tv Government Access Programming SFGTV April 27, 2019 11:00pm-12:01am PDT
antismoking campaigns, are effective and that they should be directed towards youth, to let them know that the vaping products are not harmless. that they are harmful. and a3 is a substance they do not want to get addicted to. so my struggle is not just about small business, but about the role of government in prohibiting things that do have benefits. we can all vilify some of the actors in this story and where we have gotten to because of those actions. and we should take it out on them in the form of legislation and financial fines and the like. and that is going to happen most likely, outside of this -- outside of our jurisdiction. but i just really -- i struggle -- i don't have any struggle with the moral part of. i don't have any struggle with the health part of it.
well, i do have a struggle with the morality part of it. the notion that we are legislating morality here and i think it's -- you know, it's similar to cannabis, tobacco -- i mean, cannabis, alcohol, other things that are legal in our society and we've shown that trying to make those things illegal and to enforce rules and regulations against them have very severe, societal, unintended consequences. and the -- cannabis has played out horribly, right. the war on drugs and specifically cannabis. so i don't -- i can't support a ban of an otherwise legal product. >> commissioner laguana. >> thank you, supervisor dwight -- >> that's my position. >> right. and i think it's very well said. sorry. commissioner -- >> never. [laughter]
>> i would say to the supervisor, this is what i meant. i can see where the freudian slip happened here. i think you're hearing some of really good people really struggling, you know, with the questions around this. i think these are legitimate questions about the role of government and, you know, what are the unintended -- what is the unintended impact of prohibition? what is -- is this ultimately going to achieve the policy objectives. and what i would encourage you to do is, you know, look at these people up here. look at the people around you. those -- they're good people. they're working their butts off trying to survive. and i'm going to ask you to hold true to your promise to find some way to help these folks get through it, because i think
ultimately that's going to wind up happen, this legislation is going to pass. irregardless of what what we say up here. but when it does pass, i want you to think about these folks. and i'd actually, you know, encourage you and your office to parol actively think, not just wait for us to come to you with solutions, but actually engage in the process and try and come up with some solutions on your own. because a lot of times, us in business, we have no idea how government works. i personally would not even know how to formulate a solution. that's one of the reasons i asked. i'm new to this committee. i've been running a business for 15 years. i don't know what the powers that are available to you. so i would encourage you to engage on that question and really help these folks, because they didn't -- they didn't go into this thinking they were doing anything wrong. they're decent people. and we should be doing everything we can to help them get to this period. obviously i support your policy
goals. but let's also support these folks, who, you know, otherwise had no ill intention. and certainly, you know, want to be part of this city as well. >> commissioner yee riley. >> me or her? >> you're on the speaker. >> sorry, not to cut you off, commissioner riley. i did want to say one they go, -- thing, commissioner laguana, you'll see in my past history, you'll see, as we continue to work together for the future, you definitely have my commitment. i have gone to unpleasant meetings on this topic, with small businesses. but i continue to have that commitment and will continue to meet with them consistently. but i do believe in our small businesses and i do believe that
they are the fabric of our communities. and so that commitment is unwavering and it's not going to change. i do believe as a policy goal, i do believe as -- what this legislation intends to achieve, that it will actually achieve those goals. and we will have -- less young people becoming addicted to e-cigaretteses. also i'll make it safer for anyone who is using the product, because we don't know whether this product is safe or not. but as far as commitment to small businesses, i want each and every one of you to know that you have my commitment for that and we'll continue to have the conversation about this. and many other things as we try to move our small businesses forward. and thank you for the time, commissioner adams. i do need to leave. but thank you for allowing me to be here this afternoon. >> okay. commissioner yee riley. >> yes. if this legislation were to pass, i strongly recommend that we have a very gradual
