department and other associated departments. but it means community behavioral health services, mental health services, and yes, substance abuse service. there are other community-based services that are targeted for cuts that are serving vl initial populations. but year in and year out we hear from those who rely on the services provided by the city's community partners, not about expanding programs, but about saving existing programs that are out in our communities getting folks back on their feet, getting them the assistance that they need. and we are talking about whether or not we can save them here in the board chambers. i would like to think that our record in the last decade is a good one and that more often than not we save the services. but there are many beds, many slots, many programs that we

have not been able to save, and do not exist, and are not providing the service to the people of san francisco that need them. we can't pass a tax to save our lives. we will see if we have better luck this november. but we are left with looking at fees. and so for the folks who are in the liquor industry or in the bar business, which i may be a part of next year, at a certain point doing comboims with a high level of responsibility. and when we hear from businesses at the ground level that we have an issue with, homeless people on the sidewalk. the chairman talked about how he didn't like the term chronic

neeb rants, but that is typically how we hear about the issue here. we are struggling in this room each year in and each year out not to expand the services that we know that are working, that will actually make the quality of life for everyone in san francisco and particularly the downtown sector better. but how to stop cuts, how to stop it from getting worse. we are looking at at least two or three budget years, and perhaps more, where this conversation will continue. and moneys from the state, moneys from the federal government -- stimulus moneys dry up, and state programs go away with the slash of a pen. it is increasingly difficult for local governments. i read in the newspaper about supervisor dufty's idea about wet housing. great idea. how are we going to pay for it? we can't even keep the programs

that we have now going. so when i hear about people complaining about homeless people passed out on the sidewalk, and i hear some of the very same people complaining about a four or five cent charge on a drink, honestly, to me it sound like a bunch of whining. what you need is a termed-out politician who is not running for re-election, who might be going in the bar business. i am the only one who is gunned to stand up and say the truth as plain and as raw as it is. it is a bunch of whining. let's step up -- supervisor chiu: supervisor daly, i would like to request that you refrain from pro fanity in this meeting.

supervisor daly: it is your right to request, and it is my first amendment right to express myself, which i will continue doing. so we will say a bunch of fing whining. at a certain point with doing business, with being a citizen, comes responsibility. so let's hear about constructive ways in which we can improve san francisco for our families with kids, walking down the streets, for our business owners, and yes for people who are struggling with addiction, for the least among us. because this is the city and county of san francisco. and if you are going to do business in the city and county of san francisco, guess what? you need a business model that is socially responsible. you need a business model that makes sure that you are not

getting over, that makes sure you are not taking advantage of other people's suffering, that reaches out and asks for the best in each and every one of us. it is my honor to co-sponsor this item, and it is my privilege to speak my mind and to tell it like it is, and i will continue to do that day in and day out over the next four months and for the rest of my life. thank you very much. supervisor chiu: before the next speaker, i have a couple of things i want to mention. first of all, we have been asked if the amendment by supervisor avalos and mirkarimi , whether they are substantive or not? they are not, so we can consider this entire item today. a number of the members of the public have asked to speak on this. it is the ruse of the board because this item has been to committee several times, we do not have public comment for items that have already

received public comment in committee. the last thing i will mention is in these board chambers, we under the rules of our board do not allow for applause or expression of disagreement with speakers. to members of the public, i would ask that you respect that so we can continue on with the business of today. with that, supervisor campos? supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president, and thank you to all the members of the public from both sides of this issue who have come out to speak about this. i also would like to thank supervisor avalos and his staff for his leadership on this item. i, too, will be adding my name as a co-sponsor of this item. let me say that while i respect supervisor daly's passion, and i appreciate the fact that he is speaking about a very important issue, i also recognize that there are people who are against this item who

also have a concern about the issue and who, nevertheless, have taken a position against it because of the impact it could have, the negative impact it could have on some businesses. i don't think that the concern for the business implications of this and the concern for what happens to someone who is suffering from alcoholism, that those concerns are museumly -- mutually exclusive. i think both can be addressed. this terms of revenue this city could have pursued, this is actually a very measured approach to a very difficult problem. for those of us whose families have been impacted by alcoholism, i can tell you first hand that it is a very difficult issue. the one thing you need to have

