it is seconded. >> or somebody makes a friendly amendment. >> if it's friendly, then, the original motioner needs to say that it's friendly. >> i'd be willing to take this -- a friendly amendment because i'll acquiesce to his -- the commissioner's expertise in this in putting him out of business, and i do not want to do that, but -- so i will, with the permission of the second, move to close friday and saturday night, meaning saturday and sunday morning, at 1:00 a.m. >> i'll agree with that. >> okay. so the motion has changed, and the seconder's agreed. >> could i add one friendly? >> sure, yeah. >> i want the security increased in the front at closing, 30 minutes before closing of doors -- i'm sorry,

15 minutes before closing the doors, whether it's 1:00, 2:00, whatever we decide, but 15 minutes, guards out front, and then 30 minutes after doors are actually shut or when patrons are out of the building, 30 minutes outside to sweep the street. so right now, there's no condition on how many guards to have based on capacity. usually, it's 50 guards or sometimes 100 for every -- i mean, one guard for every 100. i didn't see anything on the conditions. i think if you did one guard for every 50 people, you're at 532 capacity. that's basically 11 guards. now, you say you only have eight. can you put six guards in the front, that's the thing? so -- >> so commissioner lee -- >> yeah.

>> -- are you asking for a proportion, 50:1, are you asking for six at the front at all times? >> well, it is, if the -- yeah, yeah. so the -- okay. my amendment, then, because i don't think at the 1:00, they're going to have much issue, but i still want at least six guards outside. >> 15 minutes prior to close. >> 15 minutes prior to close and 30 minutes -- >> afterwards. >> i can't remember. sweep the streets. >> i'd like to propose a friendly amendment. >> okay. let's -- well, let's go one by one. is there a friendly amendment? >> yes, i'll accept that friendly amendment. >> i'll accept. >> okay. so that's another friendly amendment. commissioner caminong. >> i'd like to increase the perimeter sweeps by 100 feet,

and also require calling 911. >> is that a friendly amendment? >> yes, i'll accept that. >> seconder accepts. >> can i make one final friendly amendment. i think a lot of these security conditions could be also wrapped into a revised security plan, so i don't know that it's necessarily adding a new condition, but maybe a recommendation once we approve this is to see a revised security plan to illustrate all these new conditions, and that's completely enforceable, so i think, you know, right now, if we reviewed parts of their security plan and felt like they haven't been in compliance, we could move towards do we feel that they haven't been complaint. do you have --

>> yeah. so i guess i need a little more clarity on a few of these friendly amendments. so first going to commissioner lee's friendly amendment, so you wanted -- i got 15 minutes before closing of doors, and up to 30 minutes after closing of doors, you want six security guard's? >> front. >> at the front. so that's the only thing in terms of security that we're amending in terms of number of guards. >> at this time because if they go for the 1:00, i don't see that they're going to have a whole lot of issues, but if it was 2:00, i would have added more, but at least they have that many guards outside at closing. >> okay. so six guards outside at closing, and that is going to be 15 minutes prior, up to 30 minutes after closing. and then we have security perimeter up to 100 feet. that's the radius. can you guys flush that out a little bit more? >> yeah. >> did you have a -- what about

that? >> like, number of security. >> i thidon't have an idea on number of security. >> i think if you look in terms of good neighbor policy, two shall walk the radius to inspect. >> the reason we picked six guards is because john said they work better in pairs. three teams outside sweeping. >> i only care about where the incidents are occurring, if they're occurring 100 feet away from the venue, they need to handle it, especially if it's their patrons. if they have somebody on the ground, and they need somebody to help them, 911, they should be calling. >> no. [inaudible] >> yeah, there's an issue on insurance, because you know,

they can only go certain pafar and if they get injured, sometimes they're going to be a problem with that. [inaudible] >> i think the -- i think the code says, what, two, 300 feet from the front door? >> code says -- it directs to 50 feet from the -- from the property plane, so that's what the going -- you know, the standard is. but we have, in the past -- and perhaps it was not correct to do so, but we have in the past conditioned permits to go further. >> yeah. i think, like, the armory, we conditioned -- there's definitely other examples. again, whatever implications that might have on insurance or other liabilities, we can interrogate that more, but i think it's a -- i think we should feel comfortable to do that at this time, and if they