implementation, so the negative impact to the small business is not as severe. >> commissioner dwight. >> so i agree that it is highly likely, if not -- that this legislation will be approved by the board of supervisors. so it's somewhat -- i mean, you know, we're here to be on the record for however it is we feel about it. i continue to be in opposition to bans of most types. and although i am persuaded by the argument that the product safety has not been determined. i think it's frankly reprehensible that we allowed small business to be in this position, by allowing them to sell a product that is of questionable safety and that they're not doing anything wrong. they're doing everything by the
book. but we've -- we've allowed a situation to evolve, and that's not on the city. that's just on the country, that we have allowed this to happen without the f.d.a. making a determination. this thing just got away from us. and i'm actually not quite sure. i'd like to know more about how that did happen, because it seems to me that the product shouldn't even be sellable until the f.d.a. makes its determination. so there's some loophole in the f.d.a.'s process here that's allowed this to happen. >> okay. commissioners zouzounis. >> yes. i mean, i agree. i believe that the supervisors -- this is another issue in which i'm not sure amendments will be made. so given that i do want our feedback to be taken seriously, i would recommend like a motion with amendments. and i'm amenable to parceling
them out if they're not all agreed upon. we can introduce different motions for different recommendations. given that this sponsor also did express willingness to engage in mitigation efforts and the commission does have a resolution that we're working on, which i think we will advocate for separately as a parallel process. and not in this current meeting, as it's not on the agenda. but given that our focus is on how we're going to recommend this to the board, i would like to make a motion for some recommendations. and i'm happy to make them separate, if they're not agreed upon as a whole. >> okay. i'll let you do that. i want to chime in on this. >> yes, please. >> just my opinion, i have kept quiet and i have listened to all sides. and i'm just going to be honest and blunt. i don't like this. i'm against it. i can't vote for it. amendments or not. you're harming small business.
we are the small business commission. and commissioner dwight said it the best. i mean, what do you -- i can't support anything that, you know, here the city is being a nanny again. and granted i don't like kids smoking it and underage. but the business owners are doing what they're suppose to do. the business owners are doing what they were told to do. they're following the rules. and i -- i'm sitting up here ready to explode thinking we're punishing good people, who are following the laws. it's legal to sell this stuff. okay. we took away -- i can't tell you how many store owners i have talked to, who have lost revenue over the flavored tobacco ban. yet i know people who are driving down to daley city to buy cartons of cigarettes.
it's kind of a joke. and, you know, the moral stuff aside, you know, these -- this is business. okay. and we're going down a slippery slope. if you support this, with amendments or not, what's next, cannabis, tobacco. >> candy. >> candy. you know, they're already overturning the sugary flavored drinks. that's already getting overturned by the courts. and to me there's something very unconstitutional about this. i appreciate item number 2 on city property. that i get. okay. it's city property. and i support that 110%. but if you're a small business owner, you got the rent to pay, you need to feed your family. you're told this is okay, only being told you have 30 days to get out of this business, without compromising any way, shape or form.
i cannot support this. so i just had to get my two cents off on that. and that's it. commissioner dooley. >> yeah. i just see this as going down a rocky road. i mean, what next? what next are you going to say is unhealthy? someone talked about obese children. so perhaps the next ban will be that we can't sell them candy. it could be anything now. and i just think that this is a personal responsibility. you're doing your job. but i also have to say anecdotally, i have a number of friends smoking two packs a day, coughing all the time, they changed to the vape, they slowly decreased their nicotine as part of it and they're 100% healthier now. now, you know, i don't have the f.d.a. behind me. but i have seen it in front of my very eyes. and so you're going to also be punishing people like that.