is to make sure that services are available. one of the things that we are proud of and should be proud of in the city and county of san francisco that we have made that a priority, that we have services available to people. but we are not doing as much as we should be doing, and quite frankly, we are doing probably more than at times it seems we can afford. that is why it is important for this city, to the extent that we remain committed to aaddressing this very serious problem, that we inject into the system the money that is needed to be able to provide those services. it is for that reason that i will be supporting this. i understand that there may be some negative implications. i under that some businesses may be impacted. but i think that something has to be done, and the last thing that we can do as a city is to turn our backs on people who need help, on people who are going through a very difficult time and who need professional

assistance to get out of it. i think that in the end, providing those services is something that is pro-business. the last thing that a business wants is to have individuals who are suffering from this illness go untreated, and that is happening in our streets. so i think there is a way that you can be responsible, that you can be responsive to the needs of business and still address a very serious problem. it is for that reason that i will be supporting and asking my colleagues to support it. i think it's the right thing to do. i don't think that we can continue to have the kinds of values that we have without being able to pony up and to pay and fund for these services that are critical. it is for that reason that i will be casting my vote today and again, proud to be a co-sponsor. i want to thank supervisor avalos for his leadership on this. chiu thanking.

supervisor mar? supervisor mar: i am also proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation. i hope it will be a catalyst for other cities and regions. but thank you to supervisor avalos for his leadership on this. i think one of the other reasons why i strongly support this is because of the hard work of many health care workers and advocates, and the president of our health commission has stated that the health commission is unanimous in support of this alcohol mitigation fee. they support the measure because it places a reasonable fee on alcohol sales that directs the revenue on mitigating the $17 million spent on city programs affecting alcohol abuse and harm. i want to address something from the rand institute and

others who are pushing this as an idea of revenue-generating ideas in the city. supervisor avalos said we are in very hard times, but but those most affected are those that need a public safety net more than ever. i as a drinker would gladly pay five cents a drink more to ensure we have a safety net. this is a strong remedy for many of the ills in our community. i am supportive and applaud the community groups that are supportive. thank you. supervisor chiu: supervisor elsbernd? supervisor elsbernd: thank you. i would like to commend supervisor avalos because he recognizes a budget problem, and that is the sole intent here, addressing it, going after it, and i really admire the courage in going after it. that said, what i have heard today, i think there needs to

be a little something said on the other side of this issue just to perhaps adds a little frame to the debate. repeatedly from a number of colleagues i have heard the concern about the fact -- i think supervisor daly appropriately said it right. we have a difficult time raising taxes, so we can only turn to fees. supervisor mar just talked about needing to raise revenue to do things. with all due respect, in balancing a budget, there is not just one side of a ledger. there is the revenue side, and yes, there is the expense side of the ledger. supervisor mirkarimi said there were no other options on table to fund this. if you do the math, the revenue veneration -- generationed associated with this over the next 10-20 years roughly equivalent to if we had changed the pension funding from three

years to two years. but no. they said wented to throw away that hundreds of millions of dollars. there are a number of options on table to adecrease these services. it is not just revenue. it doesn't have to be just tax and fees. supervisor daly, another point he is absolutely right on, we are going to be dealing with this budget nightmare not just next year or two years from now. we will be in this for a very long time. we have to recognize it is not just about revenue. we have to come to grips with the skyrocketing expenses. we can't ignore that. that is what i am feeling in a lot of the conversation and all the comments so far. not one person has mentioned one way to address the need to fund these critical programs, looking at the expense side. so i hope we all begin to address that. now as to why i am opposed to this proposal, a couple of

points. first, it sounds a bit like an excuse from system, but i think we need to fully recognize the letter we all a have in our pact from the city attorney. odd are this ordinance is illegal. we are going to spend norton of $1 million to defend this. more likely than not, we are going to lose. if we need an example of that, take a look at what is at the budget committee tomorrow to address the problems with the cigarette fee. we are reducing that because of the legal issues. how much has it cost us to get there? that is just that much more extreme. and secondly, fundamentally i have a real problem with the notion that the vast majority of people paying this fee aren't going to receive the services. what fees are supposed to be about, you pay a fee, you receive a service in return. the vast majority of people paying this fee are not going

to receive a service. sure, you can make the extended argument, they will receive the -- or they will receive a service because we are talking about clean streets or something like that. that is one heck of a stretch, and i think that is the argument the city attorney is going to have to make when they are defending this. good luck to them, but i think they will have a tough time with that. while i appreciate supervisor avalos is trying to address the budget issue, first after foremost, we need to recognize there are two sides to the ledger. just empirically, i have a problem with the fee for the way it is established. thank you, supervisor, for giving it a shot. supervisor chiu: supervisor avalos avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you president. this is all about the expense side. it is all about recovering the costs on the expense side.

