president chiu: next speaker. >> good afternoon, folks. my name is del seymour. and my idea, there are two people in this chamber that we would like to consider or should be considered. and bayview hunters point. and we didn't think a train would go out there 10 or 15 years ago. and opened up the examiner and a full page ad for a conned menium on third -- condominium on third and oakdale.

we might come up with a surprise. congratulations sophia maxwell and good luck to you. president chiu: are there any other members of the public that wish to comment on this item? seeing none, at this time, the public hearing is closed.

colleagues? item 58 is the hands of the board, supervisor maxwell? supervisor maxwell: i ask that we continue this item. i think we have three weeks to have somebody just floating out there for that amount of time is not to our best interest and i think it will give us an opportunity to really think about what's ahead of us. president chiu: supervisor maxwell has made a motion to continue this item seconded by supervisor dufty. supervisor daly? supervisor daly: it's like deja vu all over again from last week. it seems like the maker of the motion and seconder did exactly the same thing as last week but we've been sitting here now -- is this the fourth public

hearing that we've had on the topic of transition. and, colleagues, i think that we are doing an incredible disservice to the people of the city and county of san francisco because i am somewhat flum,ed sitting here as a 10-year veteran who understands who understands procedure and understands the innerworkings of the board of supervisors, i'm flumoxed as one of the most senior members of this body. i can only imagine how confused, how distraught i would be in a, you know, dragged myself over to city hall the last few weeks to try and give me input on who the mayor's going to be and then nothing from my elected representatives, not even acknowledgment of my input. not everyone is saying the same thing. it's crazy enough that my name came up once or twice today.

so, i mean, it's not -- it's not as if the people of san francisco have a singular message that we're not responding to. it's perhaps not that bad, but it is us saying to the people of san francisco, you can come and you can try and participate, but we're just going to move on and we're not even going to acknowledge that participation or say anything and, you know, i actually agreed with one of the comments, i think it was mr. abrams, where he said, at a certain point, whether or not i agree with you on your selection or what your values are, at a certain point, we need to be putting forward a vision for san francisco and -- [applause] -- and again, having been here long enough, i know that my vision for san francisco is

probably not shared by every member of this board of supervisors, but until we put our visions out there and i'm comfortable putting my vision out there, although i think i've tried a few times over the course of this process -- until we put out our competing or tangential or collaborative visions for san francisco out on this floor and start discussing, until we start comparing those visions of actual names of san francisco electors that we could consider, we are not going to make progress and if we come here on january 4th, is it? if we come here on january 4th and who knows if gavin newsome is sworn in on january 3, or not, are we going to do the same thing? are we going to take our charge to appoint a successor mayor if

the mayor has sworn in the lieutenant governor the previous day? are we going to go ahead and take a pass and punt again and put our hands up in the air if there are shenanigans in terms of not getting sworn in? i'd like to hear answers to that question today. for my part, i was ready three or four weeks ago to make nominations and to start testing out the voting patterns. i was ready before we even discussed the process, which we have yet to implement. it may even be, colleagues, that if we pass this motion and then pass a like motion at our last meeting of this session that that month-long debate, arcane and frustrating and complicated and disempowering for the people of san francisco who are interested in participating in

this process, that arcane debate may have been for nought and i think that would be an incredible disservice to the people of san francisco. it's almost as if -- it's almost as if the members of this board don't even want to be here. well, if you don't want to be here, you can leave. if you want to engage in the work at hand, if you want to use the process that we unanimously adopted, if you want to talk about the future of this city, then please say something and not just, "we're going to punt. on second down." [applause]

even if you're not prepared to vote for a name or talk about a person or an elector that you'd be willing to vote for and i think there are probably eight or nine electors in san francisco that i'm prepared to vote for today, and i think i've said this time and time again and i know i went out to ask my assembly member to consider the job because i think that he, in somewhat of a unique way, may have been our best choice. but i think that we have very good choices and we have many very good choices, and it is almost -- it is almost unbelievable that we would be unable to talk about who our top choices are and we can even use

our r.c.d. system, say i like tom amiana one, we knock him off. i like david campos, maybe you like ed harrington. put your names down, mention them, and, you know, if we want to order the vote or reorder the vote or restructure it to get to an outcome, fine, we can do that procedurally. we can withdraw nominations or remake nominations or vote down a name if it's earlier in the order because you want to vote for someone later in the order and then go back to the earlier of the order but we can't do any of that unless we actually have a vote to actually have that process happen. so let's have that process happen and if we are not going to have that process happen now, let us clearly communicate what our intentions are on january 8,

and if you want to say you're not prepared to have this conversation now, you're going to vote yes on this motion, but regardless of what happens between now and january 4, you want to have nominations and take votes on january 4, fine. at least you've said something. if you want to tell me you don't want to take motions and you'll play into the mayor's gamesmanship if he chooses to do that and you don't want to make a motion or vote on an item, or vote on names until the office is actually vacant, say that. if it's that you want the next board to decide, say that. if it's that you want one individual who is a member of the next board of supervisors who becomes president to also serve as acting mayor for 12

