reported this. [bell rings] and they have done nothing to enforce it. nobody is enforcing except the fire department sometimes. people are having to move. then the property owner has to give notice to the people who might move in. you know, it is damaging property values. restaurant customers cannot come to these areas anymore. retailers are damaged because these premises move in, not only did the drive up the rent, but they did not bring in customers during the day. and nobody wants to come to the area anymore. [bell rings] i will bring this another time. supervisor wiener: thank you very much. next speaker. also john and steve. >> hello, i am tom murphy, a musician and entrepreneur and co-chair of the recording academy is advocacy committee. i have spent almost three years now working with the entertainment commission and the arts community and venues. and many people involved in our

night life. and i want to thank you for commissioning this study and for the controller's office for giving us a wonderful starting point to have a healthy dialogue. many people have mentioned that this is a complex relationship between businesses and neighbors and a police and artists and technology that requires these different groups to begin to understand each other's position, to try to come to agreement on what is best for the city as a whole, recognizing each individual's goals and objectives and needs, but also recognizing the larger picture. this study begins to touch on what i see as a much larger picture. but there are so many other businesses that are a little bit more difficult to measure that are directly related to music and nightlife that we have talked a lot about the growing technology sector and midmarket

and trying to attract new business and new employees and new ideas. and many times a year there is a conference call sf music tech conference, and it brings thousands of music professionals and entrepreneurs to san francisco to discuss how to revolutionize and adapt to these changes in music and the industry and economics. so many of those companies are headquartered here in san francisco. so this study is a great starting point to recognize that the diverse ramifications that we as a city have taken for granted and recognize on a cultural and subjective level, but now we can begin to talk in more concrete, objective numbers about employees, revenue, taxes, and economy. i want to thank you. and i look forward to working with everyone else continually

on ways to revitalize this industry that we all are very dedicated to. supervisor wiener: thank you very much. mr. wood? >> hello, supervisors could i am john would. i have not been around the nightlife scene as long as mark has, but i have been around for a while, long enough to have been involved in trying to negotiate a lot of the squabbles that have happened between nightlife and special events and neighborhood groups and the police department. one thing that has not been said today, jocelyn did it say that running in nightlife business can be difficult. part of that difficulty is that night life often becomes the scapegoat for social problems that the nightlife owners did not create but that they have to deal with. and so, when an incident happens

like a fight or a shooting, even something that happens a block away from the club that the club owner has very little ability to impact, that will, because of sometimes the tragic nature of it, the club will get blamed on a map -- automatically, even though they really had very little ability to affect that are not. so what is great about this study is that it proves how important this sector is to the economy, and that gives a little bit more weight to the political leadership that is necessary to force intelligence solutions into these complex social problems and not have the knee- jerk reactions that have occurred in the past that put all the blame on the club owners and then add all kind of additional costs into the running of the venues and nightclubs that take away from

their ability to hire jobs. and many clubs go out of business and even some have left this city. it is because of this process of knee-jerk reaction that occurs to admittedly difficult situations sometimes. but with the proper political leadership that said that this is important and the word has spread out throughout the bureaucracy that we have to work together and create better solutions. that has not always happen, and that has led to the problems that mark talked about. fortunately with this new generation of supervisors, and thank you to scott for pushing this and seeing the importance of its, we can create those solutions, working together with the entertainment commission, the police department, and not have the process that everyone has been stuck in that mark alluded to. thank you very much. supervisor wiener: thank you very much. >> thank you, supervisors.

i am here to talk about the need for been used to revolve over time and change. i have been working for the last three years with the california masonic memorial temple, the owner of the masonic auditorium on nob hill. a 3200-seat venue now, completed in 1958. it has not undergone any substantial rehabilitation or changes since then. we did get permits for the city in 2010 to renovate the said her -- of the center, add seats, make it more like the fox and oakland, where the city of oakland put in tens of millions of dollars to renovate that venue and modernize it and make it appropriate for these days. unfortunately is superior court judge put us back in the process again. i want you to keep in mind when, later this month, you hear the next a masonic appeal of issues that were raised today in this

hearing, it is not a nightclub. it is a concert venue. we're talking about an 11:00 p.m. closing time, 11:30 p.m. closing time on weekends. but it is important that you recognize the importance of these larger venues as well that bring people to san francisco for concerts'. they have a multiplier effect. they're not nightclub's the large venues. in this case, masonic happens to be in a mixed use neighborhood, both residential and commercial neighborhood. there are some residents in the area who are dissatisfied with the existence of it at all and are trying to close down the avenue. and i wanted you to be aware of these issues and the economic issues that were raised when you hear the appeal. a couple of statistics. we estimate when the venue is renovated and back open for business, about $2.5 million annually in tax payments to the city -- in peril.

$75,000 in tax payments to the city. $5 million to $6 million in capital improvements to the menu itself. it is important to the economic generator. thank you for this hearing. supervisor chiu: is that the live nation project? >> they have been hired. >> how large is that, if the project is approved, compared to like another that it team -- >> that has about 8000 capacity. masonic is about 3300. it is the middle range. right now, just the opera house and davis hall has that capacity. those are pretty much completely booked. so this is the only venue of that size in san francisco. supervisor wiener: so that appeal has been calendar for -- it says march 27?

