>> a key for the hearing today. it we want to be on the record as opposing this fee. we are disappointed in the nexus study. i would be curious if the city would ask the nexus study what the average blood alcohol at general hospital was. restaurants have liability civilly and criminally not to allow customers to get past a point. my guess is a lot of people going to the general hospital are higher. these are not coming from us. we teach training with the abc. we worked for responsible drinking as best we can, but restaurants are criminally liable if we let them get that way, so you're asking us to absorb a fee-for-service is that we do not directly cause. i think, therefore, it becomes a

tax. thank you very much. -- m zorba a fee for services -- absorbed a fee -- absorb a fee for services that we do not directly cause. chair avalos: thank you. [reading names] >> i think the way the fee is structured is not the way you fund the programs. i can say that deftly if our costs go up, we will have to lay off some employees. there are some additional costs that will have to be passed on to consumers. there are those who regularly visit places in san francisco, and that will keep those people

out in the east bay. i also have doubts as to the administration of this fee, whether it can be carried out in an efficient way. i know that healthy san francisco, they have not been as efficient in an administration as they should be. and i just hope that all of the supervisors' vote no on this. thank you. chair avalos: thank you. next speaker, please. michelle, ron, rich, amalia. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is andrew. i realize the city is trying to absorb costs that do not stem from us or other bars, and we do provide training, alcohol and

beverage commission trading, and we do follow all of the laws and the fees that have been imposed. it was said that this was one year in the making, and i find it hard to believe that this is the root of the problem. the basic structure of this, it does not fall on to small businesses. this is going to close small businesses. excuse me. close small businesses and caused economic decline further in our city. when the supervisors asked earlier if anyone had seen an economic or sky falling impact on helping san francisco, -- 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. >> in this fabulously beautiful persidio national park and near golden gate and running like a

scar is this ugly highway. that was built in 1936 at the same time as the bridge and at that time the presidio was an army and they didn't want civilians on their turf. and the road was built high. >> we need access and you have a 70 year-old facility that's inadequate for today's transportation needs. and in addition to that, you have the problem that it wasn't for site extenders. >> the rating for the high viaduct is a higher rating than that collapsed. and it was sapped quite a while before used and it was rusty

before installed. >> a state highway through a federal national park connecting an independently managed bridge to city streets. this is a prescription for complication. >> it became clear unless there was one catalyst organization that took it on as a challenge, it wouldn't happen and we did that and for people to advocate. and the project has a structural rating of 2 out of 100. >> you can see the rusting reinforcing in the concrete when you look at the edges now. the deck has steel reinforcing that's corroded and lost 2/3's

of its strength. >> this was accelerated in 1989 when the earthquake hit and cal came in and strengthened but can't bring to standards. to fix this road will cost more than to replace. and for the last 18 years, we have been working on a design to replace the road way, but to do in a way that makes it appropriate to be in a national park and not army post. >> i would say it's one of the most ugly structure, and it's a barrier between the mar sh and presidio. and this is a place and i

brought my dogs and grandchildren and had a picnic lunch and it was memorable to use them when we come here. what would it look like when the design and development is completed. and we are not sure we want an eight lane highway going through this town. and it's a beautiful area in a national seaport area on the planet. >> the road is going to be so different. it's really a park way, and it's a parkway through the national park. and they make the road disapeer to the national park. >> and the road is about 20 feet lower, normally midday, you go through it in two

minutes. looking back from the golden gate bridge to presidio, you are more aware of the park land and less of the roads. and the viaduct will parallel the existing one and to the south and can be built while the existing one remains in operation. and the two bridges there with open space between them and your views constantly change and not aware of the traffic in the opposite direction and notice the views more. and the lanes of course are a foot wider than they are today. and they will be shoulders and if your car is disabled, you can pull off to the edge. and the next area, the tunnel portal will have a view centered on the palace of fine arts and as you come out, you

can see alkatrez island and bay. and the next area is about 1,000 feet long. and when you come into one, you can see through the other end. it's almost like driving through a building than through a tunnel. and noise from the roadway will be sheltered. and the traffic will be out of view. >> when you come out of the last sort tunnel and as you look forward, you see the golden dome of the palace of fine arts and what more perfect way to come to san francisco through that gateway. >> it will be an amazing transformation. now you read it as one section, the road is a major barrier and then a wonderful strip along the water. all of those things are going

to mesh together. >> right now the road really cuts off this area from public access. and with the new road, we will be able to open up the opportunity in a new way. >> this bunker that we see now is out of access for the general public. we are excited to completely rework this side and to open up the magnificent views. and what we want to do is add to this wonderful amenity and restore this coastal bluff area and respect its military history and the doyle drive project is allowing us to do that recorrection.