they have gotten off of leaf tobacco and are finding something that works better for their health. i can't support this either. >> commissioner dwight. >> well, and psychological hear, too. you'll hear many testimonials that people were tired of the stigma of smoking. we've really criminalized smoking in many ways. and it's allowed them to transition to something that's more socially acceptable, in its delivery system. and has less externallalities in terms of the smoke that they're inhaling and how they smell around you, you can tell when someone gets on a bus, someone who vapes, not so. the only way that i could support this legislation is with -- is that the -- that, a, we acknowledge it's a temporary ban, pending f.d.a. approval or
not and that we grandfather existing businesses that are already legally in the game, complying with the rules, have done nothing wrong to this point. i think that moral, you know, having a discontinuity, really on a moral argument is not good government. and i think that it has -- that it's affect on the likelihood of business owner, otherwise complying with rules and regulations -- rules and regulations that, by the way, we have done studies to show have decreased smoking in general and smoking amongst youth. that they are following those rules and if we want to make more rules, fine. but bans, no. and not -- and we can't put people out of business in an instant. we have to have a provision for grandfathering them, pending -- look, there's nothing to say the f.d.a. isn't going to come out and say, hey you know what, it
turns out vaping is okay. and nicotine is not great, but it's a lot better way to get your nicotine than smoking cigarettes. we approve it because it's a better alternative to something we know to be harmful. that would be a step in the right direction. this isn't about absolutes. this is about helping people survive whatever addiction they have. and try to educate people going forward that they not get themselves involved in this kind of addiction. that's what education is for. that's what taxes are intended to pay for is for that kind of education. so let's -- i would prefer to continue with that methodology, rather than one that we've already proven doesn't work. prohibition does not work. let's not repeat that history on this frankly less, in my opinion, less evil kinds of activity. >> commissioner laguana.
>> i agree with everything you guys say. i mean, it's -- it's -- there's -- it's all -- nobody is saying anything that's not sensible to me. and i think if -- i guess two questions i have here. one is the supervisor has indicated that he's not open to amendments. >> no. >> and it doesn't -- it appears -- i think we all acknowledge the legislation is likely to pass, regardless. that seems to be the sense of it. you know, there's -- when i have dealt with the federal government in the past. there's this thing that happens, where legislation starts to take shape and then at a certain point it gains a certain amount
of inertia. the only question is are you going to, you know, try and negotiate and work with the situation and try and mitigate the harm? or are you going to a stance and find yourself out of the room. so from my perspective, from looking at this from a real politic level, i'd rather, given that this legislation is going to pass, given that it's going to pass without any amendments that we suggest, rather than taking the position that it ultimately going to be ineffectual, i would rather instead focus on mitigating the harm to the small businesses, since this is already going to happen, no matter what we say here today. >> we'll do that. >> that's not up -- we'll do that anyway. i think people get wrapped around the actual being on the
wrong side of history. well, i have voted -- i'm delighted to be on the opposite side of history. >> and i would -- and i will tell you, from being on this commission, they do hear us. and this is not a done deal on the board of supervisors. i can tell you that. okay. it is not a done deal. they -- so i think what we -- and my thinking and my rationale, i don't care how they're going to vote. well, i do care. but i can't think about how they're going to vote. i have to look out there and see these people in the audience. and i'm a small business commissioner. i have to have their back. okay. so i don't have their back, i don't have a right being up here. and i have already seen too many small businesses in this town get shut down, quit, leave town, leave this city, leave this state because of over b.s.
regulation. now we are all entitled to our own opinion. and i respect your opinion, i respect everybody's opinions. everybody has their own opinion. but, you know, top give in just because i think the board of supervisors is going to vote one way, you can't -- you can't think that way. at least i can't. my fiduciary responsibility is the citizens in this town. >> okay. >> i don't want to -- what the board of supervisors does is what the board of supervisors does. >> i have to interject. because i did not get a chance to finish. >> okay, i'm sorry. >> yes. and i would say i also feel a strong fiduciary duty to small business. we're coming at -- we're seeking the same result. we're looking at it from different angles. so i will say just -- >> and i appreciate that. and i -- i totally appreciate
that. and i totally appreciate your opinion. >> yeah. >> so, i mean, you're not getting an argument with me on that one. >> so and i don't see -- i think we're all sort of like familiar with the arguments. and there doesn't seem to be a point in relitigating them, right. like i think there's solid arguments. i think you guys are -- i think you're a good man. and i support the argument that you're making. i think it's solid. it has a solid foundation of logic. i'm looking rat -- at this from a different perspective. and ultimately what i'm really interested in, now at this point -- if as the case turns out that there's not support at the board of supervisors, then we can double back and have a conversation about that at that time. that's not my current underring of -- understanding it. it mayor more malleable than i'm
hearing. i'm willing to accept that. i'm open to, you know, having conversation about that. but what i'm particularly interested in is if the legislation does pass, what are we going to do for these folks and how are we going to help them and how are we going to have an impact on, you know, -- you know, sort of the future outcome here? >> we do have a resolution that the commission has drafted up. and i think as the president was mentioning, that's a separate and we're hoping parallel process than the discussion we're having now. >> sure. >> that's after the banning of the flavored tobacco, they would come back with something. and instead i watched more corner stores close. >> well, then maybe that's on us that we have to, you know, join that fight somehow. i mean, the other thing -- the flip side of it is, after they raised the age to to 21, the research showed that youth usage went way down.