>> either the 2327. >> this is march 27. any more public comments? seeing none, public comment is closed. i just want to thank everyone. i agree with some of the comments made the this is really a starting point. there is more work to be done. but i think this is been a great first step. so thank you again to mr. egan and everyone involved. mr. chair i moved to continue this to the call of the chair. supervisor chiu: thank you, everyone, for testifying. i want to make sure that we're going to be following up together on focusing on the music industry's impact as well, hopefully looking at some of the data from this report more specifically on the musicians, music industry, and other music venues. and the other issue is, wanted

to appreciate jocelyn from the entertainment commissioners and folks for being here today, too, for also doing such a great job trying to mitigate the impacts of the industry in different neighborhoods. i think ms. chapman, who spoke earlier, i want to thank her for bringing the concerns of residents been doubly the entertainment division's debt and commissioners can help in the process of bringing their career awareness to entertain me, which is such an important part of san francisco's life culture, and can be appreciated, but residents can be expected as well -- can be respected as well. we're continuing this to the call of the chair, without objection. is there any other business before us? >> no, there are no further matters. supervisor mar: thank you, everyone. meeting adjourned.

>> the only item on the agenda is consideration of amendments to legislation. >> hopefully, this is a great simplification over what we expected to do today. i will ask you to more or less ignored them, what we had earlier this week, and look at what is in front of you. although the board of supervisors passed out a version of the public finance proposal that the ethics commission adopted, there were a number of amendments included. even though it passed the board, since then, there has been some dissension among board members on that language. so in some fairly frantic negotiation going on this week and into last night, members of the board have come to an agreement on this, the ones that

are actively involved. what that means is, the proposal that ethics has adopted with the two changes in front of you, reducing the overall cap of the amount in the election campaign fund, from $13.5 million to $7 million. the purpose of this is to escalate concerns and there has always been a surplus and that money is idle when the city could be using that money in other places. this is certainly acceptable to the staff. the second change is the ethics commission adopted an increase in the cap for the mayoral race , and the board had decided to leave that where it is. this is something that's that is fine with working with. there is a third technical change that recreates the

formula at which the commission staff wants to notify the board and the mayor there will be a shortage in the fund. because of the way it is written, there will not be a shortage when the trigger hits, we are changing the trigger so that it matches the mathematical intent. that is really it in a nutshell. you have before you what you already adopted with those two changes, which are simple to understand, and those are the technical changes. >> could you describe, procedurally, what happens if we adopt this, these changes in the legislation? >> the rules committee, likely will hear this on april 5 -- >> possibly late march. >> at that point, it goes back to the full board come first and second full of reading. our understanding is there is

sufficient support that this would be adopted with the changes. >> we have sufficient confidence -- if we do not vote on the version that was sent to us by the board originally, but instead, vote on this version that was negotiated over the course of the last week, we are not running into any procedural problems? >> no, if the commission were to adopt these last set of changes the director just presented -- and these were last minute changes -- there should not be any holdup in terms of how quickly it could be enacted at the board and how quickly the ethics commission could implement. >> procedurally, we are also ok with this regarding the version that had originally reidy that

had originally come down from the board. >> certainly within the ethics commission purvey to make any changes that you see fit, frankly. even if it is something that several members of the board at least initially expressed support for. although, that seems to have changed a little bit. >> so your review is that this was satisfactorily noticed that we reluctant changes to what was done, that there were visions to that and the public was on notice that we were addressing this topic in this level of detail today? that is another procedural issue. >> yes, in terms of noticing this item on the agenda for the special meeting, the notice is

sufficient. the ethics committee can also make changes and still pass it out the same day, or evening, as it usually is. >> thank you. commissioners, comments regarding the proposal? >> briefly, on the $7 million, can you tell us more about what the staff thinking was when you came to the conclusion that that was adequate? >> the most we have ever spent in a single race is the past mayoral race, $4.8 million. that is too close to $5 million for what we are thinking about next. in projecting forward the

anticipated inflationary costs and everything, we wanted to make sure there was enough money looking for to at least the next mayor's race. we costed it out and just under $7 million. we started at $5 million, but there was concern that that would not be enough, so we recalculated and moved up in that way. >> a question about the conforming changes in the last paragraph. previously, the trigger was much further away from the cap, giving more time to find money in the budget, if necessary, make other changes that would allow that to work. i am just wondering what the thinking is about having the cap at $6.9 million, which seems pretty close and not allowing as

much policy room. i know this does not speak to timing. what is the background on that one? >> i was not in the room when this figure was arrived at, actually. the fact is, even though this stipulates a time when we are to go in the case of a supplemental, there is nothing constraining us -- >> from doing it early. so it is required at this point, but could be done at any time when we believe it is proven in the cycle. >> yes. -- prudent in the cycle of. >> commissioners, any other questions or comments? >> if i could just add a lot more on the question presented by commissioner studley.