want to challenge that, they can. so i don't know if -- >> and then, sorry, one last question, that final amendment calling 911, do we want to flush that out, like, in the instance of any fight inside or outside of the premises or are we saying a fight that has -- you know -- i don't know. this is a question from the permit holder, too. like, what does that entail? >> if i'm not mistaken, i think that's already in the code. >> yeah. >> because the venue operator is required to call 911 in certain incidents. >> it is, and it's actually a ground for suspension if you don't call 911. in the instance -- i'd have to read the specific language, but you -- >> or maybe we're just doubling up on something -- >> yeah. if you look at their security plan, 911 is referenced several times. if there's an active shooter.

there's a whole escalation protocol procedure. it doesn't say dial 911, it says, like, to contact police. >> okay. >> so if we could look at that and say if that's appropriate right now. i think the concern is coming from, like, hey, there is this incident that escalated that didn't get reported, so, like, how -- what are we trying to do with that. >> if i'm correct, we're asking them to amend their security plan. so maybe we can ask them to highlight in better detail the 911 response plan. >> yeah. >> it's a form -- there's an incident report form that time, date, witnesses. >> all right. so if i'm getting all of this right, all of these securitition conditions, you want to see this -- security

conditions, you want to see all of this given in a revised security plan to myself and central station. >> that is right on. >> okay. >> do we want to set a date? that's the question. >> two weeks. >> yeah, it usually requires two weeks. >> two weeks. >> a revised security plan in two weeks. >> okay. so is that friendly -- >> yes. >> second? >> yes. >> is that all the clarification you need or do you need more? >> no. >> okay. let's take a vote. [roll call] >> the motion passes with all the new conditions please work with our staff and try to tease out these details. i do hope we don't see additional incidents. and as we said, kind of the other times you've come here, if things go well, we'd

happy -- we'd happily loosen up the conditions and let you run up until 2:00 every night, but i don't think we saw that tonight. so -- all right. we have one more tight on our agenda, which is commissioner comments and questions. so i have number eight. ition commissioners, would anyone like to say anything? commissioner bleiman? >> i would like to say when i was 21 years old, i visited san francisco for the first time, and i went to a straut restaurant called sushi zone. and there was a two hour wait, so i walked across the street to another sushi restaurant, and i saw a man in a

construction shirt, singing karaoke, and i thought, this is where i want to move. this city is home. >> commissioner perez? >> commissioner, i am sad that you are going to be leaving us, but i hope that you are going to be enjoying your retirement, and i hope to see you around town. >> thank you, commissioner perez. i do want to say thank you. it's an honor to be a commissioner in san francisco. you know, when i got approached to do it, it was like wow, that's kind of cool. but then to come on this commission and have all the commissioners, both president tan and pat, with their guidance and understanding to help me along, it was an

experience, and it's definitely been great -- and the staff. you've been awesome. >> commissioner caminong. >> yes. i want to wish commissioner lee a happy belated birthday. >> shhh! don't say that. >> well, thank you, and commissioner frost, pleasure being my wing man here because when it comes to the police, man, what a breath of fresh air right here. you know, it is a good -- he had a lot of good things to say over the years. if i'm driving in your parade, i'll say hello. >> commissioner frost, thank you for your time on this commission. you know, i guess a little nervous when i hear about who's the next police rep going to be because i think the fare is you could be really heavy handed, that you might not support entertainment actually, and actually, that was, like,

completely not true about you. you were a full advocate for not just entertainment, but an advocate for safety. i hope whoever comes in next, can fill in your hshoes well, because you've asked great questions and been smart and needed to be tough when you needed to, as well. so thank you for that final motion, and hopefully, we will cross paths again. and good luck with all the st. patty's day planning in the future. any other comments -- i do also want to acknowledge -- i know our staff kind of came together and maybe commissioners, too, but larry harvey, who is one of the founders of burning man, which is near and dear to my heart, passed away on april 28th. he is a pillar, i think, of the arts, of entertainment, of san