on some level prohibition does work. on the other hand, it's clear that regulations can have an impact on youth adoption. >> okay. director. >> yes, through the president. just so -- i think to affirm what president adams has said is that supervisors have communicated to our office that they are very interested in hearing recommendations from this legislation. >> correct. >> so just know that your voice still has the ability to have some impact. >> commissioner dwight. >> yeah. i don't think we should ever hold back on our -- on what we think is the right course of action, just because we think that the board of supervisors is going to act one way or another. because elected officials behave in ways that are much different from advocacy groups, special
interest groups, such as ourselves. and we're not elected, we are appointed, though not to say that our appointments are not political, we are not -- we're speaking to a very specialized constituency and that is small businesses, in addition to our duties just to do what's right for the city. it is a complex issue. i will grant you that. and no one here is saying anything that's not rational or from their perspective reason able. i am also a huge supporter of supervisor walton. he has done -- he's doing tremendous work in our district, on behalf of all of the various constituents that he needs to. and he has been showing up at all sorts of community meetings, that i'm involved with, because i'm very involved at the neighborhood level in my community. so this is not about whether i agree with him on, you know, i'm
not going to agree with him on everything. i agree with him on most things. so he just happens to be one where we don't agree on the implementation. and we will advocate for assistance for small businesses affected by this and any legislation that the board of supervisors passes, that has consequences for small business, negative consequences for small business. and it is on us to come up with some ideas for that and float them to the supervisor's office and hopefully have them give us some feedback as to what they think they can get through the process. but i'm -- you know, i think we -- each of us can independently, you know, vote as we feel is rational. and even if we don't all vote together, that's okay. >> not required. >> commissioner ortiz. >> just want to go the sentiments. my purview here is to look at small business lens, not my personal affiliations to the
small business members that are out there. thank you for coming. because i know we all live busy days and coming here and not being in the store, takes your time. i do know -- i live in district 10. and i've seen supervisor walton. he's out there. these are one of the things that sometimes we don't agree. but i have faith in his ability. he's out there, you know, on the street. he will help. [ please stand by ]
that i think we're going to have to vote and listen to the way that people are going to be impacted. i'm processing this, and i hope that i'm not burning a bunch of bridges with all you guys. >> you're not. commissioner dwight? >> so i'll let you make your motion. i just want to throw it out there that one potential motion would be to support the legislation with the caveat to grandfather all the existing players pending approval the dy the f.d.a. we'll support your position on any new licenses, new approvals, but we do not
approve of putting existing businesses out of business. just as we cannot take away juul's lease that they've signed onto port property, i don't see how we can take away your business on a whim. so a very simple way of being supportive but also carving out for the existing businesses would be to say we support the ban as proposed pending f.d.a. ruling and you have to grandfather every existing business that's currently in business because then we -- a lot of the businesses continue, we state our position that we are not in favor of this as a societial issue, let the supervisors get that way. look, they're not going to approve that, but it would be our way of standing up for small business while being supportive of the spirit of it, but i think it's the wrong way to do it. i think banning is the wrong
