[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6601547,"mediaKeyId","3005898-8744d0b3d269ac330b4bd42dca3fc378","parentId",3005898,"title","Board advances fee on alcohol wholesalers to fund alcohol-related services; first reading passes","audioSeconds",2005,"startMs",823000,"endMs",2828000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3005898-8744d0b3d269ac330b4bd42dca3fc378&start=823&end=2828","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3005898-8744d0b3d269ac330b4bd42dca3fc378/thumbnail_823000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6601547/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-advances-fee-on-alcohol-wholesalers-to-fund-alcohol-related-services-first-reading-passes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6601547-f2f3fb23c2f1e236427061ce644a1c6b/orig.mp4?Expires=1773740429&Signature=ZPeAiFls661YzvzWw6PaYrUiA0KGce24OJAappCq-CmwLhwJnEfV7f56pUdy99Qn5hPoRSQfXN~e47Wh2OXTABcA8oNaTWTVhm5u5hqnpZDZn7REmm1CAK95icILSl2kLx3oyq7uOMnHt~lqUe6IH5w-9hHPxitdAgT4QOzVwVkG770~RW7K3Of78gV6cam~3QZJWq4OjpdP8EcSxjIPbMVZZkkeiw2YxlSVZF4ujQ1BAjl3pdjvjbQ6TduHloFDjFquZQ8Dk1I77QJ7GSF8lRSPiwzvXxhUtLKSegqir2LtK6H-0cSV~QqF4Iu3JT1jerr~6WWZTXSLj~d5RQCnVQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Sanfrancisco Government tv","date","2025-04-16T04:55:00Z","article","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors advanced an ordinance in its first reading that would impose a fee on alcoholic beverage wholesalers to recover part of the city’s alcohol‑attributable health and emergency costs.

Supervisor John Avalos, the ordinance’s sponsor, said the measure is intended to help maintain treatment and public‑health services that “help us carry out our mission of keeping our sidewalks safe” and to shift some of the costs of repeated emergency care for severe alcoholism to alcohol distributors. Avalos cited a nexus study estimating about $17,700,000 in annual alcohol‑attributable costs and said the fee would collect up to 90 percent of that amount.

The ordinance sets per‑gallon rates Avalos outlined for wholesalers: 35 cents per gallon of beer, $1.00 per gallon of wine and $3.20 per gallon for distilled spirits, which he said would translate to roughly 3–5 cents per drink. Avalos also described several amendments the board accepted, including a provision to capture purchases by “warehouse” retailers that buy outside the city for resale inside San Francisco, an indexing mechanism tied to the consumer price index, and a biannual review mechanism to reduce the fee if collections exceed the target.

Why it matters: Backers tied the fee to continuing prevention, treatment, and emergency services for residents with severe alcohol problems — programs they said the city cannot sustainably fund from existing budget sources alone. Opponents warned of legal and economic risks and urged the board to weigh expense‑side savings and alternatives before imposing a broadly applied fee.

What the board debated and changed

Supporters: Avalos and several colleagues said the fee was the product of a year‑long process that included a controller’s office economic impact estimate. Supervisor Mark Mercarimi described one amendment to protect small sellers: a quarterly exclusion allowing payers to exclude the first $1,000 of fee liability in a quarter if their total liability for that quarter is below $1,000.

Opposition and legal concerns: Supervisor Ross Ellsberg said he admired the sponsor’s effort but raised two objections: that the city has not exhausted expense‑side options and that the city attorney’s office had warned the ordinance might be legally vulnerable. Ellsberg said, “Odds are this ordinance is illegal. We’re gonna spend north of a million dollars to defend this, and more likely than not, we’re gonna lose.” He also argued that a fee traditionally ties payment to a service received, and that most consumers who would pay the wholesale assessment would not directly receive a discrete city service in return.

Amendments accepted: The board accepted sponsor Avalos’s package of amendments to (a) close a potential loophole for large retailers that buy outside the city and resell inside it; (b) index the fee to the consumer price index; and (c) require a biannual review to reduce the per‑gallon charge if collections exceed the nexus target. Supervisor Mercarimi’s amendment establishing a quarterly exclusion for small payers was also adopted.

Recusal: Supervisor Alioto Pier recused herself from the matter because she holds an ABC wholesale license. The board moved and accepted the recusal without objection.

Formal action and next steps

The ordinance was passed on first reading at the Board meeting. The roll‑call tally on the first reading recorded seven ayes and three noes (recorded in the transcript as 7–3). The ordinance will return for subsequent readings and final passage consistent with the city’s ordinance process.

