my complaints about habitability issues. i would like their name and address. it seems nobody is doing anything. president chiu: would any other members of the public wish to speak? seeing none, general public comment is closed. >> items 30 through 35 are considered for immediate adoption without committee reference, using a single roll call vote. if a member requests discussion, it will be called separately and considered. president chiu: i would like to sever item 30? supervisor mar: i can 31. president chiu: -- item 31. >> on items 32 through 35 -- supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor weiner: aye.

supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor cohen: -- supervisor chu: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: the motion passes. >> item 30 is a resolution opposing the united states supreme court interpretation of the constitution in citizens united, supporting an amendment to the constitution to provide that corporations are not entitled to the integrity of protections of natural persons. president chiu: colleagues, i want to think supervisors -- thank supervisors cohen, weinr, and olague for co- sponsoring this resolution, supporting an amendment to the constitution to provide that corporations are

not entitled to protection of natural persons. the u.s. supreme court in the citizens united case moved in favor of the unlimited corporate spending to influence elections and policy decisions, which in essence granted corporations the same free speech rights as human beings. two years later, this past week, there were demonstrations against this decision that took place in over 130 cities across the u.s., including san francisco. over 35 cities and municipalities have introduced similar measures as the one we are considering today, to call on congress to limit corporate reach. most recently, the city councils of los angeles and new york city passed almost identical resolutions to the one we are considering. i offer few resolutions that touch on national issues. but i think this is so important we need to show solidarity on this nationwide call for change. as you know, we have discussed

the impact of this case on our local public finance structure. we have to do all we can to ensure our democratic right to free and fair elections is protected. supervisor farrell: i was the colleague who continued this item last week. i am in favor of it today, but want to explain my point of view. these resolutions -- it has nothing to do with my point of view on the underlying discussion. i completely agree with president chuy. nth - -chiu and think this is affecting everyone in the country. my objection has to do with the board of supervisors. i believe we should focus on local issues, meaning on their face that are local. the number of people i know talk about issues being germane to san francisco. the problem is it is a slippery slope. there are things germane to san

francisco residents from citizens united to foreign policy in things that happen abroad. they can have -- they can affect us in san francisco. but that is the type of stuff i do not think we should do in board chambers. my preference would be to deal with local issues on their face. but i can also see that i could be playing a game of what the mole on a weekly basis -- whack- a-mole on a weekly basis, and it would waste time. it is not because i do not agree with the resolutions and the point behind them. it is about the general public views the board of supervisors. i want our board to be respected in san francisco. when articles get written about resolutions we promote here at the board, a think it diminishes us as a board. i am going to read a quick e- mail i got in the middle of last week's meeting. it is not from a constituent,

but a resident. it says "i came across item 40, which would encourage the grammys consideration of additional music genres. i felt such a thrill out realizing homelessness, pot holes, and crime had been resolved. otherwise, i cannot imagine supervisors would waste taxpayer dollars considering it." when i read that and hear that from a constituent, that diminishes us and our capacity at the board of supervisors. in the future, i am not going to make a profession out of this. but i am going to continue in the future to call out the ones i think are embarrassing to our board and make sure we continue to be respected. but i am going to vote in favor of this today. thank you. supervisor kim: i want to request to be added as a co- sponsor for the citizens united

resolution. supervisor mar: please add me as well. supervisor campos: colleagues, any other comments? do we need a roll call? supervisor avalos: i would also like to be added and i think we could have had is about a while back. supervisor campos: anyone else? can we take this same house, same call? this resolution is adopted. can we call item 31? >> resolution urging the restatement of the 31 categories of music that were eliminated by the national academy of arts and sciences for grim consideration on april 6, 2011. -- for grammy consideration on april 6, 2011. president chiu: i feel in many

ways the same way as supervisor weiner, except for the people in our city who are directly impacted. it feels strong, the impact on them. i will repeat what i mentioned. at the request of local musicians, respected, grammy- nominated musicians, i move to table item 31. it is at their urging, because we can focus on other ways to create more diversity in the music industry, and respect for cultural forms, whether it is cajun music or native american music. i did want to also say that i am going to continue to work with the music industry, like the executive director of the recording academy, to bring awareness of how music and the industry is an economic driver for the city. i also have a hearing today for an economic study analysis of

the critical role of the music industry and local artists, nightclubs, and the entertainment industry, as an economic driver of the city. i also continue to do work in our cultural centers to support the inclusion of neighborhood art in the america's cup, and working hard to strengthen our equity arts programs. i move that we tabled this item. president chiu: colleagues, supervisor mar has made a motion. can we do that without objection? without objection, that is the case. madam clerk, can you read the in memoriams? >> for the redevelopment agency. on behalf of supervisor olague for the late dr. robert kamen. president chiu: is there any more business in front of this body? >> that concludes our meeting for the day.

president chiu: at this time, we are adjourned.