months and have, in one person, the most power ever consolidated in a san francisco politician, say that. but say something. the people deserve that much. [applause] president chiu: colleagues, any further discussion? okay. supervisor maxwell, i understand you have made a motion to continue this, which you will interpret as a motion to amend. supervisor maxwell: january 4. president chiu: motion to amend this such that suggesting we will consider on january 4 potentially the motion to convene as a committee as a whole. supervisor maxwell: yes. president chiu: seconded by supervisor dufty. if we could take a roll call vote on the motion. madam clerk: supervisor alioto-pier, alioto-pier aye. avalos aye, chiu aye, chu, aye,

supervisor daly, no. supervisor dufty, dufty aye. supervisor elsbernd, elsbernd aye. supervisor mar, mar aye, maxwell aye, mirkarimi, no. eight aye's and three nos. president chiu: motion passes. if we could go back to our 3:00 special order regarding the ocean avenue benefits district. i understand that we do have complete tabulations and i'd like to ask the clerk to announce the results. madam clerk: yes, mr. president. the returned weighted ballots voting for the ocean avenue bid was 54.83% and the returned weighted ballots voting against the ocean avenue bid was 35.17%

indicating there was no majority protest. president chiu: at this time, there's not been a majority protest and thus at this time i would ask, unless there are further comments for a vote on the resolution. supervisor avalos, do you have comments you would like to make? supervisor avalos: i would just -- thank you, president chiu. i am trying to get a breakdown of the property owners who were supportive, what percentage were city property owners, was the city, or a public entity such as city college, and what were private property owners. i think, for me to be consistent with what i've been saying about the civic center crnd, i need to have a clear understanding of that. i have done with my calculator here, a calculation that didn't add up to what the city had

calculated, department of elections calculated for the majority percentage of support, but i have 20% of the -- 20% of the property ownership that in the entire c.b.d. is supportive and is a city entity or a city college and 19.15% of the c.b.d. parcels are in favor and are non-city property. so, it's -- you know, it shows that the city has had a very large part in assuring that there's a successful vote here, which i'm trying to mull over how much i want to support that or not. i haven't supported the c.b.d., but i'm concerned about the threshold we have here and i'd like to get an official report from the city about what they got calculated in terms of the

city part of the ownership of the parcels that were favorable. president chiu: if i could ask, i know ms. pagon from the mayor's office on economic and work force development who has been helping to manage this process this year, do you have an answer for supervisor avalos? >> the parcels owned by the city of san francisco represent 11.80% and that includes the feelin loop parcel as well as the library and a median -- a hard scape median. president chiu: supervisor? supervisor avalos: i added up all the percentages of the city properties that are in favor, that are all in favor, of course, because we asked the city properties to vote in favor

of the c.b.d. i got 20.69%. could be an" error in there, i don't think so. and i added up all the private property owners that are supportive and they are 19% of the total area of the crnd, all together, that's 40% of the c.b.d. i'm concerned about the predominance of the city property as part of it, although this has been a very, very difficult process to get support for the c.b.d. with the local economy. i think it's been difficult to convince people to be supportive because many of them are struggling businesses, many are them are actually doing okay, too, that are managing to get by, wouldn't say okay, but are managing to get by despite the economy and have been opposed. i do want to support this moving forward. i do believe that once we see what the benefits of the community benefits district are

going to be, it will be something many will consider worthwhile to continue and so i want to urge colleagues to support this effort. thank you. president chiu: with that, unless there's any -- supervisor elsbernd? supervisor elsbernd: thank you, mr. president. i am really, really sorry, but i'm not going to be able to support this. i wanted to support this. i came in wanting to support it. i've admired supervisor avalos' work on this, i've admired the community's work. i had every intention of coming in here to support this, but then these numbers came down and, i'm sorry, but if you take the city property owners out and let's not talk about the weighted just yet, but there are 150 parcels on ocean avenue. if you take the public properties out, only 12 property owners voted yes on this. 66 property owners voted no and the rest didn't vote and i really have a tough time saying

12 property owners get to tell 150 property owners, your property tax is going up. i just -- i wanted to be there really bad because i really admire supervisor avalos' commitment to ocean avenue. it's an area that needs this support, but i just don't think these numbers are fair, and i think longer term, we need to do more. all this work, but only 12 private property owners said yes. it's not a sufficient threshold for me. president chiu: colleagues, further discussion? supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: certainly the numbers, in terms of the number of people who voted against this c.b.d. are greater than the number who supported it but the actual weighted value of those is really tine. tiny. some of the people who are opposed to it have an additional assessment of like $140.

