this measure was something that was proposed for the june ballot and at that time, the author of this mermaid an indication that he was willing to take it off so there could be a dialogue with the new chief around the very issue of foot patrols and that has been a number of months ago. and the fact remains that the issue of foot patrols remains unresolved and it doesn't remain unresolved just in the context of wanting -- the public wanting more foot patrols but also in the context of other issues, sit/lie being the key issue. what we heard repeatedly on those discussions at those hearings was how foot patrols could actually provide the solution, a more effective solution to that issue and yet,

the foot patrols were not provided to the extent that was needed. so i think that this measure is a balanced way of addressing the issue. it's not an attack on the chief but it's simply a recognition that something needs to happen and i'm glad that supervisor ross mirkarimi has brought it forward again. thank you. >> supervisor ross mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: this is an inoculous measure. it really is for all intents and purposes. it does not do anything prescribed, it doesn't mettle in the inner working of the police department. i've been working with the police department a number of years on these kind of matters and i agree there's an unorthodox assertion that the board of supervisors should not take these kind of leaps or steps but at the same time, we're the ones who answer

constituent concerns about public safety. we're the gatekeepers that people come to complain to us the most about insufficient response or insufficient resources on the police department but yet, we're all the ones for over the last five or six years have done our homework on what other cities are doing. and they have demonstrated, i think, with sound proof as it has been well documented, too, by perf, which i sit on the executive committee with the police department that has become the the idea for the chief to make these reforms and prior to that, the foot patrol study that was well veted that i spoke to before. this is nothing to do with any police chief or really has nothing to do with the mayor or even any one of us who is elected. it is time we institutionalize, i think a commitment to something that is proven, tried and true, works and well in

demand. and i think with the reforms that the police chief had advanced goes well in hand, i think, with the strategy of us allowing the best of our officers to be out on the streets or on beats that the people feel, i think, assured that the finest are there with them. i think that will only motivate us down the road to be challenged by resource requirements that will want us to change to the 1971 figure in the future. people won't want them to go away. president chiu: any additional discussion? supervisor elsbernd: thank you. i would like to have the voters ask two questions. first i would like to split out page two, line 12 through page

three, line 12. second 2a89.2 and item 43, the same section although it's different lines, page 2, line 15 through page 3, line 15. so in other words, i would like two separate questions within item 43 and within -- president chiu: could you repeat that whale we're looking at the legislation? supervisor elsbernd: we could separate out second 2a89.2 and then on item 43, the exact same section, although that's page two, line 15 through page three, line 15. president chiu: those are the sections specifically requiring the police department to do the community policing policy. i think that's absolutely necessary. that's a good thing. it's the foot patrols that concern me. i would like to support the first part and oppose the second part. president chiu: and so i'm clear, you want to divide out

section 2a89.3 on foot beat patrol? supervisor elsbernd: 2a89.2. president chiu: you want to vote on 89.2 separately from the rest of the legislation? supervisor elsbernd: within item 42 and within -- we have two in front of us. just to be safe, i would like to have two separate votes on those. president chiu: our clerk has just advised me if we make any changes today, we'll have to sit for another week for public comment for next week. i just want to advise people of that. supervisor daly. supervisor daly: you're unilaterally dividing the question to make separate votes. you're not making an action to

amend. that's fine. president chiu: i've been told that apparently the deadline for submission is today. if i could ask the deputy city attorney, are we able to make any amendments to this legislation at this time? >> mr. president, election code section 305a3 provides that any amendment to your proposed ordinance for the ballot shall be noticed for an additional public comment. so it's not that you're not allowed to make amendments today. it's that a new version of a ballot measure must have an additional opportunity for notice and public comment before it can be submitted to the voters. president chiu: but if this is amended today, we could consider it next week with a public comment period. >> but it would be too late to go to the ballot for this november. president chiu: okay. so i think we understand that if this is amended today, it could come back next week for inclusion potentially on the november 2011 ballot but not for the november 2010 ballot,

correct? okay. any further discussion? why don't we take a vote on item 42. supervisor elsbernd: i think the sum is now divided and the appropriate motion is to continue both pieces to next week's meeting. you can't vote on the item until we've had public comment. president chiu: i don't believe that's correct. supervisor daly? supervisor daly: the member wants to vote different ways on the same item in front of us, he's allowed to do it but ultimate physical we vote in the affirmative on both, the item would be submitted as currently noticed. no change, no need to renotice. i think that supervisor sean