way to go, so the only way you can do it is kind of conditional ban. and by the way, this only survives the f.d.a. position. if the f.d.a. says they approve the marketing, this legislation is done. it terminates this legislation. >> it's like a year, even. >> i think that it straddles the fence that somehow we've gotten into this situation without an f.d.a. approval, but we can't roll back the clock on that. we've allowed businesses -- we have permitted businesses, and to unpermit them in a -- so abru abruptly i think is wrong. it seems a little weird to say well, we support the ban, but we're going to allow businesses to continue, but we support the ban, or we can just support the legislation. >> i think it's better to say the latter because the former
has the same intent for all intents and purposes. >> the reason that i don't think that's so is because i think the regulations have had their intended effects, so this effectively -- i view the temporary ban as just another regulation. i think regulations are things that can be complied with, okay? you can't comply with a ban without going out of business. you can comply with a tear ban that allows you to stay in business and comply with all other regulations and prevent anyone from coming into the same trap while we work this out. so i actually don't see it -- i don't think that hypocrisy is -- i don't think it's necessarily a hypocritical
position to take. >> i'll go next to commissioner zouzounis. >> director dick-endrizzi. >> the flavored tobacco ban didn't address on-line sales, so if there would be one item i could support it does level the playing field about the flavored tobacco not being able to sell in the city, so i just want to identify that point. >> that should be separate legislation. >> commissioner zouzounis? >> yeah. i would just like to echo that, a ban is different than regulation. the ban on flavored tobacco didn't work. you had communities, you know, cultural places like hookah lounges go out of business. you had the black market very very apparent on these
commercial corridors. i've heard and seen from our own businesses that people are buying more cigarettes now actually. districts like ten and 11 on the borders of our city are really struggling out there because of the easy access to neighboring counties. however i'm so grateful for this back and forth. i do think this is moving us forward, and i do agree that i want our recommendations to be heard and not just waived, oh, they opposed it. so i'm amenable to proposing a motion that has amendments. >> go ahead. >> i don't know if there's a way that we can say -- make a -- >> well, make your motion -- yeah, just go ahead and make your motion with the amendments. >> yeah. >> so i move to recommend that the legislation incorporate more local data and referenced even the data collected from the small business commission
legislative overview, that the supervisor and the sponsor request an economic impact report from the controller's office to really see where the city is going to be moving. that we include a statute that this is a temporary ban and sunsets f.d.a. approval of these products. i agree that we should have a grandfather clause but i'm also amenable to establishments increasing -- or increasing their consumer purchasing controls similar to cannabis. so if we can ensure that existing businesses are complying and if we need to suggest more means for that, that's an amendment. and establish as my fellow commissioner says, a reasonable enactment period. the flavored tobacco ban was
seven months, so that's what i'm recommending. encourage utilizing social media and to encourage the city to regulate mobile and third party delivery vendors and to also have in their commitment for this parallel and immediate fee streamlining and transition adjustment plan for these businesses. and for the city to establish tracking mechanisms for both industry impacts and black market. >> can i make a friendly amendment? i would prefer if we -- the motion would say we don't support this unless, and give all the suggested amendments. because supervisor walton had said he wasn't amenable to any amendments, so i just feel like we need to make our position
really clear for small business but then give them all of those things that would make it better -- we feel would be better for businesses. >> that makes -- i accept that. >> okay. commissioner laguana? >> so i just want -- just a little bit of procedural clarity here. i've got one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten suggestions -- yep. and is -- are we voting on each one of these or it's "a is yea nay on the whole package. >> it's yea or nay on the whole package. >> i would be -- so two of these amendments seem to be in sort of conflict with each other. one would be the grandfather clause, the other would be the reasonable enactment period.