that's typically what the number is, it's very small for a good part of the people who rejected it. so, to me, while you have people who are a part of a property, or a small part of a property they own, voting against it, i don't think should spell the end of the community benefits district. i do believe we'll see real positive benefits out of it and urge my colleagues to support. president chiu: colleagues, if we can take a roll call vote on item 44, whether the resolution to establish the ocean avenue c.b.d. should be deamented. madam clerk: supervisor alioto-pier, alioto-pier no. supervisor avalos. avalos, aye. supervisor campos, campos aye. president chiu, chiu aye. supervisor chu, chu no. supervisor daly, daly aye. supervisor dufty, dufty aye. supervisor elsbernd, elsbernd no. supervisor mar, mar aye, maxwell

aye, supervisor mirkarimi, mirkarimi aye. there are eight aye's and three nos. president chiu: the resolution is adopted. if we can now go back -- actually, i'm sorry, we have a couple of more 3:00 special orders. items 45 and 46. madam clerk: items 45 and 46 are the board of supervisors sitting as a whole -- objecting to the proposed resolution approving the redevelopment agency's lease of land commonly known as 701 golden gate avenue to mary helen rogers senior community for the purpose of developing housing for very low-income senior households. president chiu: we have a proposal to consider redevelopment regarding the mary helen redevelopment. do we have initial comments from

the redevelopment staff? >>ed good afternoon, supervisors, president chiu and members of the board. the item before you is the disposition of by lease of agency land applied with tax increment funds. under state law, the agency comes before the board of supervisors to get approval for dispositions of property applied applied -- acquired with tax income and funds. this is this part of the properties acquired from the agency by the city that were basically the parcels underneath the central freeway. the agency has disposed of parcel a, which is at golf and turk, and it's a completed afordible senior housing project. we disposed of parcel g at fulton adjacent to the performing arts garage and that is in the process of being

constructed to house formerly chronically homeless individuals. parcel q, at octavia, is just in the process of being completed and that will house persons who are developmentally disabled. in this particular transaction, the agency is leasing to a limited partnership that is managed by both china town community development center and johnson interests for the purpose of obtaining tax credit investment, an equity investment to build 100 units of very low-income senior rental housing in a development named after a long-time western addition activist, mary helen rogers, called mary helen rogers senior community. we will lease the land for 70 years and will be providing a minimum -- requiring a minimum payment of $15,000 and the

balance of the annual lease being subject to the availability of cash from that particular development. in addition to the lease, the agency is providing a subordinate loan of approximately $15.5 million to ensure that the building can be constructed. and the agency commission recommends the board's approval. thank you. president chiu: colleagues, any questions to redevelopment staff? supervisor? >> i just want to add some comments. this building is technically in district 6, daly's district. mary helen rogers happens to be an icon well known to many of us throughout the city but formerly a resident of district five in

the fillmore in the western addition and this building is aptly, i think, should be named after her. her legacy is well known and well felt throughout the western addition in the city but in particular in areas that have been confronted and challenged by policies of redevelopment in urban renewal. she stood up and she stood out where others did not. she was really able to galvanize where others couldn't. so i think this building, rightfully so, recognizes, in part, some of that legacy, and i know her family would be proud. president chiu: supervisor maxwell? supervisor maxwell: with that, she also made huge changes in redevelopment, huge changes that, in my community when we had a redevelopment project area committee, it made a huge difference because of some of the things and policies that

mary rogers and a lot of the people that work with her put in place so i think it's very appropriate that a building like this be named after her. thank you. president chiu: any further questions to redevelopment staff? let me get a show of hands of how many folks are here to comment on this item. okay. if we could hear public comment, two minutes per speaker. mr. washington? >> [speaking foreign language]

madam clerk, supervisor alioto-pier, maxwell and carmen chu, meri christmas and happy

new year for you, for your family, for everyone you like and everyone you love. and the rest of our grateful supervisor, chris daly, i watch you, and i wish you have good luck after you leave us. please, give my message to your lovely wife and tell her that abdullah tell you merry christmas and happy new year. i never, ever going to be forgot like some man like you. you come into this village as man and you go outside this village as men. yes, you have big mouth and we love you. you talk like me, like the nice people in your heart, you make mistake, we forgive you, we make it successful, we love you.

ladies and gentlemen, i hope the new year can give us a chance to see the new government and also the former mayor gavin newsom, i wish me grow up and to understand he going to be under the bus of sacramento. when the bus want to him, he must go. but when we want him here to talk with you, he have right to said no or make it veto. gavin is no veto in sacramento anymore. gavin, whatever you did wrong, we going to forgive you. but we going to watch you very well for any successful job you try to work on the future.

[bell] president chiu: thank you very much. i would like to remind members of the public of the fact that we are discussing a specific topic, the redevelopment agency land at 701 golden gate way. next speaker, please. >> the name is ace washington. first of all, let me say, without a doubt, i'm supporting mary rogers and the building itself. let that be perfectly clear. i don't want any misunderstandings to get back to the rogers family or anybody. i'm protesting the elephant in the room, which is the redevelopment agency. first of all, here in your documents, you don't know if it's in the western addition or if it's in the daly's district. let's get that straight. the other thing is, the money that is going there, let it go, but the developer, which one of the developers, johnson, m. johnson, has two other developments in our community. one of them happens to be on fillmore, which happens to