What the record does and does not show

The documents referenced at the hearing include a nexus study cited by the sponsor and an economic impact memo from the Controller’s Office that the sponsor said estimated a limited retail impact (the sponsor quoted a Controller estimate of less than a 1 percent decline in consumer spending and roughly 50 jobs affected citywide). The exact text of the ordinance and formal legal analyses were in the Planning/City Attorney packet; the board’s acceptance of amendments means the measure will be returned for final reading and a formal vote that will include the revised language.

Context note

Supporters framed the fee as one piece of the city’s response to alcohol‑related public health and public‑safety costs; opponents emphasized legal risk and the question of whether fees must more closely mirror a direct service or benefit to those who pay them.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Sanfrancisco Government tv - 128444760009/14/10 - Apr 16, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors advanced an ordinance in its first reading to impose a fee on alcoholic beverage wholesalers to recover part of the city’s alcohol‑attributable costs, adopting amendments to close purchase loopholes and index the fee to inflation.","taxTitle","San Francisco County, California","taxId",2862,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6601543,"Board tables decision on Pet Food Express conditional‑use appeal after long hearing; commission approval remains in effect",6403,3195000,9598000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3005898-8744d0b3d269ac330b4bd42dca3fc378&start=3195&end=9598","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3005898-8744d0b3d269ac330b4bd42dca3fc378/thumbnail_3195000.jpg","/articles/6601543/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-tables-decision-on-Pet-Food-Express-conditionaluse-appeal-after-long-hearing-commission-approval-remains-in-effect","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6601543-b3b47dbb86f487a4bcc0652fb53713d1/orig.mp4?Expires=1773740429&Signature=bac8kHNsrcwkFoWrSW2ZS3lVu1GHn95lHhxpgPib7tMkFVQUxIuNyRmIG6aBnj1uOXfMMW5Z8TGNh8Vth~xBK8tCA-~vWJCTzjGmFvDDZodKloQ2R-~UTOLtyklBpLIW92~xRC4jRHGcUAMREeXhUvP0e6861rnM2bOimE8ihRUv3j224-fj8RUSNRUPkHYHdQU-aimjUcxSh8yt-vskZIrIeLA2zJjwdbM-~rOCnNsV5AE6Ds25FegIUpZh5vZnWH322uuaJwn5F55i1~loeccPJqd7n6vcFQowZpRgOZsfNapmJoOW75bVlchT6QAOz4K7CXS7z0xR8JZsU-d7Jg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","After a multi‑hour hearing and extensive public testimony from small independent pet retailers and animal‑welfare organizations, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors did not overturn the Planning Commission’s July 8 conditional‑use authorization that would allow a Pet Food Express store at 3150 California Street. Instead the board tabled the appeal, leaving the Planning Commission decision in place for the time being.

Appellants represented a coalition of small pet shops (Safe San Francisco Neighborhood Pet Shops) and the Small Business Commission, arguing the chain would undercut local specialty retailers and erode neighborhood commercial character. Susan Landry, the named appellant, and business owners said Pet Food Express’s pricing practices and buying power threaten independent stores that depend on sale of commodity items such as premium food to sustain their margins.

Pet Food Express founder Michael Levy and company representatives said the chain is locally grown, highlights animal‑welfare adoption partners and donates to local shelters and rescue groups. Levy told the board his company already operates two San Francisco stores and that a new location would add jobs and sales tax and help fill a long‑vacant storefront.

What the board did

An initial motion to affirm the Planning Commission’s conditional‑use authorization (motion to uphold the commission) was put to a roll‑call vote and failed, 5 ayes to 6 noes. After further deliberation, the board voted to table items 38–40 — effectively pausing board action and leaving the commission approval intact while giving the parties additional opportunity to negotiate or provide further information.

Key points from testimony and staff

Appellants: Small, neighborhood‑focused retailers and the Small Business Commission argued the formula‑retail controls (Planning Code section 703.3) were intended to preserve neighborhood character and prevent chain‑store proliferation in neighborhood commercial districts. They cited City planning code provisions (section 703.3 priorities cited in the hearing), petitions and several hundred letters and petitions opposed to the specific Laurel Heights/California Street location.

Supporters: Pet Food Express, merchants in the immediate neighborhood and a number of local nonprofits — including animal‑welfare organizations — said the company has a record of local philanthropy, creates jobs and would reuse a vacant commercial space. Several neighborhood merchants associations and the project’s survey of 93 nearby merchants reported majority support for the store in the immediate commercial area.

Planning department: Staff and the Planning Commission said the required formula‑retail criteria were evaluated using a quarter‑mile radius and an analysis of adjacent neighborhood commercial districts; the department said the site had been vacant and supported the finding that the use is compatible with the area. Staff also said planning’s quarter‑mile approach is an established benchmark for analyzing concentration and compatibility.