so i'd recommend that we just unbundle them because i would be inclined to vote yet on reasonable enactment. i personally would be inclined to vote no on grandfather because i think the most honest thing would be to simply say we're against the legislation. >> commissioner dwight? >> and one comment i have is i'm not sure all of these items are legislative amendments. you can call for a study. i think that asking them to consider something -- i mean, the -- we should separate, what do we recommend as a legislative amendment, meaning, what would you write into the law versus what do you want them to consider? so you know, asking them to consider data that they haven't yet considered, that's a request. i don't think that's a
legislative amendment, so i think we should be clear on what we're asking them to do specifically for the legislation which i think is less than ten items. and then, if we want to make suggestions to them to -- i mean, other considerations are kind of well, we should just show up at the meeting and present some data on the record. that would be the way to do that. >> director dick-endrizzi. >> so through the commission president. so yes, commissioner dwight. so i think maybe you do all out the items that would -- call out the items that would be specific. and then when we're writing the response for the commission, the commission then can say the additional items in terms of -- other items that would not directly amend the legislation but then call out the
discussions that have been had here around the implications and the results of bans and why it's important for the city to do economic analysis. if the ban does go through, i find it irresponsible that there is no such effort on the city's part to understand the black market on the flavored tobacco, and there doesn't seem to be a plan from the legislative sponsor to take a look at that to ensure that the goal of what the legislation intended is met. so i think that these are things that we can stipulate in the commission's response that are -- additional comments and direction. >> yeah. >> okay. i have a point of clarification. >> okay. let me go to commissioner laguana first. >> okay. so just so i'm clear, the amendments to the legislative impact, it would be to state
that it's a temporary ban. that's one. two would be either the grandfather or reasonable enactment period. three would be fee steam lining. i don't know if that's considered part of this legislation. >> i think it's going to have to be separate. >> and then tracking mechanism. >> probably what director dick-endrizzi said. >> okay. with respect to the legislative intent, then, it would be the temporary ban and then grandfather-reasonable. >> you can't -- you could amend the legislation just like with the cash list that there be a report back. that could be an amendment that would require both the police department and the department of public health track the back market -- the black market and
the -- -- the youth access and the black market. so that could be a specific sort of report that could be part of the legislation. >> so the suggestion part to the board would be that they a get more local data, which i strongly agree with. b, that we get an economic impact report, which i also strongly agree with. and then i'm a little unclear, commissioner zouzounis, on social media, on-line marketing, and mobile. if you could flush out for me a little bit what you're thinking. >> well, that was kind of my point of procedure, too. as in conversation with the sponsors and in the legislation, it does allude to those third party sources but i'm wondering if we need to ask them to strengthen that mechanisms in which they'll be regulating postmates or other
means of access -- on-line means of access. so that was what i wanted to pose back to the commission. does that fall under the auspices of the amendment? >> so if i may say, so what the legislation does deal with is the delivery and sale. it does not deal with advertising. and so -- >> on the sales, how do you deal with the various on-line? >> well, black market trading it person to person via instagram post. >> so is there language that we as a commission believe we should include in this to strengthen the third party
delivery on-line model? >> well, i was also thinking you were talking about the advertising, which is a big deal. if things are being advertised targeting youth, i'm surprised he didn't put it in. >> there's a first amendment issue. >> well, no, i mean -- >> no, the f.d.a. actively regulates how cigarette companies can -- >> the city has banned, yeah. okay. so then, the -- the advertising piece would be separate, then, from this. but i'm kind of asking if we as a commission need to recommend the strengthening of their language around how they're going to regulate third party deliveries under -- i'm just posing that. >> are you asking them to consider the question or are you making a suggestion that they should? >> well, where -- no, it's in the legislation.