elsbernd may be correct that if it votes one way up, one day down, then it changes and it would need to be re-noticed. >> the elections code requires a -- else what is the difference question? >> you have two separate ballot measures opposed to one. supervisor elsbernd: what we have now is a member wish -- wishing to divide a question and if both parts pass, the file is what it is. it's not two questions. it's one question. if a member wishes to create two ballot measures out of a single ballot measure, he'll have to do that through an amendment which require a motion, a second and six votes in the affirmative to amend the item. >> your analysis is incorrect.

they do not need six votes to do that. supervisor elsbernd: but it's not two ballot questions. >> my understanding is you're asking to divide the file, that if a majority votes on both halves to include that, then that collected could move toward the ballot. president chiu: this is a nondebatable question and i believe supervisor sean elsbernd has made that motion. supervisor elsbernd: i don't need to make a motion to do so. any one supervisor can unilaterally do that. >> i think if supervisor, with all due respect, if sean elsbernd's interpretation of the rules sticks, it means that one single supervisor can kill a ballot measure through the timing of when the file is divided and i don't think that's the intent of the rules

of this board. president chiu: my understanding is we can vote on the motion to divide. we can vote on the nondebatable motion. supervisor elsbernd: there's no motion. i've divided the file. there's no motion. the supervisor can unilaterally divide the file. there's no vote to be called. president chiu: so i believe that we can vote on the two halves of those files. if i could ask for the deputy city attorney, if i could clarify for us. >> the board rules provide for division of the question and that once a supervisor requests a question to be divided that the president shall order it divided. it best not -- the question of dividing is not voted on. the rule also says that when divided, each proposition shall then be considered and voted upon separately as if it had been offered alone. president chiu: so at this time, it would be in order to vote on each half of those questions. supervisor elsbernd: does the elections code now require a

new publicly noticed hearing on the separate issues? >> it does. you're now contemplating sending a different question to the voters than what was originally noticed today and because the elections code says that any amendment to a proposed ordinance shall be noticed for additional public comment, the newly proposed measure needs to have additional public comment and noticed. president chiu: supervisor daly. supervisor daly: i think this is a clear case of a procedural opportunity for any member of the board to vote for or against any part of an item that is in front of us. in terms of a question, there's a difference between a question on the ballot which if there's a majority of votes for the divided questions here, which is a different question, will be the properly noticed

question and the unamended version of the item. for example, if on numerous occasions i've asked for separate questions, i have voted yes on one and no on the other but a majority voted yes on both items, that didn't require an additional reading at the board of supervisors which it would have if supervisor sean elsbernd's theory here followed on this item. but ultimately what really matters is the board rules, which are painfully clear, that the order of how this moves forward is made by the president of the board of supervisors who is president david chiu. that decision stands unless overturned by a majority here.

so ultimately, i appreciate sean elsbernd' creativity with the board rules but ultimately he's wrong and any advice coming from miss adams at this point matters less than the decision from harvard trained attorney david chiu. president chiu: before sean elsbernd responds to this, it is my understanding that a motion to divide would mean any one supervisor could prevent something being considered from the ballot if someone makes a motion to divide. what i would like to interpret, what you're asking us to do is vote on different portions of this. supervisor sean elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: just in response to supervisor daly's comments, i'll wait until -- i think it's important, mr. president, that you hear this. in response to supervisor daly's comments, what differentiates what is happening here between the

examples he's used, this is a division of a ballot measure. he's divided in the past ordinances. and as we learned about a year and a half ago when the board used ordinances and the charter to trump board rules, when it came to supervisor michela alioto-pier being appointed to the bay area bay conservation, ordinances and charter trump our board rules. the election code makes clear -- the election code overrides our board rules and the election code mandates that there be additional notice and an additional public hearing when there are separate ballot questions that have not received public notice. the ordinance, the code trumps the board rules. president chiu: supervisor david campos. supervisor campos: i will respectfully disagree with sean elsbernd and the statement by the city attorney's office. i think that the interpretation