>> i would like remind -- to remind all of us to turn off our cell phones and anything else that can make noise during the meeting. [calling roll] thank you. we have a full commission today. the first category on your calendar items proposed for continuance. at the time of this calendar there were no items proposed for a continuance. that situation continues to exist at this time. so we will move on to your consent calendar.

items one-four make up the consent calendar this week. they are considered to be routine and will be acted upon by a single roll-call vote of this commission. there will be no separate discussion unless off or members of the public request. -- of mustaf or members of the public request. the items are as follows. item one, case number 2010 that 0.10.1038c, 1735 polk street was said between washington and clay streets. the project would convert they can speak to a rest from within the polk street neighborhood district. item two is case number 2011

.1233c for 2255 polk street. the tenant improvements are proposed for the tenant's space, however the size of the space will not change. item number three, case number 2011.0679z 1120-1130 kearny street. item #4 case number 2011. 0680q 1145 green street. following public comment, which

would automatically remove these items from the consent calendar, these items are before you for your consideration. >> any public comment on items on the consent calendar? which items? >> item one. commissioners, item one is removed from the consent calendar. are you going to consider items 2-4? president miguel: any other public comment? if not, public comment is closed? >> i move to move a items 2, 3, and 4. >> second. moved to second the consent calendar items?

those items are approved as proposed. mr. president, are we going to consider item one now or during the regular calendar? president miguel: we will consider it during the regular calendar, probably the fourth item. >> thank you. we can move forward on calendar. you are now at commissioner's questions and matters. item 5, consideration of adoption of draft and it from the regular meeting of january 12, 2012. your closed session meeting of january 19, and your regular meeting of january 19. and following public comment and any corrections or modifications you may have, we ask you adopt the draft minutes. president miguel: any public comment on the drop minutes? if not, public comment is closed. commissioner moore: move to

approve. [laughter] >> thank you. ton motion for approval of the draft minutes -- [calling roll] thank you, commissioners. the draft minutes have been approved as they have been drafted. and the other commission matters? commission moore: i attended a land meeting yesterday morning. a very interesting summary on 2012 case events that have bearing on planning commission matters, review of sicsequa in 1 an update on redevelopment agencies, and the different kind of things that happened across the state of california. in my heart went out to our

successor agency and members, because when you hear it in more detail by experts that describes the effects in different communities, it is hair raising. and i think it would be not only difficult for the director, but i think it will also rippled down into the things that we will be looking at in will be equally difficult. i hope we will get updates and help from anyone who can prepare us to take on this new task. there were also a couple of interesting reports on wetlands and endangered species act. and i will be happy to lend the documents that came out of that meeting that will be worthwhile taking a glance at. and commissioner antonini: thank

you. earlier this week i was part of a presentation with a couple of other commissioners from project sponsors for 2 001 folsom which was approved in an approval process of 2003. this is the completion of the project, which i would be happy to report. it seems to be moving forward, and we have the design presentation that was required for the commissioner to take a look at the design before they went forward. but was interesting out of this presentation, and this was a subject that was frequently brought up. everyone wants to know the context of the people who live in these new projects that have just been completed. the project sponsor volunteered they have about 1000 residents there in these towers. he said the record shows 75% are

full-time records. the other 25% are split equally between 12.5% ranchers. we hear a lot of representation, and this is only one project, but it may be representative of many of the new projects that have been built, project early self of market -- south of market. it would appear that a very high percentage of people do make this their full-time residents. also, it is entirely sold, all eyes are many of these. we often hear representations' there is a full flood of unsold condominiums, which is not the case, opera to curly in this area. i thought that was very interesting, and hopefully we can have later presentations from other projects as we go forward to tell us about the characteristics of the people