they mention it. >> okay. >> but they have -- where they have specific violations and, you know, how the city attorney is going to respond to violations of this legislation for brick and mortar retailers, they don't go into that detail for third party delivery, so i'm asking do we think that they should develop those types of follow -- you know, follow through violations procedures. >> yes. >> for the third party? >> yes. >> okay. >> do you want to restate your motion, then? >> well i'm still curious if i'm parcelling out the grandfathering in part. that's the part of this. >> it's still part of it. >> it's still part of it. >> so let's kind of walk-through it slowly because want to make sure that domenica captures this very clearly so
that -- we'll explain later but just make sure that we're accurately representing what the motion is. so we -- so the commission wants -- so the first component for amending the legislation -- the first amendment -- i think we should make two motions. one is a motion for an up and down with the legislation, and then, another motion recommending potential amendments. >> which i think it's okay if some of them cancel out the others because i think our recommendations are showing to the supervisors that we're willing to work on a number of these. >> right. >> so can i -- >> hang on a minute because commissioner laguana has the floor. >> i'd like to add one other thing that i don't see on here. a little bit in fee
streamlining, but that it be the policy or consequence of this legislation that the city or the supervisor, whoever, does something aggressively to help the merchants -- i don't know what language. >> yeah, you're exactly right. >> help mitigate. >> i've been saying immediate and parallel to this because we've seen the fallout from that not happening as a parallel process from the last ban. >> right, but as long as we're presenting a suite of amendments that seems like an amendment that should also be -- >> right, and i'm agreeing that we should have that language that's parallel. >> right, so we're at 11. >> there was commitment to paralegal fee streamlining and -- parallel fee streamlining and adjustment
period. >> okay. i took it in a more broad sense. okay. understood. got it. >> okay. >> okay. so i move to -- >> we have two motions. >> approve the legislation, that's the first one. >> well, i can't make a motion, so i just posed that as a -- >> yeah. >> yeah. >> commissioner zouzounis just made a motion. do we have a second on that? >> second. >> what is the motion? >> to oppose the legislation as drafted. >> okay. there is a motion by commissioner zouzounis to oppose the legislation as drafted, seconded by commissioner dooley. thank you. roll call vote. [roll call] >> clerk: motion passes,
7-0 -- >> no. >> no. >> clerk: one. that's the one. just like a robot, it just comes out. >> and then, you have another motion. >> yes. i move to -- >> make the following recommendations? >> or to submit. >> how did you say it? >> we'd like to make the following recommendations. >> the commission is recommending -- this is a motion to recommend these suggested amendments to the legislation. >> we don't have a contingency clause in this. >> right. >> i recommend -- i move to recommend the following amendments to the legislation,
including stating this is a temporary ban based on a sunset date. >> can you articulate that? what's the difference between that and the grandfathering? >> no, because i think the legislation is specific to the f.d.a. approval or not. i think this -- this as a legislation as drafted says that it prohibits -- it prohibits the sale of electronic cigarettes that require but have not received an order from, so it's prohibiting them -- >> may i clarify? >> yeah. >> oh. >> once they get it. >> it's a simple thing. if the f.d.a. approves it, it's all good. >> so it's basically an informational language addendum saying that this -- this ban is
temporary. it's just declarative language. it has no legal import other than to education anybody looking at this that this isn't potentially going to amount very much if the f.d.a. approves this 30 days from now. [inaudible] >> clerk: yes. >> should i repeat it? >> yes. >> okay. to include a recommendation with language stating the sunset of this -- of the -- the nature of the temporary ban sunsetting when -- pending f.d.a. approval. and including a reasonable -- establishing a reasonable period of enactment, seven months minimum, for implementation, third party vendors -- delivery vendors
having violations parallel to what is stated in the legislation for brick and mortar. >> penalties? >> yeah. like if they're brick and mortar. >> so specifying penalties for on-line distributors and whatever -- what's the other class? on-line and -- and mail. >> on-line and mail. >> and mail. and may -- keep going, and then, i have one question. skbl mandating report from department of public health and san francisco police department tracking black market sales.
>> yep. >> commitment to parallel and immediate streamlining adjustment plan. >> well, i think it's a -- >> mitigation. >> yeah. it's compensation for affected retailers, figuring out a way to compensating affected retailers. it's not streamlining, it's figuring out how do we pay -- how does the city reimburse the retailers that are -- that are harmed economically by this legislation? determine a means for compensating businesses affected by this legislation. >> brick and mortar. >> well is compensating the right word or should it be
mitigating damage, too because i don't think we're wiever goi to get to a place of full compensation. >> compensation can be partial. compensation complies monetary. mitigation means anything -- a pat on the head saying i'm sorry. financial compensation of -- in some form for businesses harmed economically by this legislation. that's the only thing that's going to matter any way. >> determine -- okay. >> and lastly, grandfather in an existing compliant tobacco retail license holders. >> correct. >> do we want to -- yeah, okay. and then, the economic impact report and local data stuff, we have to say separate?