that has been provided is inconsistent with the letter of the spirit of the board rules and i think that the president is the ultimate person who decides what happens here and i think that consistent with the intent of the rules, i think that there should be a separate vote on each divided item but i don't think it's consistent with the rules to say that one supervisor can keep something from the ballot by simply dividing the file. i'm not saying you're making a motion. you're dividing it. but i don't think that the rules give you that authority or power. >> i do have to credit him for your parliamentary knowledge. i do think we have a path forward from supervisor ross mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: when supervisor sean elsbernd made his amendment, i laughed because i knew what he was doing. this is not an unfamiliar tactic, not one that is used

with any great regularity but we get the situation here so i will motion to amend the halves that supervisor sean elsbernd wanted to amputate and make them whole again on items number 42 and 43. that is considered noticed. president chiu: supervisor ross mirkarimi made that motion to conjoin the two halves. is there a second to the motion? seconded by david campos. any additional conversation? if we could take that without objection. supervisor elsbernd: i would like to divide that file. president chiu: so ladies, this is new to me as president of the board but this could go on for a while. supervisor sean elsbernd has unilaterally divided the question. supervisor ross mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: i would like to repeat the amendment of a motion that we reattach the items of 42 and 43, that has

been divided by supervisor sean elsbernd. president chiu: ross mirkarimi has a motion to reattach. seconded by david campos. if we could take that without objection, motion passes. supervisor sean elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: we can do this all night. mr. president, i would like to divide the file. president chiu: we are dividing this file. supervisor sean elsbernd has done this unilaterally. supervisor ross mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: this is the same exercise. i make the motion and amendment and reattaching. president chiu: if we could take that motion without objection. motion passes. supervisor sean elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: i would like to divide the file, mr. president. president chiu: supervisor sean elsbernd unilaterally divided the file. supervisor ross mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: i would like to take a station break for supervisor daly. he would like me to follow through so i will make my amendment again. it's a familiar song.

it is to reattach the parts divided by supervisor sean elsbernd 42 and 43. president chiu: is there a second to the motion? seconded by supervisor david campos. that passes. supervisor elsbernd: i would like to divide the file. president chiu: supervisor daly, i had already acknowledged -- >> point of order. mirk let's go through the exercise one more time. sean elsbernd unilaterally divided the file. that motion passes unanimously. supervisor daly. supervisor mirkarimi: move to recess. president chiu: we have a 3:00 special order for five issues related to the essential subway. why don't we take that but come back to this matter and hopefully by then we will

either work this issue out or we will not have and we'll go back to the hunters bay view. supervisor mirkarimi: i withdraw the order. supervisor daly: there are a number of people here for the bay view shipyard plan. what would be your -- president chiu: it is my understanding that city staff are poring over the dozen amendments that have been made to the hunters point shipyard project and when that is resolved, i understand there's some questions and some ambiguities and there are answers that will be provided when they're ready to go. they're supposed to alert me and we will bring that back. what i would like to do at this point is call up items 44 through 53. the resolutions of necessity for the central subway. >> pur opportunity to a motion approved on july 22, the board of supervisors have agreed to sit as a committee of the whole to hear items 44 and 45, a

public hearing to senior adopting a resolution to acquire real property interest by eminent domain for the central subway third street light rain extension at 801 market street. also pur opportunity to a position approved on july 20 the board agreed to sit as a committee as a whole for a resolution to require real property by donation for central subway third street light rail extension 2864th street. 48 and 49 are the board of supervisors sittings a a committee as a whole to a require real property by eminent dough maition 4555 stockton street and items 50 through 51, also are the public hearings fored board setting as a committee of the whole to adopt a resolution to acquire real property by eminent domain

for central subway third street light rail extension and 52 and 53 are for the board sitting as a whole to require real property by eminent domain for light raet extension 933 through 949 stockton street. >> for those of you waiting for these items, thank you for your patience. we have a lot of exciting items today f. we could move to the central subway items. we're sitting as a committee as a whole to conduct public hearings on the proposed resolutions to acquire certain property interests by eminent domain and vote on the resolutions themselves as our clerk just stated. we're considering proposals to acquire three permanent subservice easements at market and stockton streets and a fee simple interest in two parcels

at 266 to 268 fourth street and 933 to 949 stockton street. the san francisco community agency seeks to acquire these parcels for construction and operation of the central subway third street light rail extension in san francisco using funds appropriated for that program. the standard tore today and this hearing, we will consider the following. first, whether the public interest and necessity require the central subway third street light rail extension project. whether the central subway third street light rail extension project is located in a manner most compatible with the most public good and least private injury. thirdly, whether the easements and the subject properties and the simple interests to be a required are necessary for the extension project and lastly, whether the city has made the necessary offers to purchase the easements and the feasible interests from the property owners for just compensation as required under state law.