Legal/policy considerations raised by board members

Several supervisors questioned whether the quarter‑mile radius and other planning‑department metrics sufficiently account for citywide competition and “destination” effects for a large retail outlet with on‑site parking. Some supervisors urged the department to re‑examine its methodology because a destination retail site can draw customers from beyond a narrow radius and thus affect stores citywide. Planning staff and the director said the department evaluates each proposal in its neighborhood context and that deeper citywide market analysis is not part of the standard formula‑retail review.

Outcome and next steps

The board’s initial roll‑call vote to affirm the Planning Commission decision failed (5–6). A subsequent motion to table the items passed; by tabling, the board left the Planning Commission’s approval in place for now and preserved the appellants’ ability to return with further arguments or negotiated conditions. The board asked planning staff to note apparent errors in its report language where staff believed an internal drafting mistake had suggested citywide conclusions that the department had not made.

Why it matters

The case spotlights tensions between preserving neighborhood‑serving independent retail and allowing larger regional chains to open in underused commercial properties. The outcome keeps the commission’s approval in effect but leaves the issue open for further negotiation or return to the board.","After a full‑day appeal hearing on a Planning Commission decision to allow a Pet Food Express at 3150 California Street, the Board of Supervisors tabled further action, leaving the commission approval in effect while parties continue to negotiate and opponents gather more evidence.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6601536,"Supervisors delay City Hall cafe lease decision after concerns about incumbent operator; item continued one week",461,190000,651000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3005898-8744d0b3d269ac330b4bd42dca3fc378&start=190&end=651","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3005898-8744d0b3d269ac330b4bd42dca3fc378/thumbnail_190000.jpg","/articles/6601536/San-Francisco-County/California/Supervisors-delay-City-Hall-cafe-lease-decision-after-concerns-about-incumbent-operator-item-continued-one-week","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6601536-2429d49eac487f845210874921e8dd3b/orig.mp4?Expires=1773740429&Signature=k9ERK8tIKRSbsVIhZcIMXPmE6Nut9bhc-tt~RIfa9CkT6nEPb6HukH2z1WxCiZBOv9U4ZTtrZ4q4mP0m3vqt00HOrdhYYBAlFRwsct6gtjDu4KxqlniWYdSGHKzvYRydEAhiv44xcDEuOOPuwwkNLgDxxFxi9XAqEQEHkXQ9sv4-A44x3xTeeMaKGLB7Vtu0FmgBJ3eD5wdUMoxR~roAaoYC8ZYq4r1dWOwg-dX~QUxiuWIhR1uIfuRtLxp4GBDv4l-r2fKEDf9MJ9qmWsIxX1QhRHd0MRYAzDjRmBOqCRjNFpOigUKgkgtEK1QFXp7P8ps0UaaMj5hBma~kpQCnyg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The San Francisco Board of Supervisors voted to continue consideration of a resolution authorizing a lease and license for a ground‑floor café and north light court space at City Hall after several members said they had received late information about the incumbent operator that warranted further review.

Supervisor Marr moved to refer the item back (or to continue it) to permit further consideration of the incumbent concessionaire, identified in the hearing as “Chung Park” (the transcript reference to the incumbent). Supervisor Daly seconded a motion to refer the matter back to committee; other members suggested a one‑week continuance to allow behind‑the‑scenes inquiries and to explore alternatives short of committee referral. Supervisor Ellsberg argued against rescinding the budget committee’s recommendation, saying the procurement had been vetted by the Budget Committee and that the scoring and award process had not been challenged. Several other supervisors noted personal relationships in the community and expressed the need to separate personal ties from procurement policy.

After discussion, Supervisor Marr amended his approach to a motion to continue the item one week and the board voted to continue the item to the next board meeting. The roll call recorded six ayes and five noes, and the motion to continue carried. The continuance leaves the budget committee’s award and the contract process in place for now but provides time for supervisors to review new materials presented to them in recent hours.

Key details

What was requested: A resolution authorizing the lease and license of real property at 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place (City Hall) for a ground‑floor café and North Light Court. The Board’s Budget and Finance Committee had previously reviewed the item and the committee returned the item without recommendation to the full board.

Why the board continued action: Several supervisors said they had been handed new information shortly before the meeting bearing on the incumbent operator, including claims referenced by speakers about capital investments made by the incumbent and whether procurement scoring addressed any reimbursement. Some supervisors said they needed time to assess whether the new information warranted rerouting the matter back to committee for fuller vetting; others said the budget committee had already vetted the procurement thoroughly.