>> well, that's a suggestion. >> did i already say that? i'm just making sure we're staying within the means that's legislatable. >> the data and economic impact, i understood the board to take a look at before they pass any legislation. >> but not part of. >> right. >> can you read this back, please. >> there's a motion by commissioner zouzounis to support the following amendments to the legislation. one, including declarative language for establishing that this legislation would be a temporary ban, contingent upon a determination from the f.d.a. regarding premarket review. >> correct. >> establishing a reasonable period of enactment for the
legislation not less than seven months. >> mm-hmm. >> establishing -- number three, establishing that third party vendors referred to in the legislation who would also be banned from selling electronic cigarette products, including flavored tobacco products would incur tantamount violation penalties for violation as brick and mortar retailers. >> correct. >> four, require that both the department of public health and the san francisco police department establish tracking mechanisms to follow black
market transactions that may or may not be the result of or have a correlation to this piece of legislation. >> mm-hmm. >> mm-hmm. perfect. >> five, determine a means for mitigating losses incurred as a result of this legislation for brick and mortar retailers in san francisco. >> yep. >> six exempt existing compliant tobacco licenlicense retailers from the ban on electronic cigarette products, however, continue to -- for newly licensed tobacco retailers, do not allow them to sell electronic cigarette
products. >> yep. >> seven, include a requirement that an economic impact analysis be commissioned through the controller's office to determine what kind of an impact this ban would have on licensed tobacco retailers. >> yeah. >> that one would be about the city losses, the economic impact report. >> inclusive of city losses from tax revenue. >> part of the legislative -- now i'm confused. is this part of the legislation or is this part of the separate track recommendations. >> separate track recommendations. >> okay. do we have a second on this? >> second. >> second. >> commissioners, may i ask just one question. so the gathering, i'm -- just
want to go with intent. that was listed at item number. >> the grandfathering is listing under item number six. to say grandfather, with permission through the president, just for my own clarification, i think using the term grandfather isn't exactly appropriate for what the intention is. i think exemption gets a better result. >> exemption of existing. >> i just want to clarify the intent from just hearing the commissioners' comments and discussion in general is that that may be the first one to list. so -- or will you allow us to -- >> the two most pertinent legislative items on the list
and they are actually kind of inconsistent with one other are the phase in period and the exemption. if there's a phase in, there's a phase in, and if there's an exemption, there's an exemption. i think we need to figure out if we're favoring one or the other. >> can we lump them together and say we're recommending or if this is not going to happen -- >> exemption or phase in. >> or phase in, yes. >> and i would include parenthetically with the phase in, similar to the flavored tobacco ban so they have a reference that we've been on that before. but i'm -- look, if there's no support for the exemption, that's fine, but i think stating it as either an exemption or a phase in, i think that gets as both. >> yeah, my suggestion would be
either-or. >> either-or. >> commissioner laguana. >> it would be easier and cleaner for me if perhaps either-or could work or if we broke them out separately. >> i think they need to be together. >> we already voted on the legislation, however. >> yeah. >> well, i'm just saying we could vote unanimously on phase in, and then, we're speaking with one voice. >> no, i think that we are suggesting our preferred as the first part, which would be grandfathering in or -- >> or if that's not possible, then give it a seven-month phase in. >> yeah. i'm amenable to that. sorry, commissioner. >> it's challenging for me just
because i'm voting for a grandfathering when i'm not. >> so to commissioner zouzounis, the options are that they're two separate items, that they're a combined item recommending either an exemption or a transition period. and then, the third option is we unbundle them and have just the phase in option on this one and deal with an exemption in a separate motion if there's anyone who wants to make that motion. >> yeah, i'm amenable to the second option you stated of exemption or seven months at least. >> so we have to say exemption or not possible. >> either-or. >> yeah, either-or. >> well, because they're going to go for the lesser, so we
should say go for the grandfathering, and if not possible, then, the phase in. >> i just want to make -- rick just reminded, in reading through one of the items -- sorry, i don't have the number, you stated mitigation instead of compensation, so just to make sure, so otherwise -- >> oh, yeah. but you said mitigate loss, so that was a little more specific. >> we should say compensation. >> mitigation through compensation is one of the -- i just -- i want to make sure that we don't loose tse the opportunity to stipulate what we really stated around compensation. so i guess the question -- i'm sorry, since rick -- was commissioner