Film and Video Arts Commission Report of the 2000-2001 San Francisco Civil Grand Jury

R1

Finding: The SFFVAC spends a large part of their business day helping individuals obtain permits or giving out general information on how to obtain permits for potential projects in San Francisco. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the permit process be moved out of the SFFVAC to the Planning or Police Department. Both of these departments spend enormous resources serving neighborhood processes. By moving this time consuming process, valuable SFFVAC resources could be redirected to bring new business into San Francisco. Required Response Mayor - 60 Days San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days Executive Director, San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days

R2

Finding: Four supervisorial districts (Districts 1, 2, 3, and 6) are the SFFVAC largest customers with approximately 84% of all production shoots. Two districts (Districts 3 and 6) contain approximately 63% of all production shoots. These San Francisco neighborhoods and their corresponding associations are valuable business partners for the City. The City needs their cooperation and property to insure successful film projects. The neighborhoods understand the importance of the SFFVAC business, as many are successful business owners in the City. They respect the need for outside revenue to underwrite or maintain City services. Currently, they do not receive a proper voice in the film production process. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that a minimum of three positions out of the current eleven SFFVAC commissioners be appointed neighborhood association representatives. Neighborhood representation on the SFFVAC will educate all parties and encourage ideas for new business. It will make these valuable taxpayers part of the process and make them accountable for the projects' success. Required Response Board of Supervisors - 90 Days

R3

Finding: The current SFFVAC website does not contain all the information needed by customers. For instance, many small production companies complained about not getting accurate information or complete explanations of the SFFVAC permit process. At a minimum, the site should afford the smallest customer information on how to obtain permits and begin the process for their projects. Over 65% of the SFFVAC's 558 customers in 2000 were small offices with one-day shoots (see Attachment 2) who could make efficient use of an online system for their needs. The website should be updated regularly and educate its users on the availability of neighborhoods and permit process for video and film production projects. There is an enormous amount of web design talent in the Bay Area. Given the interest in and the importance of the business of the SFFVAC, and the downturn in business in San Francisco's "Multimedia Gulch," many internet/website professionals are available to design website enhancements. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the SFFVAC website be updated to include more pertinent information for small business. Required Response San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days Executive Director, San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days

R4

Finding: A business plan needs to be developed to restructure costs for large production companies and contingency planning developed to address business and jobs leaving the City. The plan should address new business and target large-budget productions. A section of the plan should address the numerous small business requests, how this business can be maintained and served more efficiently. As another part of the business plan, the SFFVAC should look into enhancing the use of the City's other seven districts. A marketing project for these districts could be one part of the business plan with associated incentives for their use. The neighborhoods are very interested in enhancing the film business for the City and are sophisticated in terms of their business understanding. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that a formal business plan be developed to provide increased revenue and visibility for the City and County of San Francisco. The CGJ recommends that the plan address new business and target large-budget productions as well as the practices used by other film commissions, including aggressive outreach. Required Response San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days Executive Director, San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days

R5

Finding: The database printouts provided by SFFVAC (Attachments 1 and 2) appear to have multiple irregularities. As a result, it is not clear from these data that all appropriate fees have been charged or collected. Recommendation: The CGJ recommends that the Controller perform an audit of the SFFVAC fund (Administrative Code Section 10.100-297) and the associated production permit records to verify that fees have been appropriately assessed and collected. Required Response Controller - 60 Days

