times we see a runoff, where we have seen the voter turnout increasing, this has been where we have had the general election in november, and i think if we go by what we have done before, that what he proposes would be a better option. i am not convinced that this is the way to go. i think we need time to think about the marriage of these proposals. i would respectfully ask for your support, of my motion to continue. >> this is just a point of clarification to the city attorney. if we divide the file into a charter amendment going forward, can you support both?

i ask that question because -- what if two of the charter amendments get six votes or more? do we have been going forward to the voters? >> both items would go to the voters, and if they are inconsistent you have been consistent measures. you would go to the version where if they just pass, we will be in favor of the one that got the most votes. >> what if they both get six votes each? >> they would both go to the voters. >> i suggest that i hope that from between now and july 10, that we just have one measure but we will see what happens. >> i was not able to share my thoughts. i will save it -- i will say most of them for two weeks from

now. september and november, i would like to throw out a few thoughts to consider. this is why i think september is appropriate. having lived through all of these elections and paying attention -- to the runoff, december, you have thanksgiving, you have the holidays and absolutely horrible weather. you have a lot of people not paying very much attention. september 11, you mentioned this as a concern. september 11, 2001 was election day. they have not changed their election -- and if it is working for them, respectfully, i think he can work for us on that issue. i would also ask everyone to consider the transition -- you

will not find out if your the mayor until the middle of december. if this is september or november you get a couple of months, a real time of transition. you get to prepare to take office. he has raised the concern that if he had to have gone through an extra month, you would not have had to go through that extra month. he would have had the runoff in september and you would have been done the same day. you raised the issue of people not paying attention to the campaigns until after labor day. if you run for mayor you get people to change -- to pay attention. they will pay attention if you run the good campaign. this is the way that it works now. if you move the election day a couple of months, the voters will pay attention. >> supervisor --

>> i am happy that we have continued this, and we have a couple of weeks to review everything. in my mind, agreeing to this was a way of reaching compromise. going with it -- the majority of the city-wide offices, and -- you know, just considered for not the choice -- but the runoff elections. and so now, after hearing from more members of the public, i am willing to propose this amendment to the mayor, and i have a question about the september date, if this was a good day, as far as voter turnout is concerned. in my dialogue to the public, i think that november is a good day for the final election, and

the concern with november and december only with -- i think that this would -- this may have an effect on the turnout because of the holiday season. thanksgiving is on the 24th and after that, you have the christmas holidays. i have been concerned in the past and mention it here, with the september date for the election. new york is the only other place where this is done. there is a lot that we can consider when reviewing that choice. i am happy we have the opportunity to least have the discussion and complicate -- contemplate this a bit more. i feel pretty good about limiting -- the amount for the may oral election at this time. supervisor kim: this is a

request -- my understanding is that new york city has a low turnout, but just because they have a low turnout primary does not mean we have to the same thing. i would love to see that same information. >> i want to thank you for a very good discussion. supervisor campos says that we should divide this into three separate files. duplicated, twice. one of them is the original version, and the second is olague's version. is there a second to the motion? can we do that without objection? they will be continued on july 10. with that, supervisor, wiener? item 41. >> the item is called.

supervisor wiener: i hope this is much less controversial. i did send this back to committee, so that this could occur in the november election, and the june election. a reminder of what this would do, this would be to eliminate the low turnout of the election for city attorney and treasurer, to consolidate the election of those offices to the other odd-year election for city attorney, with much higher turnouts. these are very important offices in san francisco. and this election is antara as low turnout election. and so the idea is consolidation. and making sure that we have a much higher level of voter

participation. in addition, every four years, this will save the taxpayers approximately $4.3 million by upholding the election. in addition, this is in the original form, before the last discussion where the state attorney will stand next november, and it will become synchronized by standing again in november, 2015. i would appreciate your support in sending this to the voters. >> colleagues, is there any discussion? let's have a roll-call vote. elsbernd? aye. farrel? aye. kim? aye. mar? aye. olague? aye. wiener? aye. avalos:/

s? aye. chuiu:? aye. chu, aye. cohen, aye. >> the charter amendment is submitted. let's go to the 3:00 p.m. special order. >> item 58 is the motion scheduling the board of supervisors to sit as the -- committee of the whole to approve the report assessment costs by the director of public works for the inspection and repair of public properties, to be performed by the director. >> the committee will be here to hear the report, is there any motion made by the supervisor? >> is there any public comment on whether we should sit as a committee? there is no public comment -- and on the motion itself, the

colleagues can do this, the same house, same call. can you call item 43 and 44? >> this is a public hearing to consider objections to a report of assessment costs from a resolution by the director of public works, order to be performed by the director, and the costs haven't been paid for -- and item 43 is the resolution containing the report. >> this is asked of us by the department of public works. is there a staffer who can talk about the different assessments that they are proposing. >> members of the board, and also with the department of public works, and chapter 80 of the administrative code says that -- they require that the department notified property owners to make corrections with graffiti.

