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, fully captured the significance of what happened. as the substance of that agreement was being presented, by the mayor's staff, and by the relevant departments, there was the acknowledgement on behalf of the people who negotiated on behalf of the city that the very key components of that development agreement -- they are no longer sufficient to actually ensure that st. luke's

remains open and operates for 20 years. i have been on this board for close to four years and have never seen anything like that. it is unprecedented that in a project of this magnitude, as you begin the discussion in committee about whether or not to approve the agreement, a very important agreement, that the negotiating team says that the terms are not sufficient to provide protection that you would expect in that kind of deal. i have never seen that and i think it is unfortunate. so many people on both sides of this issue have been paying attention, and i think that both sides really deserve that the city to its due diligence, in negotiating these kinds of deals. this is a disservice to east

sought -- each side when something like this happens. to those who have raised concerns and those who are supporting the project. i hope that we can find a solution here that will ensure the maximum protection allowed under the law, for the campus, and i really think that what is sad about what happened yesterday is that not only does this call into question the substance of the agreement with respect to st. luke's, but also other parts of the agreement, because if we have questions and doubts about one piece of that deal, what guarantee do we have that the information that was presented with respect to other parts of the deal is actually accurate? this is a huge problem and given that we are talking about a project that will have long-term implications about the health care future of this city, this

is a real concern. i look forward to now -- to between now and the time negotiations finish for us, to move something forward. i am committed to working with the mayor's office. but we have to change the fundamental approach and have to make sure that the information we use for the final agreement is as accurate as it possibly can be. and i also want to say that one of the things that was unprecedented was that the project sponsors -- they refused to share with members of the board of supervisors the very financial information that was used and relied upon to craft this agreement. we cannot approve a project without making sure that we have seen all of the relevant financial information. and so, i hope -- and plead with

the project's sponsors that week, as a board are given all of the information that we need so that we can come up with a deal that makes sense for everyone. this cannot happen unless accurate information is provided to the mayor's office and this board of supervisors, which has a responsibility to the constituents to make certain that this is the right project for san francisco. i would like to see something done. a lot of work needs to happen. because of what happened, the significant thing that happened yesterday, we have to figure out what this process looks like. i don't know if we will have all the information to meet the deadlines that have been put out. i don't know if this agreement is ready for prime time. we want to make sure that we

have the accurate information that is needed. >> thank you. supervisor mar: thank you. introducing the number of items -- the first is -- this would maintain the polo field in golden gate park, under the thousand dollars donation from the baker street foundation. i will submit my other acceptance -- and i want to alert people that we are holding a hearing on thursday, before the select committee of the city and school district, and the board of supervisors, to focus at 3:30 on the dire situation of the san francisco unified school district. there also reducing the school

year, from 180 days, and now this is down to 176 days. another -- another 113 days. as a father of middle schoolers, i know that if you are sick a few days, this will set you back but if you reduce this for several weeks, this is a devastating impact on the learning of our children and the school district. we will look at the school deficit, and the school board meeting will be discussing the deficit over the next few years, which may ballooned to over $190 million if the state revenue measures do not pass. and what the priorities of the school district are, looking at the requirements which allow students to graduate, and this

will allow many more hundreds f students, and my hope is that we look at proposition h. this as the 30 million that has not been paid in -- as the potential items to consider as we talk about the dire financial issues for the school district. i would like task that we close the meeting in honor of two different people that have passed away. the first is the brothe rof gordor of gordon hibayashi, whos a friend of mine, of the school of ethics studies at san francisco state. he passed away may 23, and was a tremendous leader in the

japanese-american community, and the reparations unit -- and ethics studies and was an inspiration to me as a father. and also, lane hibayashi, a pioneering figure. a symbol of resistance and a symbol of a fight for equal rights with dignity. he championed uniting the different communities together for common causes. he was born in thomas, washington in 1926 to first- generation parents. a second-generation japanese american. the family was moved to a camp in pinedale, california, and

forced to move again to the concentration camp at tulley lake, where many stood up against unjust incarceration. the u.s. government -- and the trouble-makers who stood up for their rights. those that were unfairly encarcerated. he recieved a bachelor's degree from the university of washington. he recieved a fullbright scholarship and began his studies in anthropology. he first began teaching at san francisco state in 1959.

he began his 30-year teaching and administrative career. he and other lecturers at san francisco state risked their lives in 1968 in the historic social movement that led to the first autonomous school of ethnic studies. the faculty and staff supported the demand of the black student union and third world liberation front. he was the chair of asian studies and an advisor to the asian-american political alliance. he became the first dean of the school of ethnic studies. before he retired, he aloso was the dean at sf state between

1985 and 1988. he pursued an active role as a consultant to the japanese american national museum. he recieved the president's me dal for long-term benefits for the university. he was an author and editor for a range of publications and also caught what we have called "the acting bug." he was cast in the 1980's by the asian-amercaican theater companies. predeceased by his first wife, joanne, and his last, christine. jan -- and her husband steve rice, and ty lan.

the memorial celebration will be held july 28 at the japanese community center, at 1840 sutter street, between buchanan -- the family suggests donations be made to the san francisco scholarship fund or the senior service agency. contact alfonos at -- colleagues who wish to share memories can forward this to my office and we will make sure the family meets it. locksan mar has passed away. i'd like to honor the beloved mother -- she passed away june 23, also on saturday.

preceded by her loving husband, so mar, and her second sun, walter mar. she was born in the -- district of guandong province. her schooling was disrupted in the japanese invasion of 1938. she went to macau with her family, and arrived in san francisco in 1947. she is the mother of commissioner warren mar, and labor leader in san francisco. she worked in the garment industry for 60 years, running her own shop. beginning six days a week, she raised 10 children in the flat

above her factory. on retiring, she would care for her 145 grand children. we are happy she passed on in the same house, surrounded by her children and grandchildren. she is survived by doris, yi, pansy mar, albert wong, judy mar, susan -- william mar, tina tsung, christian and karen mar, with lauren cole, naomi yi, catherine wong, jessica tong, randall tong, jennifer mar, and marissa jang. and marissa jang. zachary cole, madison minolo.