Vote and next steps

The board voted 6 ayes, 5 noes to continue the item for one week. The item will return to the full board at the next scheduled meeting for further consideration unless the parties reach another accommodation or committee referral is made.","Supervisors voted to continue action on a resolution authorizing a new lease/license for the City Hall cafe after members said they had received new information about the incumbent contractor. The board voted 6–5 to continue the item one week so members can review the newly submitted material and pursue alternatives or committee review.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6601539,"Board certifies City Place EIR after traffic and preservation questions; 9–0 vote certifies EIR",6876,2996000,9872000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3005898-8744d0b3d269ac330b4bd42dca3fc378&start=2996&end=9872","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3005898-8744d0b3d269ac330b4bd42dca3fc378/thumbnail_2996000.jpg","/articles/6601539/San-Francisco-County/California/Board-certifies-City-Place-EIR-after-traffic-and-preservation-questions-90-vote-certifies-EIR","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6601539-9b9195389c526bcbaca4b13539525de2/orig.mp4?Expires=1773740429&Signature=YXZMU51AxAIFbyAzNyqgjee-3XApDHRB7ivA9jt76JbwWYVkvPwz3n6aX-NFVRCw6ngCDcyD4VitjqUZHfsMmx3VC~eYlW196aCKOfP-LODghZG7wi2MTfKRfv-EAolgK0hMgRSPurRMpMeINJePkfoV0ua08AC~mj56hd5jxufgoS4-67ZE5d5rnmVgSlJZODOOPcO9~xLqxawpbyUf37doubhG2qT4Ks-DlBs-QTgWhTDAjSmHiT0xoculADHTC2-gMIkJKp5ezuV6IDr6n~mQsDhZJUJxzFBhz6V2OxnVEozQsvYATLsUhO8ub2Ew~PzpG23mZ4twyb2Z2RPEiA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Supervisors certified the final environmental impact report (EIR) for the City Place project, a proposed retail development at 935–965 Market Street, after a lengthy hearing that focused on transportation impacts, historic‑resource questions and streetscape concerns for mid‑Market.

Supervisor David Daley moved to affirm certification of the EIR; the motion carried on roll call. Planning Department staff and the project sponsor said the EIR analyzed alternatives, included a no‑garage and a one‑level parking variant, and assessed potential effects to nearby historic resources. The department said the structures on the immediate site are not historic resources under CEQA and that the EIR’s transportation analysis used standard trip‑generation practice and a quarter‑mile radius for immediate neighborhood assessment.

Transportation and pedestrian safety were the principal focal points in public comment and in board questioning. Appellants and advocacy groups urged the board to require additional mitigation because the project would concentrate vehicle trips at nearby intersections, especially on Stevenson and Fifth streets, and could increase conflicts with pedestrians and bicyclists. Planning staff said the EIR identified which intersections would be affected and modeled the project and two alternatives; staff concluded the information provided was sufficient for the public decision.

A notable voluntary commitment from the project sponsor emerged during the meeting: the sponsor submitted a letter offering to pay a parking surcharge of $0.20 per vehicle exiting the City Place garage, with funds dedicated to SFMTA‑administered feasibility work and, if feasible, bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the immediate mid‑Market area. Sponsor counsel presented the proposal as a mechanism to address neighborhood safety and streetscape improvements identified during planning.

Board action and vote

Supervisor Daley’s motion to affirm certification passed on roll call with nine ayes recorded (two supervisors were noted absent). The board then continued with other business; the certification means the EIR meets CEQA disclosure requirements and allows the project approvals to proceed through the Planning Department and planning commission processes. Any appeals of project entitlements or additional mitigations remain subject to subsequent hearings and approvals.

Why it matters

The EIR certification clears a major environmental milestone for a large retail project in a part of the city whose commercial character and pedestrian safety have been the subject of repeated planning efforts. The voluntary parking surcharge commitment signaled a possible path for the sponsor and city agencies to fund local pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements in the project vicinity.

What the record shows and next steps

Planning staff said the EIR analyzed alternatives including a no‑garage and a one‑level garage variant and disclosed the transportation impacts at specific intersections. Planning staff acknowledged a drafting error in the report text that suggested an overly broad citywide conclusion about competitive impacts and told the board the sentence should be corrected. The sponsor and department will work with SFMTA and other agencies on the feasibility study and any resulting implementation if the city elects to accept and program surcharge funds.","The Board of Supervisors certified the final environmental impact report (EIR) for the City Place retail project at 935–965 Market Street after a substantial hearing on transportation, historic‑resource and streetscape effects. Supervisor David Daly moved to affirm certification; the roll call recorded nine ayes and the EIR was certified. Several","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board advances fee on alcohol wholesalers to fund alcohol-related services; first reading passes

Board tables decision on Pet Food Express conditional‑use appeal after long hearing; commission approval remains in effect

Supervisors delay City Hall cafe lease decision after concerns about incumbent operator; item continued one week

Board certifies City Place EIR after traffic and preservation questions; 9–0 vote certifies EIR