francisco, so he'll be dearly, dearly missed. i hope as a city, we can find a way -- i know -- i know senator scott wiener pulled together a commendation of him, but i hope that as a city we can come together to find a way to give credit to this really important cultural force, as we do with all the really incredible cultural forces we have in this wonderful, wonderful city. so any way, rest in peace and thank you for all that you've contributed to the world, larry harvey. any final thoughts? all right. any public comment on our commissioner comments or questions? no one's left to do that, so i'm going to adjourn this meeting. thanks for staying around this long. this meeting's adjourned at 8:53.

>> hi. i'm shana longhorn with the san francisco league of women voters. i'm here to discuss proposition c. the city collects a gross receipts tax from many

businesses which receive revenue from the lease of commercial property, such as office buildings, warehouses and retail spaces. the current tax rate ranges from.825% to 3%. businesses with $1 million or less in san francisco are generally exempt from the gross receipt tax. several other businesses are also exempt including some banks, and nonprofits. proposition c would impose an additional gross receipts tax of 1% on the revenues of business received from the lease of warehouse space in the city, and 3.5% on the revenue the business receives on additional leases in the city. it would not apply to revenues

received from leases to businesses engaged in industrial uses, some retail sales of goods and services directly to consumers or arts activities. this additional tax would also not apply to revenues received from certain nonprofit organizations or from government entities. the city would use 15% of funds collected from this general tax for any general purpose. the city would use the remaining 85% of this additional tax for quality early care and education for children from newborns through age five whose parents are very low-income to low-income. quality early care and education for children from newborns to age three whose parents are low to middle-income and do not currently qualify for assistance. programs that support emotional, cognitive for children newborn through five and increased compensation for people who provide care for

children from newborn through early age five. if you vote yes, it means you want to kboes a new gross receipts tax of 1% on revenues a business receives from the lease of warehouse space in the city and 3.5% on revenues the business receives from the lease of commercial spaces in the city to fund quality education for children and other purposes. a no vote means you do not approve this tax. we're joined by lisa rhenner from the san francisco republican party and an opponent of the measure. i'd like to start with miss remmer. why do you believe this proposition is so important. >> just like housing costs, our commercial rents in san francisco will railroad high. and this 3.5% tax will be passed onto the tenant, the

businesses, who will then pass it onto their staff and onto the consumers, us, making the cost of living in san francisco -- the high cost and shortage of child care could be contributed to the administrative costs of opening a child care business. city hall can help working parents by easing regulations and fees, allowing more child care centers to open. what is a crisis is the city budget of $10.2 billion, and the $88 million deficit for this coming year, rising to 800 million in three years. we just paid 77 million for a child care three years ago. in terms of value of child care, well, the u.s. department of health and human services reported the head start benefits have all disappeared by third grade. >> miss buck land, why do you

believe this proposition is so important. >> parents need child care so they can support their families, and children need early care so they can vehemently start their life. child care and early education is expensive, costing $20,000 or more peryear on an after-tax basis. it's often a family's biggest expense after housing. over 50% of san francisco families live in eligible for state child care subsidies. unfortunately there's not enough slots for all families to qualify. every month, there are 2500 children on the waiting list for subsidies in san francisco, two thirds of them infants and toddlers. a third cause is low wages in

the child care sector. due to the work of the city's office of early childhood education, we know what can cost san francisco families. we need to spend 300 to 400 million peryear. >> how will the voters be affected by this 3.5% commercial tax as proposed in proposition c? >> well, i think this tax is actually good for our city. my understanding is that our current commercial rents tax is lower than in other cities, and i believe that helping families pay for child care is a critical need in our city. we hear a lot about the struggles that families are having, particularly struggles paying for housing, but frankly, as i said before, housing -- child care is a bigger expense than housing, and i personally being helping families pay for child care is a housing strategy as well as an economic strategy for our city. when families get help paying for child care, they can work,

