-- some have been fired, and they're people who supported the city for many, many years, and now, they are out of a job. i can see that happening with servers, wait staff, bartenders. people who will be getting laid off due to the increase in prices. small businesses will not survive. and we want to encourage san francisco to grow, small businesses to grow. this is not the right way to go about it, and i request that you guys go over this again and we focus on where the issue lies.

[bell] chair avalos: thank you. next speaker. [reading names] >> hi, i am ronny. good afternoon. i am here to represent my business and the san francisco brewers guild. we all support, or i do, personally, to maintain critical services in the city. the treatment and prevention. these are city priorities. i do not think this will bring results that it intends. it said that this fee would go to lower sales and job losses. there is the cost of chronic alcohol abuse.

i feel that that study mrs. two fundamental points. the actual cost increases, one nickel per drink -- i feel about the steady mrs. two fundamental points. -- the study misses two fundamental points. there are declining sales, less payroll tax, and there is going to be fewer tourists to come here, and we need to increase jobs, and the city will get more revenue.

wholesalers. this will hurt our ability to fund important programs. i feel we need programs to encourage sales in a very sensitive environments, and we need an increase in spending. [bell] >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is -- with an association. we are here to oppose the mitigation fee. we do understand the situation with the city budget is difficult. we do not want to diminish the value of services. some small businesses have fee after fee.

we wish you do not continue to balance the budget on the backs of small businesses. they are already struggling to survive. i would encourage you to talk to them and see how they are doing, and i believe that many of them will tell you how hard is, having to cut back staff, and how they are looking to try to continue their patronage. they a here to responsible of conspiracist. requester us go through thorough managing -- responsible -- they adhere to responsible famous. restaurants go through trade. -- training. chair avalos: 80.

next speaker, please. >> hello, supervisors. i am with the brewers guild. there are a bunch of reasons, the revenue stream for this problem. i agree that there is a problem. the health system is overburdened at, but i do not see, as a craft brewer, how i contribute to the problem. we focus on quality. our beverages are often priced of the range of some people looking for just a quick fix, and so, among the things that the comptroller said today, i just want to remind you of what

he said, from his mouth. this does not represent a growth in the public sector. it will be a net loss of public- sector jobs. widget private-sector jobs. -- private-sector jobs. we do not even know the real level of alcohol consumption. a bunch of hopes and guesses that we will be able to drum up a lot of money for this to pay for the very small users of this funding, and as supervisor elsbernd mentioned, it seems awful lot like a tax because of the number of people paying into it and the very small number of users. thank you very much. chair avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. and anyone else would like to speak on this item, if you could

come to the center aisle, and i do not have any more cards, so if you want to speak. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am with a group and also with the harvey milk lgbt, and we support this legislation. alcohol in the lgbt community is a -- relationship. this is primarily because it is the only social space for many, and after it came up, there was, no lgbt centre, nothing, just the bars, so i have this affection for the bars that i went to but also a recognition that they were profiting off of that through my of all, the sales of alcohol. this is a challenging

conversation to have, and it is fair to say note that there are self-esteem issues, issues around, as i said, social spaces, and they're a much higher rates of alcoholism in the lgbt community, and it seems to me that there is a clear nexus between the service and a profit around alcohol and the challenges, and i just wanted to come out and say this is not something that we feel really great about saying, that the lgbt community has higher rates of alcoholism, but it is true, and they are not the sort of chronic inebriated people that the alcohol industry would like to portray it as. i just wanted to put that out there. i can go to a bar on friday night and point out 10 people

that i know have a drinking problem, and they may not need the level, but, certainly, they need help, and they need support, and, frankly, i am sorry to say this, but over the years, i have seen supervisors come in -- [ bell] chair avalos: thank you. not this one. >> good afternoon. my name is michelle, and an i am a policy director and institutes, and i want to thank you, supervised a wrotevalos, for your leadership on this -- thank you, supervisor avalos. why are we doing this in san francisco? would this not be something better done at the state level? and it is not for lack of trying. we have in trying to of the very similar fee at the state level that would be for suppliers to import products into the state,

and yet, it should be no surprise. most of them do not even reside in california, and yet, in the meantime, some still suffer from the consequences, as we have been hearing throughout this hearing, and so, here we are. we're trying to get this done at the local level. we will not stop at the state level to have this kind of the implemented it. i also want to say that this is not a new idea. we found at least 20 states that fail this concept already in law. they were assessing some kind of fee in the sector of the alcohol industry for all of the programs that are so needed because of