the ethics committee needs a signal prior to the election. the possibility that a commission may request a supplemental appropriation is permissive. if that extension was close, $6.7 million, for example, we would still be required to notify the board of that, but it is not clear that the ethics commission needs to go through all the groups to ask for that money -- hoops to ask for that money. >> in the words, it is possible there may not be $7 million in the fund, but at the extent not have the obligation necessarily to ensure that there is $7 million. >> the ethics commission would be required to notify the relevant authorities but is not required to actually go through the steps of requesting that money. it is not practically required. >> is there any mechanism for

the board or mayor to put money in the fun without a request from ethics? >> yes. >> it is in their budgetary authority. >> further questions or comments from the commissioners? public comment? >> good morning. i have not seen this before. i walked in the room and you were talking about it. mr. hill said he was vaguely aware. would have been helpful if this was available yesterday, to let the public know. i am not sure i can digest the changes right now. i think that is a problem in terms of public notice and consideration of further changes to what was already a complicated proposal. i was prepared to talk about what was made available in earlier this week.

i am sorry. i am a little bit unhappy right now. >> at the beginning of the meeting, we addressed these changes and the procedural mechanism for how they came about. perhaps you can provide another recap -- >> perhaps staff could have let the public know that this document was available yesterday? >> the document was written last night after 6:00 p.m. >> and we are considering in this morning? >> this proposal was with the ethics commission adopted before with two changes that are simple to understand and one technical correction. >> the negotiations continued into evening last night, and this was prepared immediately after those. >> we sought for the first time this morning as well. >> i will try to restrain my

unhappiness, but i expressed it. the technical changes that i had here on what is now paid 18 subsection b, with respect to insufficient funds, in addition to notify the commission and the board of supervisors, i would suggest adding the mayor on line six, line 16, 17. to the extent this suggests a supplemental appropriation that could originate from the border or the mayor, or as suggested by this commission. i think notify the commission, board, and mayor would be useful. i have no policy objection to the changes in the program structure. as i have testified before, i would use different figures, but i think these figures work as well.

this is an evolving program. it is possible there could be a future court decision that says a non-incumbent candidate cannot be treated differently. we may have to go back and revise the formula to that end. to my knowledge, there is no such decision in that regard right now. i think it is fine to handle incumbent, non-incumbent candidates in the manner proposed. whether or not my concern about the single subject rule is still pertinent, i still think, on a policy basis, moving back the filing deadline 58 days has the effect of extending the campaign season for two months, which i actually think works against one of the goals of the commission with respect to financing of campaigns, which is to limit the expenses. by extending the campaign

season, that will increase expenses of running for office, not keep them level, which i think is not a good idea. why candidates should have to file in june 4 in november election rather than august seems to me there are other approaches to deal with the zombie candidate issue, or reducing the number of candidates -- limiting the number of candidates that may seek public financing under a reasonably separate -- structured program. i will leave my comments there for the moment. >> thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. steven hill. it has been a long road. yesterday was a pretty furious day. lots of people were involved trying to tweak anything at the last second. it was not an attempt to hide

anything from the public. there were just a lot of concern from members of the board that we are doing the right thing here. as someone who has come here before, an advocate for public financing, i am not 100% happy with everything in this, but, on balance, it is a good effort. the standard that you are charged, to look at changes like this, does this further the goals of the campaign finance reform ordinance? that is what any changes meant to do. looking at it that way, this document does that. it does a number of good things, including dealing with the zombie candidate issue, and will make the program itself more stable because it is making us more conscious of the use of public dollars. it is going to make sure there is enough money in the fund, we hope, to finance all the

candidates based on past elections, but it is also going to make it a love it harder to get the public financing, as we know. on balance, we have struck a good package here. i would urge you to support it. we know we need a boat from the board of supervisors. that is a high threshold. when you need at high of the threshold, sometimes everybody can get what they want. the major substantive change that was made yesterday is a very good one, after all the back-and-forth. the amendment that came to you was going to put money into the fund in june, in the middle of campaign season. that would have allowed the program to become a political football. that would have used up a big

lump sum, instead of doing it year after year. those of us that have been around this issue for a long time remember in the past mayoral administration where they raided the fund and turned it into a political football. this was alarming to thing that money would be injected into the fund in the middle of a campaign, in june. i am pleased we were able to get agreement to go back to the year to year allocation, and to keep it that way, where it has already been. and it is also true the ethics commission itself is overseeing this program, which is funded by that. the lower that amount gets, the less funding the ethics commission has. if you are getting in a lump sum, i imagine it allows more difficulty in planning for staffing and all the other needs of the commission. doing it year by year seems to

be a better way to do the sorts of things, to allow the commission and staff to plan, knowing that the money is coming each year and plan accordingly. not everything i wanted, but on balance, it furthers the goal of the cfro, and i would urge your support. >> commissioners, any further comments, questions? is there a motion? --is there a motion to pass the provisions to the cfro? is there a second? >> second. >> all those in favor? opposed? the motion passes. >> that being the i