R6

Finding: Production of reports by the SFFVAC appears to be cumbersome. It is possible that these issues could be resolved by an upgrade to the database, allowing for the entry of more types of useful data, such as production location and dates. The SFFVAC should review how best to use its valuable data to produce useful reports for business planning. Accuracy of information for its users and the SFFVAC will help for future planning as well as verify their business plan findings. Recommendation The CGJ recommends that the SFFVAC revise its database parameters to include location and date of production, and possibly other information in order to provide more useful business development tools and aid in their relationships with neighborhood associations. Required Response San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days Executive Director, San Francisco Film and Video Arts Commission - 60 Days ATTACHMENT 1 LOCATION LIST 2000 (Production Companies, with Dates and Locations) January 1 to July 31, 2000 ATTACHMENT 2 "AGREEMENT ISSUED AND FEE COLLECTED" FROM 1/1/2000 TO 12/31/2000 ATTACHMENT 3 DATA FROM LOCATION LIST 2000 (ATTACHMENT 1) PLOTTED ONTO SAN FRANCISCO MAP January 1 to July 31, 2000 ATTACHMENT 4 DATA FROM LOCATION LIST 2000 (ATTACHMENT 1) TABULATED BY SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT AND NEIGHBORHOOD January 1 to July 31, 2000 TOTALS January February March April May June July Totals DISTRICT 1 Jake McGoldrick Clement St./Inner Richmond 1 1 1 3 Golden Gate Park 7 8 12 9 9 7 9 61 Lincoln Park Golf Course 1 1 2 Richmond/Outer Richmond 3 9 3 1 1 5 22 TOTALS 11 17 16 11 10 8 15 88 DISTRICT 2 Gavin Newsom Laurel Heights 1 1 Marina 7 5 3 4 3 9 31 Pacific Heights 4 2 4 9 3 5 27 Russian Hill 7 3 8 2 2 5 3 30 Seacliff 1 1 TOTALS 11 14 17 14 6 11 17 90 DISTRICT 3 Aaron Peskin Chinatown 5 2 8 6 9 2 5 37 Financial District 17 8 22 17 15 24 16 119 Fisherman's Wharf 3 3 5 1 3 5 20 Nob Hill 3 3 10 3 4 3 26 North Beach 9 7 7 6 4 3 25 61 Telegraph Hill 5 2 4 1 2 1 15 TOTALS 42 25 56 34 34 32 55 278 DISTRICT 4 Leland Yee Sunset 1 2 1 4 TOTALS 1 2 1 4 DISTRICT 5 Matt Gonzalez Alamo Square 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 11 Haight-Ashbury/Panhandle 1 2 6 1 1 1 3 15 Hayes Valley 1 1 1 3 Japantown 1 1 Inner Sunset 1 1 Western Addition 1 1 1 1 4 2 10 TOTALS 4 5 10 4 8 4 6 41 DISTRICT 6 Chris Daly Civic Center 1 3 6 13 1 2 26 Embarcadero 8 2 6 9 5 5 6 41 Mission 1 3 3 6 5 2 5 25 Mission Bay 1 1 South Beach/China Basin 1 2 8 4 7 22 South of Market 9 9 27 6 9 15 11 86 Tenderloin 1 5 5 3 1 3 18 Union Square 7 6 6 3 3 3 5 33 27 27 53 50 30 26 39 252 DISTRICT 7 Tony Hall Forest Hill 1 1 Lake Merced 1 1 Saint Francis Wood 1 1 2 West Portal 1 1 TOTALS 1 2 2 5 DISTRICT 8 Mark Leno Castro/Upper Market 3 3 3 3 6 2 1 21 Diamond Heights 1 1 Glen Park 3 1 4 Noe Valley 1 1 Twin Peaks 2 1 5 1 1 2 1 13 TOTALS 7 4 8 4 7 7 3 40 DISTRICT 9 Tom Ammiano Bernal Heights 1 1 1 1 4 TOTALS 1 1 1 1 4 DISTRICT 10 Sophie Maxwell Bayview/Hunters Point 2 2 1 1 6 Potrero Hill 3 6 1 7 4 1 3 25 3Com Park 2 2 Visitacion Valley 2 1 3 1 7 TOTALS 7 9 4 10 5 2 3 40 DISTRICT 11 Gerardo Sandoval Excelsior 1 1 2 Ingleside 1 1 TOTALS 1 1 1 3 ATTACHMENT 5 DATA FROM ATTACHMENT 4 GRAPHED TO INDICATE TOTAL PRODUCTION DAYS BY SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT January 1 to July 31, 2000 ATTACHMENT 6 DATA FROM ATTACHMENT 1 TOTAL PRODUCTION DAYS BY TYPE January 1 to July 31, 2000