the harm from the or products. -- the harm from their products. now we're saying to follow the other states that have this policy. to the small businesses, i will point out that most of the products sold in san francisco come from foreign sources, so even things like budweiser also now owned by foreign-based companies. another is based in london, as is another. [bell] so what we're talking about is simply asking local sellers to pay their fair share. thank you very much. chair avalos: thank you. i will ask anyone else who would like to make it, to come forward. >> hello. beer distributors of san francisco. the impact of this fee would be dramatic to us, about $2

million, which if we did not pass on, we would just go out of business, so there is no doubt that this will be a hassle for the retailer. an impact meeting that i went to for the small business commission, they were talking about going after the big guy, the big, corporate guy, and i believe, supervisor, you thought it would be paid for by wholesalers. we have now subsequently found out that both of those are false, so if you accept the fact that both of those thought processes were flawed, maybe this entire fee is flawed, and i am asking you to reconsider. we had a chance in the alcohol industry to look at some of the economic impacts based on our estimates, and we believe the initial study was flawed, as well. we believe that the cost of the price triples out of the study. we believe that the sales

decline will be over 5%, or over $70 million. we believe that the job losses will be 250. so, again, this caused -- cost is going after the small business owner. it is going after the small restaurateur and bar owner and the mom-and-pop grocery store. some people are asking you to play on a bias against large corporations. this has nothing to do with large corporations. this is for small businesses. so the last question i would ask you is if the services benefit asked -- us all, if they serve us all, wire be asking the responsible alcohol drinks or beer drinker to pay for it? to me, that does not make sense when you what are we asking that? chair avalos: next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am with a commission, but i am here speaking on my own behalf. i would like to start by saying

that a healthy public sector starts with a healthy private sector, and what we need is a very healthy private sector. we need help the private-sector job creation. we need a short-term strategy, in medium-term strategy, and a long-term economic strategy to increase employment and deepen and broaden, i might add, our tax base, and to believe that this proposed fee is flawed because it really does not do anything to mitigate the alcohol-related damage or harm, for alcohol, it is simply cost recovery for business as usual. someone referred to as the gold- plated situation. it is just shifting costs around within the budget. i support the services, and it also supports broadening the tax base to pay for this, and

looking at the economic damage that could be done by this, there is a multiplier effect. this shows that even the bars and restaurants, they will not bear the brunt of the money that it out of the economy. it will be borne by the local shoe store, by the bookseller, by the small newspaper, advertiser. it is actually going to come out of the economy with non alcohol- related things, and to me, that was one of the surprising findings of the study, is that it is really not quick to come out of the retailers or directly alcohol. i mean, there will be a percentage, but the larger percentage, about 80%, millions of dollars -- so we are going to lose the multiplier effect.

that is three to four times the cost of this. [bell] chair avalos: thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i am a substance abuse counselor, and i would like to commend supervisor avalos for doing this. it is needed in san francisco and will recover costs, and if you go by the impacts to become its web a neutral effect on the economy. thank you, supervisor avalos. chair avalos: thank you. are there any other members of the public who would like to comment? seeing none, we will close public comment. i do want to thank people on both and all sides who have spoken here today. for your comments, and this is

not being rushed forward to a vote next tuesday. as i said earlier today, we will be voting on this out of committee on monday, and the full board will be voting on it on november 7. there is one month of time between, and that timeline is still one that seeks to have this legislation enacted. before november 2. -- passed by the voters of california. so this legislation today will be forwarded to another committee meeting on monday at 11:00. and, madam clerk, can we put a motion to get there? supervisor elsbernd.

and, madam clerk, that is the last item we have on the agenda, so we are adjourned. thank you for your support.

[beeping] voice: ready. ready. ready. ready. ready. announcer: it can be a little awkward when your friend tells you he's been diagnosed with a mental illness, but what's even more awkward is, if you're not there for him, he's less likely to recover. i'm here to help, man, whatever it takes. voice: ready. >> there has been an acknowledgement of the special places around san francisco bay. well, there is something sort of innate in human beings, i think, that tend to recognize a good spot when you see it, a spot that takes your breath away. this is one of them. >> an icon of the new deal.