it is their obligation to maintain a property free of graffiti, and in cases where they refuse to correct these conditions, the city will provide the corrections. i am here to provide the list -- and because there is an outstanding balance, we ask that these assessments be added to the property tax bill. >> and are there any questions? i asked if there are any members of the public who wish to contest this, you have two minutes. >> good afternoon, everyone. i represent property owners, -- in respect to the property located at 600 gurney street, a corner building on attorney in sacramento street. i have received notice of graffiti on the building, just

to begin, i appreciate if you have some patience. what i want to say is i must applaud the mayor, and the supervisors, and their recent actions clamping down on graffiti, in general, to the mission district in terms of the other public buildings. i believe that graffiti is a serious issue and as a private property owner, my parents had known that this building for close to 40 years, we are a small business, and a small property owner. we had spent a lot of hard time supporting small businesses -- but in the past 10 years, we have had problems with vacancy in our buildings. we had to spend a lot of time cleaning up ourselves, the

property itself, and the two areas we can reach, primarily the first ground floor area. we had noticed there was graffiti on the second and first floor of the building, and i have photographs to submit to the board of supervisors and the president of the supervisor is showing us. we simply cannot reach those areas. this is a historical landmark -- and you can see from the pictures i will show you, but because of the economic hardships and not having any income from the rentals coming in. it was difficult to get rid of the graffiti on the second and third level of this building. i went to the hardship hearing and ultimately, i was granted -- >> thank you very much. you have an opportunity to talk

to the stafford before the decision is made. and are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this item? please step up. if you are here to speak on the item, please line up on the center aisle. we will ask everyone to talk to mr. hines from the department of public works. >> thank you. i am here for my father-in-law, who could not make it here because he is bound to a wheelchair. i am here with regards to 1813 fulton street, and we received a notice -- let me back up. this is until march of 2010, february 2010. he had spinal surgery on his back and is down to a wheelchair. he found a new home in june

2010, where he currently resides, a one-story building that is handicapped accessible. he has lived here since then. on march 9, 2012, you see the letter that was given to him regarding the graffiti -- he never knew of any past graffiti or any problems. it is not very hard to see because we're looking at the from the building and this is very easy. he sent a letter regarding this saying that he was trying to appeal this. this is from april 17, with this citation. he sent a notice on april 19 trying to appeal this. he was not living at this address. this brings us to today. i just want to show couple of pictures.

this is 1813 fulton -- fulton street, right across -- from the connecting building. and 1511 ninth ave. you can see that these buildings are very clean. he always takes care of getting the violations cleaned up because -- >> thank you very much. the next speaker? and are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on this hearing? at this time, if i could ask mr. hines from the department of public works, if you could step outside of the chamber to engage in a conversation with the individuals who are here. let the clerk's office know and

we will take up the matter. and for members of the public, if you could join him and step outside. thank you. and with that, why don't we go to our committee reports, item 53? >> item 53 through 55 were considered by the land use committee, and they were forwarded as committee reports. item 53 was recommended with a new title to authorize the master agreement between the city and the regents of the university of california. with the transactions related to third and 16th street, and mission fail. on item 53 -- elsbernd aye. farrel aye. kim aye. mar aye. olague aye -- olague abscent.

avalos, aye. campos, aye. chiu, aye. chu, aye. cohen, aye. there are 10 ayes. >> this ordinance is passed. >> item 54 was recommended as amended by the same title, for the vacation at the post market -- produce market -- -- at milton street and lattuceettuce. >> adopted. >> this authorized the ammendment of the lease for the department of public health. >> same house same call? this is adopted. why not go to role call?

>> elsbernd? campos? supervisor campos: i wish to make a couple of points, simply to knowledge the very important issue that was decided by the u.s. supreme court, as to the constitutionality of sb10-70. at the board of supervisors, we passed a resolution for the city and county of san francisco, to officially boycott the state of arizona -- state of arizona, until a time when sb 10-70 would not be used to violate the citizens of that state. the supreme court ruling was largely a very positive one, and we are very happy to see that three elements of -- very

critical elements of that -- were struck down as unconstitutional, in particularly the element -- element that allowed any police officer in the state of arizona to stop anyone that they suspected of being undocumented and ask for their papers. there are still -- there is still one provision that remains, that unfortunately, the u.s. supreme court did not strike down. the provision allowing members of the police officers in that state, when they do detained or stop someone for a different crime, to proceed to ask about their immigration status. even though the court acknowledged that -- on its face, a law was constitutional, that left open the opportunity that this could be found

unconstitutional. for those of us with concerns -- this portion of the ruling remains problematic because this still leaves the door open for people who look like me in the state of arizona, to be asked about their immigration status. i think it is important as long as the possibility of sb 10-70 being enforced, for us to continue our policy of boycotting the state. it is important to remain steadfast about our message that we in this city and county of san francisco oppose any form of discrimination, and even though the supreme court got it almost right they did not get this completely right, and we look forward to the day when the entirety of that law is struck down, as it should. it is important to remain vigilant and clear that we will

not tolerate any form of discrimination. the second thing i want to make clear, is something that i look forward to, continuing the dialogue and discussion here at the board of supervisors. i attended and sat in on the land use committee yesterday, where we had a very interesting and unprecedented discussion, a bout the cpmc project. i think that i speak for many of us on this board that we would like to see that project move forward in a way that makes sense for, not only specific neighborhoods that are affected but for the entire city. what is unfortunate about what happened yesterday, and not knowing about the chronicle that wrote about it,