if we make these proposed -- if we adopt the proposed resolutions, we'll be making ceqa findings in connection with the acquisitions. under state law we as a board of supervisors must pass this resolution by 2/3 vote of eight votes. colleagues, unless there is any objection, let me propose the following procedure for this hearing. the m.t.a. will have up to 10 minutes for presentation and support of the resolution and the acquisition of the easements. members of the public that support any or all of these resolutions shall have up to two minutes after the m.t.a. presentations to support through public comment. after that time period, each of the five property owners shall have up to 10 minutes for presentation and opposition to the resolution pertaining to the property. it is my understanding that not all of these property owners are here. i don't think it will take all 50 minutes but it is up to 10 minutes for each of the five

property owners. at that time members of the public who oppose any of these resolutions shall have two minutes to speak and the m.t.a. shall have up to five minutes for a rebuttal. so colleagues, unless there are any additional questions on anything i have discussed, why don't we first go to the mta for the presentation up to 10 minutes. >> good evening. i'm the central subway program manager and i'm accompanied by the sfmta head of real estate. today i'll be covering a -- providing you with a brief overview of the project and then i'll turn it over to christin who will provide you the detailed analysis for the two parcels and three easements. this is about dramatically improving transportation, public transportation to downtown san francisco, cutting trip times to over half to the

68% of the residents that live along the central subway corridor who don't have access to an automobile and rely on muni daily. the project has received its record decision in 2008, in november of 2008 allowing the agency to move forward with the right-of-way acquisition and easement acquisition process we're discussing today. the project has also received -- has issued a notice to proceed on its first construction contract, utility relocation for the south of market and masconey and portal area issued in january of 2010 and the project has also received a major milestone in the fca approval to enter into final design also in january of 2010. and the project has received $10 million as part of

president obama's budget. in february of 2010 and the issue before you today is critical to maintaining the program schedule that will allow the agency to receive the full fund and grant agreement in the third quarter of 2011. the slide before you is the -- a plan profile drawing of the 1.7 mile central subway highlighting the two parcel acquisitions necessary for the construction of both the masconey and the china town station and those are highlighted in red. and the three easement takes that are highlighted in blue are essentially underground easements necessary to accommodate the radiuses of the tunnel alignment. and at this point, i would like to turn it over to kristen. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

i'm the senior manager of real estate for sfmta real estate and the finance and information technology division. so the two fee parcels that mta needs in full ownership is for two stations. one at 266 to 286 fourth street and the second is for the china town station at 933 to 949 stockton street. the three easements are for -- are underground between 30 and 60 feet down, underneath 801 market street at fourth, under 790 market street at stockton and under 1455 stockton at columbus avenue. those are for the tunnel and again, they are underground and do not affect the properties. the masconey station site at 266 to 286 fourth street fullerton is south of market. it's owned by convenience

retailers which operate a gas station. negotiations are in progress to purchase this property. the second station site in china town is at 933 to 949 stockton street at washington. this property is owned by norman pechan, inc and owns a property management company and residential units and again, negotiations are in progress. over the last several years, people have asked why these two locations? mta studied locations at part of the process. early in the phase two planning, all station access points for the project were provided in sidewalk areas within the public right-of-way and studies were taken -- undertaken to evaluate opportunities for locating station access points and to

minimize disruption to the congested sidewalks and pedestrians traffic along the project corridor. four station sites were looked at within the moscone area including for access and the fourth street was the preferred location. in china town, six different sites were looked at. two created off street location so the vast number of riders will be able to get in and out of the underground tunnels which are underneath stockton and fourth streets. so again, the preferred location is at stockton and washington streets. both for construction as well as for operations. the three easement acquisitions as i explained are underneath fourth to get from fourth to market street under the building that currently holds the