by measuring what the expense is with our nexus study and applying that fee to the cost of the city. it is all about the expense side. this mesh before us is not about anything else other than just doing that. we have had a whole bug process that lasted months looking at how we can effectively close out our deficit by a combination of things, including for the most part cuts of city services, layoffs, people who are retiring, not getting hired back, give-backs of labor. so there is a significant amount of work that is being done on the expense side of government. this is just one related item that is related to the expense item that we are trying to get cost recovery for. i hope that we can have a majority vote to support this measure. i do believe that when we are providing services that help people to get off the streets,

get people into treatment, that has a benefit for the general population of san francisco. how much do we hear every day -- how many e-mails to each of us get a week that tell us we should be doing more to make sure our streets are saver, and cleaner, and people can have dignity and find the services they need? that is something we contend with all the time. it is expected of us. this measure is all about trying to do just that. supervisor chiu: colleagues, any further discussion? if we could take a role call vote on the ordinance as amended.

>> there are seven ayes and three no, sir. >> this ordinance is passed on the first reading. supervisor chiu: madam clerk, item 20 please. >> ordinance designating the redwood tree at stillings avenue. >> a role call forth? >> on item 20?

there are 11 ayes. >> this is passed. item 21. >> allowing for a $15 million loan for an existing affordable housing project. >> if i could ask you to please take your conversation outside. the last item was unanimous. item 22. >> it is a resolution structuring of finance committee to develop criteria and recommendations on the use of finance district. >> this resolution is adopted. >> item 23 as an ordinance

allowing the appeals commission to send all packing material to the mayor's office of disability. >> this is passed on the first reading. >> it is a resolution approving supplement by comcast cable communications against the city. >> this is adopted. we have a number of special items today. i would like to take up this item and then moved to the pet food express item during yen -- pet food express item. could you please call the 10 items? >> the following special orders were authorized pursuant and approved on august 10 and also

in communication with the clerk. the items are the public hearing of persons interested in the determination of exemption for property located here. you want me to read item 33 for your item 36. -- item 33 is through item 36. >> it is my understanding that both parties have off for continuous through september 28. i would like to ask that we do that. if we could do that without objection, all of these items will be continued until the 28

of this month. if we could call of the items related to pet food express. >> item 37 through 40 are the public hearing of persons interested in the public planning commission conditional use permit for property at 3150 california st.. item 38 is a motion approving the condition. item 39 is the motion disapproving the conditional use application, and item 40 is a motion directing the clerk. >> we have before us the appeal of conditional use for california street.

[please stand by] supervisor, and you have any opening remarks? >> no, i'll look forward to the hearing. >> why don't i aske for the

appellant or any representatives of the appellant? >> my name is susan, and 90 appellant -- i am the appellant. i represent a coalition of independent shops 24 members strong. as you know, last week was challenging. it was particularly difficult

for us, and many the shop owners were in las vegas at the time. bobby is going to tell you the rest of our story. >> we have been of business for 19 years. our job is six blocks from the proposed pet food express. we are here to ask for your help and support.

every city across retail landscape now looks alarmingly similar -- every city's retail landscape now looks alarmingly similar. let's not waste an opportunity. independent pet retailers are in the same position small pharmacies were in. we have a city full of walgreen's and office depot. in november of 2009, a conditional permit was denied in the marina. if anything, the status of

california street should be even less desirable than the status of lombard street. on july 8, the planning commission approved a conditional use permit for a food express to open. the three members appointed by the board of supervisors voted against this. we are appealing this decision on behalf of many who stand opposed to this chain store. agaiwe sell significant amountsf food and commodity items that are also sold by pet food express. if we have a pet food express six blocks away selling virtually the same products, our sales are going to suffer. given the proximity to my shop, is this necessary, compatible,

or desirable? i have already experienced the decimating affect cut food express can have on the retailer. since it opened six blocks from my other place in berkeley, we experienced a decline of sales of 22%. on chu lai 8 we found the planning commissioners overlooked the city planning code. i would like to address those of this time. it states that san francisco is a diverse and distinction neighborhood. we believe the project proposes to establish formal retail and therefore affect the economic diversity and unique character

of that neighborhood. our coalition does not believe this should be excluded from doing business in san francisco. they already have two businesses. 703.382 says san francisco needs to create a supportive environment for small business organizations. it resolves the existing uses be a -- be preserved and enhanced and future opportunities are and hence. the 24 stores currently supplying the neighborhood are doing an excellent job. allowing pet food express will be a job-killer. if this were allowed to continue to