>> we stood here a week ago and we heard all of these dignitaries talk about the symbol that coit tower is for san francisco. it's interesting for those of us in the pioneer park project is trying to make the point that not only the tower, not only this man-built edifice here is a symbol of the city but also the green space on which it sits and the hill to which is rests. to understand them, you have to understand the topography of san francisco. early days of the city, the city grows up in what is the financial district on the edge of chinatown. everything they rely on for existence is the golden gate. it's of massive importance to the people what comes in and out of san francisco bay. they can't see it where they are. they get the idea to build a giant wooden structure. the years that it was up here, it gave the name telegraph

hill. it survived although the structure is long gone. come to the 1870's and the city has growed up remarkably. it's fueled with money from the nevada silver mines and the gold rush. it's trying to be the paris of the west. now the beach is the suburbs, the we will their people lived on the bottom and the poorest people lived on the top because it was very hard getting to the top of telegraph hill. it was mostly lean-to sharks and bits of pieces of houses up here in the beginning. and a group of 20 businessmen decided that it would be better if the top of the hill remained for the public. so they put their money down and they bought four lots at the top of the hill and they gave them to the city. lily hitchcock coit died without leaving a specific use for her bequest. she left a third of her estate for the beautify indication of the city. arthur brown, noted architect in the city, wanted for a while

to build a tower. he had become very interested in persian towers. it was the 1930's. it was all about machinery and sort of this amazing architecture, very powerful architecture. he convinced the rec park commission that building a tower in her memory would be the thing to do with her money. >> it was going to be a wonderful observation place because it was one of the highest hills in the city anywhere and that that was the whole reason why it was built that high and had the elevator access immediately from the beginning as part of its features. >> my fear's studio was just down the street steps. we were in a very small apartment and that was our backyard. when they were preparing the site for the coit tower, there was always a lot of harping and griping about how awful

progress was and why they would choose this beautiful pristine area to do them in was a big question. as soon as the coit tower was getting finished and someone put in the idea that it should be used for art, then, all of a sudden, he was excited about the coit tower. it became almost like a daily destination for him to enjoy the atmosphere no matter what the politics, that wasn't the point. as long as they fit in and did their work and did their own creative expression, that was all that was required. they turned in their drawings. the drawings were accepted. if they snuck something in, well, there weren't going to be any stoolies around.

they made such careful little diagrams of every possible little thing about it as though that was just so important and that they were just the big frog. and, actually, no one ever felt that way about them and they weren't considered something like that. in later life when people would approach me and say, well, what did you know about it? we were with him almost every day and his children, we grew up together and we didn't think of him as a commie and also the same with the other. he was just a family man doing normal things. no one thought anything of what he was doing. some of them were much more highly trained. it shows, in my estimation, in

the murals. this was one of the masterpieces. families at home was a lot more close to the life that i can remember that we lived. murals on the upper floors like the children playing on the swings and i think the little deer in the forest where you could come and see them in the woods and the sports that were always available, i think it did express the best part of our lives. things that weren't costing money to do, you would go to a picnic on the beach or you would do something in the woods. my favorite of all is in the staircase. it's almost a miracle masterpiece how he could manage to not only fit everyone, of course, a lot of them i recognized from my childhood --

it's how he juxtaposed and managed to kind of climb up that stairway on either side very much like you are walking down a street. it was incredible to do that and to me, that is what depicted the life of the times in san francisco. i even like the ones that show the industrial areas, the once with the workers showing them in the cannery and i can remember going in there and seeing these women with the caps, with the nets shuffling these cans through. my parents had a ranch in santa rosa and we went there all summer. i could see these people leaning over and checking. it looked exactly like the beautiful things about the ranch. i think he was pretty much in the never look back philosophy

about the coit. i don't think he ever went to visit again after we moved from telegraph hill, which was only five or six years later. i don't think he ever had to see it when the initials are scratched into everything and people had literally destroyed the lower half of everything. >> well, in my view, the tower had been pretty much neglected from the 1930's up until the 1980's. it wasn't until then that really enough people began to be alarmed about the condition of the murals, the tower was leaking. some of the murals suffered wear damage. we really began to organize getting funding through the arts commission and various other sources to restore the murals. they don't have that connection or thread or maintain that connection to your history and your past, what do you have? that's one of the major

elements of what makes quality of life in san francisco so incredible. when people ask me, and they ask me all the time, how do you get to coit tower, i say you walk. that's the best way to experience the gradual elevation coming up above the hustle and bustle of the city and finding this sort of oasis, if you will, at the top of the hill. when i walk through this park, i look at these brick walls and this lawn, i look at the railings around the murals. i look at the restoration and i think, yeah, i had something to do with that. learning the lessons, thank you, landmarks meet landmarks. the current situation at ee