who live there in terms of whether their full-time residents, whether they have cars or not, how many children. one other thing that came out of this is there will be a lot more larger units. another words, two and three bedrooms as opposed to the earlier iteration, which had more studios in one bedroom. they found they have so many families that this has become a popular configuration. that is very encouraging. commissioner borden: we talked about having a hearing this month on the african american out migration. i want to make sure we get that on the calendar. we're already in february and the time will be passed very quickly. maybe we can look at the last thursday of the month. the second thing is redistricting. i know it is not our

jurisdiction, but it would be interesting to have someone talks about the process. i recognize in a lot of ways from our standpoint it does not matter in the same sort of way, but it is a big issue that will affect land use and decisions in other ways. maybe someone from the task force were chair could come talk about the process and how things can be engaged in can ponder what, if any, implications it has for us. >> i have been meeting with people regarding the project that will probably come to us and a few months and have had the pleasure of attending a forum on sales force at mission bay. standing-room-only into the hall.

obviously very interesting questions came up. very interesting presentation, and we will see it here shortly. >> thank you, commissioners. if there are no other matters, we can move on to directors report, which involves announcements and review of the past events. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. a couple of things i want to tell you briefly. not a whole lot to report on the past week on the redevelopment agency elimination, except that the redevelopment agency no longer exist as of yesterday. we knew that was coming in the past couple of weeks. the board of supervisors did approve legislation that the mayor put forward, as well as creating the successor agency.

as you recall the portable housing asset will go to the mayor's office of housing and all other assets will go to the city administrator's office. the comptroller's office is setting up a trust fund to except the fund from those areas. casthose funds will be used as y are obligated to be used under existing contracts. the remaining guns will be distributed as they would be to the normal taxing entities. san francisco is both a set county and city, we are in a better shape than those that have to be split. since we are in one government, we are in somewhat better shape. beyond that, the logistics of how we're going to operate as an oversight board and successor agency are still to be determined. you probably know the staff of

the agency will continue for at least two months. it buys them some breathing room, the city breathing room to help work this out to determine what stopped oversize board will need -- what staff the board will meet. it is a huge issue that is consuming a lot of time from a lot of people to figure that out. i cannot even tell you that this point when the first meeting because the schedule has not been set yet. but as soon as we know, i will try to get that information to you. the second issue is that the mayor has kicked off a meeting of a housing trust fund committee today an hour and a half ago. this is a large group has asked to convene from all members of the housing community from activist to developers to finance folks to look at the issue of how to develop

alternative funding mechanisms for affordable housing, particularly in light of the lost tax increment from redevelopment, which was the city's largest single source of affordable housing. the goal of the mayor has given us is to look at a range of financing mechanisms. he made it clear that everything was on the table, but if we were to recommend that some of these mechanisms might require a ballot measure, he has asked to do that in the timely way so we to get something on november ballot. that work will have to proceed very quickly in order to make the november ballot. back to the redevelopment for one second. because of the unknowns, we also do not know what the impact on the department's budget might be. what you will see today is the budget does not reflect yet anything read -- related to redevelopment.

so if and when that does happen, we will have to come back to you with additional information, and perhaps a supplementary budget request at that time, but we just do not know yet. in we're hoping we will know and the next few months. that is my presentation unless there are any questions. commissioner sugaya: does the city know or have made a projection on the amount of -- tax increment will still be collected uncertain project areas, but is that -- will increment not be collected in other areas, and has the city made a projection on how much that is? >> the comptroller is running those numbers right now. you are correct that it will not be collected out of -- other in those three areas. mission bay, hunters point, and mission bay area 1.

-- transbay area 1. there are four other taxing entities that will also get the funds as they would normally. >> good afternoon, commissioners. emery rogers to give you your weekly review of the board of supervisors as they pertain to planning and land use. i would like to start off with something that happened at the rules committee hearing last week. one of which requires analyzing proposed legislation that might negatively affect jobs. and in those circumstances this charter amendment would be required for the small business commission to review the economic impact.

last week that was amended to include the planning commission in review of anything that might negatively affect job loss. and that piece of ordinance will be heard later today at the rules committee as it has been amended. this week at the land use committee hearing they heard the glen park community plan come in this would be an ordinance for the plan. this is culminating approval for 10 years worth of community planning. the commission considered the ordnances and recommended approval on november 10 of last year. at that time you approved the document as drafted. this week supervisor wiener officially sponsored the legislation and recommended approval to the committee. department staff provided an overview of the plan and supervisors comments included strong interest in seeing transportation projects implemented by sf mta.] the committee an