support their families and are contributing to the city's economy. and when they get help paying for child care, they also can afford more for housing. >> same question to you, miss rhenner. how will the voters be askd by this proposition specifically by the 3.5% commercial tax. >> the 3.5% commercial tax can immediately get passed onto the tenants or the businesses. your doctor, your dentist, your grocery store, and they could end up cutting employee pay, cutting staff, closing shop, so do we really need more closed storefronts, and mostly it will be passed directly onto consumers, raising the cost of living in san francisco. what we really should be doing is lower the regulations required to open a child care business from head start, with 2400 regulations to be complied with to all of our local zoning and licensing fees.

this 3.5% tax -- and none of it helps homeowner's, just makes the city more expensive. home enners are already paying for the last tax in 2514, 014, just think it's going to make people move away and make the city cost more. >> a second question, which we'll start with you, miss rhenner, what are the advantages or disadvantages to a universal child care program in your view. >> in my view, the benefits of early child care have disappeared by third grade, and the claims of high quality child care are highly exaggerated. there's ten studies that have been cited. only half of them have been used randomized control. only three found positive, long-term results, and these

took place 48, 58 years ago, with treatment groups very small, mostly children. they focused on infants, toddlers, not pre-k and had huge in home family visits which seemed to work out well. the teacher to student ratio was 33 to 66% higher than what students will be getting in the proposed programs, teachers all had bachelors agree and experience in these programs, and moms all had i.q.'s under 85. the treatment wasn't random. the moms stayed at home and dad worked outside of the home. the treatment groups and the control group still only earned under $12,000 a year. they both had approximately 50% arrest rates, yes, 6%, less than a semester more in school, no i.q. differences beyond the differences actually shown among the children. the best results were with the

moms with an i.q. under 70, and the younger moms with less school. the mothers actually in the treatment groups showed the biggest gains in lifetime earnings, even looking at ages 26 to 60, compared looking at the children 21 to 65, the mothers' lifetime earnings were estimated to be twice what the child's were, so yes, teen moms need child care while they finish schools, but we already fund these programs. >> same programs to you, miss lessman. what are the advantages and disadvantages to universal child care programs in your view. >> so i'm not quite sure what, lisa, you've been reading, but the research -- there is a growing body of research that shows the short and long-term benefits of quality child care for families. it's been nobel economyist

james beckman about investing and the out comes in early childhood education, about the need to provide special education and quality education in long-term earnings rates for families, the involvement in your criminal justice system. there's no shortage of studies that show the really important outcomes that come from early quality childhood education. for us, we have a situation in the city where i believe that this is really the key to ensuring that san francisco is a city in which diverse families can thrive. we have -- as i cited before, we have a 50% of san francisco families are living below the self-sufficiency index. it's affecting kids of color.

you know, lack of access affects children of color, and it's really important that we want to -- we want to provide equitiable outcomes for children in san francisco and ensure that all kids are ready to learn when they come into the school district, and we want to make sure that all families can thrive in san francisco. >> thank you, miss beckman. we're now going to start with the closing arguments, and we'll start with you, miss rhenner. >> the 3.5% tax will be passed onto us, the customers through the businesses, and i think that that will make san francisco that much less affordable. again, the child care, the value of child care, the effects dissipated by third grade, except in these totally different, different studies with different groups of people, and they've been highly contested. i've read all of these studies.

testing moms with less than i.q. of 85, that's totally different. again, i do think the teen moms need totally free child care while they finish school, but we already have this. let's not raise the cost of living in san francisco with a tax that just gets passed onto the consumers. >> thank you. miss beckman? >> thank you. i believe prop c is a critical investment in the city's future. it'll raise more than $100 million a year to support early care and education. most of that will provide access to low-income families that are struggling to make ends meet. parents that can't afford to go to work are relying on family, friends, and neighbors, catch as catch can in order to be able to do that, to be able to work. we -- it will also help us increase the wages for our early educators,