Board fails to override mayors veto of alcohol mitigation fee; city attorney cites —rule of necessity—

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Tuesday failed to override Mayors veto of an ordinance that would have created an alcohol mitigation fee to recoup city costs tied to alcohol-related services.

The board voted 7-3 in favor of overriding the veto; the measure required eight votes to pass, so the mayors veto stood.

Supporters said the fee would help the city recover costs tied to policing, emergency medical services and the impacts of heavy alcohol consumption in neighborhoods with active nightlife. "This measure is about recovering costs that are inevitable," said Supervisor David Avalos, who led debate in favor of the measure, adding he had heard public concerns that the proposal would "coddle chronic inebriates."

Opponents and some members of the public raised questions about the fees economic effects and the process that led to the ordinance.

Legal questions about the mayors role in the veto process surfaced at the meeting after Deputy City Attorney Cheryl Adams explained the offices review of what she described as the "rule of necessity." Adams told the board the rule has been applied in San Francisco precedent: even when a mayor may have a conflict of interest, the mayor may participate in a veto if participation is legally required. "And under the rule of necessity, he may do so," Adams said in response to board questions.

Several supervisors urged clarity on how the city would implement the fee and on the scope of businesses and distributors who would ultimately carry the cost. Avalos and other proponents said the fee was designed to be levied at the wholesale or distributor level and estimated to amount to roughly five cents per drink, according to an economic analysis referenced at the hearing.

Roll-call: the clerk recorded seven votes in favor of overriding the veto and three opposed; because the charter requires eight votes to override, the veto was sustained.

Why it matters: Supporters said the fee would let the city cover costs tied to alcohol consumption without placing the primary burden on restaurants and bars; opponents warned of uncertainty about economic impact and questioned whether the measure properly accounted for who would actually bear the cost.

Whats next: With the veto sustained, the ordinance will not take effect. The board record includes the debate, the city attorneys memo on conflict-of-interest law and the counts from the roll call vote.

Votes at a glance: The board voted 7-3 in favor of overriding the mayors veto; eight votes would have been required to override.

Speakers quoted: Supervisor David Avalos; Deputy City Attorney Cheryl Adams.