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 se
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 ow, 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
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 ta
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 a
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