votes need to proceed in the following order. i would like to suggest that we vote and then we go to closing statements. we need to vote on the ceqa findings. we should vote on the redevelopment plan. then, we can vote on the rest of the matters together which would be items 12, 14, 28-36. let's go to closing comments?

>> i just want to take a moment and i really want to thank supervisor maxwell has been one of my closest colleagues over the past years, 8 years on this board. i have such enormous respect for her integrity and the difficult challenges that she has faced bringing change to her district. i believe that this is a very important step for the city. this is a step to make this one city and step to take the time that we appreciative when there was a more vibrant african- american community in this city. there was not much opportunity for people to speak their minds and express things that many of the things i have heard and read from people as reflected on a very different time for the neighborhood. it was a time of vibrancy and

middle-class and working-class families. all of us in my district, they have not been able to move forward. i am not voting with this in the expectation that immediately legions of people will be hired. there has been a strong standard that has been established to your that we want to see this area are being mediated. this is an area that you can live and thrive and as you would in any other part of san francisco. i want to thank the stakeholders, particularly, the liberal community who got their hands, rolled up their sleeves, and said that we don't want to stand on the sidelines.

we want to honor the working class families that we have lost in san francisco and particularly in the african- american community. i don't think that we will ever see that restored. i want to really think a lot of people. commissioner lee roy king is here who has been on the commission four years. there is leadership in this city. time after time again, challenging those of us in positions of elected office and a point of office to move forward and to make things happen. i think about someone that i watched as a board aid of a shot . there should be a vibrant reuse

plan in san francisco. as with most things, there is division, controversy, and i appreciate that. that is part of the process and that gives us the opportunity to make things better. i want to thank sophie and say that she has been steadfast for over a decade in getting us to this point. >> i mentioned it late at night but i will mention it more briefly right now. when i was first elected here, i was elected to talk about affordable housing. i was reelected to talk about affordable housing and i spent probably half of my time here talking about affordable housing. in terms of unfinished business, real resources dedicated for

affordable housing, this is something that the board, the mayor, and the city, needs to tackle. i think that the state of affairs and the needs that are out there, michael cohen getting up and saying 1400 units of 10,005 wondered, that is great. -- out of 1800. that shows you how much work we need to do on the issue of affordable housing. despite my battles with the lennar corp. through the mail and through politically and what not, this that and the other, both here, charlie walker, stiffing my constituents who are homeless. my first motion tonight passed on affordability. even with my concerns about environmental issues and what

not. the affordability was there in the plan despite other shortcomings that i would be voting in favor of. we the promised all of this in the 60 ponce and 70's. they did not build this for us. that is one to be the legacy. that is unfortunate. i hope that the african-american community in san francisco can weather this and lives on. i hope that poor people can continue to make their way here in the city of st. francis. i'm not sure that that will be in the cards. i will see more of a paris and

vienna type of situation. hopefully, this is the resolve and determination and the communities of color and low income community is to keep struggling in the making projects like this that don't really have them forced -- first and foremost. i will be casting a dissenting vote. >> thank you, mr. president. i don't want to be labor the point. i think many points have been made. >> i made it clear what my preference was as a supporter of this proposition f.

i think that what we have to follow is a different analysis and this is one that hasted to first with the environmental issues that came before us and the adequacy of the -- i have yet to see a perfect project and i have yet to see a project that ad addresses all of the issues that need to be addressed, especially a project of this complexity or magnitude. let me say that i am very appreciative for all the people that have worked on this issue whether it is the proponents of the project, the project sponsors, staff, or the opponent. everyone who has participated has made this project a better project. i have learned a lot and i think

for me, this is probably one of the most difficult decisions i have had to make simply because of the magnitude and complexity of all of the issues that have been involved. in the end, with something as controversial and difficult, there will be people who will be happy or unhappy with whatever choice you make but i am trying to make the best choice that i can. i am satisfied that even though there are issues that this -- that remain, other amendments have been made. >> the one to make sure that we

don't lose sight of the many benefits that come through with this project. these are unrealized into housing or details. we are looking at 10,000 jobs that are coming from the additional organizations and businesses supported. i want to make sure that we don't lose sight of that in terms of the housing assistance in terms of the community benefits.

i think this is a positive project for san francisco. >> thank you, colleagues. this has been a several year project for you. hats off to what you have been able to accomplish. [applause] we know that there has been many strong feelings on both sides of this issue. this is san francisco. there are many strong opinions on this issue. fortunately, we have democratic

institutions with procedures that move us through decisions and that is what we have done. i don't look at these as the ending. this is really the beginning. >> i want to thank all of you, your amendments, those of you will not be able to. that would be unfortunate but sometimes that happens. i also want to thank all of the city staff to have been in this project for a long time. some have had payments come in and now have three or four kids.

some have been married. you have been on this project for a long time and a want to thank you. i would like to think labor because without you, i don't think you would be here. you coming in and understanding and hopefully you will continue understanding that we all have an obligation to each other. when we start talking about local hiring, you will be there making sure that people who live here, people who live and alice griffith or all over here will be employed. we are continuing to work on

this. this city will truly be won from one hill to the other. thank you. . [applause] >> with that, if we could move to a vote on item 27. >> aye. >>aye. >> aye. >> aye. no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> the resolution is adopted. can we move to items 11 and 13? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> can we now do 12, 13, 14? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >>no. >> aye. >> aye. >> those items are adopted and the ordinances are passed in the first reading. congratulations.

>> let >> welcome back to the board of

supervisors meeting of tuesday, july 27th, 2010. if we can go back to item 42, 43, regarding community policing and foot beat patrols. there might be a filibuster of our effort to resolve this issue. i have had a chance to look at the board rules and section 305 of the code to look at the rules. here is my perspective. the supervisor has engaged in dilatory motions which are defined under robert's rules of order which are designed to forward the rules of the assembly as clearly indicated by the parliamentary decision.

if a member could demand a revision on every vote even when the result was clear, this could be brought to a standstill. when a member is using a parliamentary form for obstruction forces, they should rule that such motions are out of order. any amendments to the proposed ordinance shall be noticed for an additional public hearing. it is not my perspective that when you divide the questions that that is an amendment. under our rules, the supervisor

is asking us to interpret this question to suggest that one person could filibuster on the eve of the submission of the balance to the department. i think that everyone would agree that that is not a fair outcome. it is in the supervisors' right to devise the question, i don't think that's files before the ballot. i think it is the purpose it that if we wish to proceed with a vote on the divided portions. if it turns out that there is not enough votes on this section, that would entail an amendment. it would have to wait for a

week. if it turns out that both divided portions are proved -- are approved to the ballot as they are noticed. i would like to interpret the rules which does not explicitly address what the supervisor is trying to achieve and to interpret that in a way that allows us to and the delicate business. if you wish to appeal, that could go to the majority vote to be overruled. do you want to proceed on items 42 and 43? >> i don't think they're currently divided.

i would divide on what i have been dividing all along. >> let's make sure that i motion to reattach the divided items. five >> the motion has been made without section. these items are repented. supñ

the motion passes. now, the supervisor mass made a motion to divide. i'm making a motion to move forward. if we can take a vote on the divide files, the first jble the first that the supervisor referred to that section is -- >> page two, line 12 to page three line 12 on item 432 and item 43. line 15 to page three line 15. >> so on the divide portion, the first portion, if we could take a roll call vote.

>> we're talking about both items? >> 42. this is on the first portion that the supervisor would like to divide out. well, i'm just referring to version 42 versus version 43. so on that divided portion, roll call vote. [roll call] >> on that divided portion, the

motion fails. now on the balance of the item, take a roll call vote. [roll call vote] >> on item 42. >> on the balance of item 42. >> minus the portion that the supervisor had deduced from -- >> that's correct. >> well, actually, if i can understand, i believe we took vote whether to divide out that portion that you asked to divide out. no one wants to do that except for you. >> i want to make a motion to table that remaining part. >> supervisor has made a motion to table that remaining part. >> item 42? >> let's do that without objection.

>> take a vote on item 43. >> now, if we could take a vote on item 43. two parts. first on the divided portion. >> on the divided portion -- [roll call vote] >> we're voting on whether to put that portion. >> ok. >> supervisor maxwell, you said no? >> i would like to rescind that vote. >> we are voting on two parts of item 43. the first part is whether we vote to include the portion of that the supervisor does not want to include which is that

paragraph on page two, line 15 through page three line 15. it is actually the section i do want to include. it is the next part i don't want. >> ok. >> so -- we're -- we divided the files. we're voting on the different portions of it. we are now voting on the noorgs the supervisor would like to include. >> mr. president. >> community placing on item 43. >> so the motion to vote on the portion of community policing whether we want to put that on the ballot or not? >> correct. >> ok. >> madam clerk. [roll call vote]