tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 9, 2019 3:00pm-4:00pm PDT
>> please stand by for closed captioning. >> all right, good morning everyone, the meeting will come to order. thank you. welcome to the june 7th, 2019, special meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services committee. i am supervisor rafael mandelman, chair of the committee. to my right is vice chair stefani and walton.
now, obviously we have some items that have generated significant interest. we have overflow seating in room 263 and we're trying to set up in the north lake court. so, everyone should be able to watch this and come in and speak on items that are of interest to them. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> yes, thank you mr. chair. make sure you silenced your cell phones. items acted upon today will appear on the june 18th, supervisors agenda. >> thank you, mr. clerk, please call the first item. >> a hearing to consider the issuance of the type 21 off-sale general beer, wine, and
distilled spirits of liquor license. >> thank you, is the a.l.u. here? maybe we don't have the a.l.u. here. so, we could -- i suppose continue this item later in the agenda. >> if you like to do that, i think the applicant may be here. >> well, we should probably hear from the a.l.u. we could hear from the applicant. all right, let's start with the a captain-- applicant, come on go ahead. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is melanie johns, i'm outside alcohol council to the prime now l.l.c. i have kara, she is with the public policy team at amazon and
she will be speaking after me about community engagement. so, first of all i like to start by acknowledging that this p.c.n. application is a little bit different than most that probably come before you. the goal with this license application is to add delivery to an existing fulfillment warehouse. it is not to open a grocery store or convenient store, or a similar model that you probably usually see with a type 21 license. the a.b.c. has certain requirements that establish that a type 21 licensee may obtain a brick and mortar presence. our goal is delivery. we work with the a.b.c. to establish a set of standard conditions that would meet our goals of providing delivery services while still meeting the minimum basic requirements for having a retail premises. i understand that the a.l.u. usually starts off and reads the
conditions into the record, so you probably don't have those with you, but i can give a brief summary on what those are. the retail premises at this storefront, again, this is an existing fulfillment warehouse. the retail premises is 150 to 200-square foot small retail storefront. walking into the storefront, you would not see any alcohol on display and instead you would be provided with a tablet, where you could order alcohol. emotion -- most of the alcohol will be available for delivery. the hour of operations for the retail premises is limited to 50% of the hours that we exercise delivery privileges, so for this particular store, we work with the local community members and came up with early
hours of operation. the retail storefront will be open from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. daily, while delivery will exist as it already exists at this facility. so the operations here, we would not be adding any additional employees. we do not expect any increase delivery drivers and instead we expect that people that are already ordering for delivery, for grocery delivery from prime now, that they will be able to add beer, wine, and distilled spirits to their orders. this is not prime now's first license location in california. we currently have six existing facilities, so again we work closely with the a.b.c. and local communities in order to establish these licenses. we're currently operating in sacramento, los angeles, sunnyvale, irvine, and san diego with another license to issue
shortly in los angeles. there the time that we've been licensed, we have not had a customer walk into any of these storefronts. we have not had any accusations or license violations or condition violations regarding sales to minors or anything of that sort. prime now has proven to be a good licensee with the alcohol and beverage control and making sure those retail premises are small and non-intrusive because the focus is on delivery. i'll turn it over to kara to discuss the community outreach aspect. >> thank you melanie. i will try to be brief. i think you have a packed agenda today. >> would you pull the mic up to your mouth. your name again? >> sorry, kara rucker. i work with amazon and i've been the point of contact with the neighborhood. i appreciate you taking the time
to hear from us today. i wanted to touch on our engagement with the neighborhood. we originally sat down with the group in january and since then, we have been communicating via e-mail daily. we truly appreciate their willingness to work with us and cultivate what will be a mutually beneficial partnership. we highlighted many opportunities to work with the neighbors and we made great progress to the buildings and surrounding areas. there are additional opportunities for the neighborhood beautification. we appreciate your willingness to let us continue these discussions, both with dna and the green benefit district and work oncoming to the board in the coming weeks to pass forward. >> thank you, i do not see any comments or questions from my
colleagues. we still do not have the a.l.u. here. perhaps we will take public comment on this item. is there any public comment on this item? then come on up and i'll tell you about some things about public comments. this goes for everybody. speakers will have 2 minutes. we ask that you state your first and last name and speak directly into the microphone. if you prepared a written statement, you can leave it with the committee clerk. no applause or booing is permitted. speakers are encourage to avoid repetition of previous statements. go ahead. >> good afternoon, my name is tim, i'm a union representative with the united commercial workers located here in san francisco. we're a labor union that represents 4,000 members in the food and drug industry. we are in opposition to the
issuance of a liquor license at 888 tennessee street to amazon prime now. they have a history of mistreatment of their workers and they destroy small businesses around the nation. if a license is granted, it would destroy whatever small businesses are left and the character and vibrancy of this city. it will also affect the employees that we represent in the food and drug administration. we are against of the liquor license. thank you. >> next speaker. >> i want to just follow up with what my colleague has said in regards to online ordering. we actually faced issues on certain delivery online establishments where projects are being left on the doorsteps unattended and it is concerning where you're leaving alcohol and anybody can just come by and pick it up.
thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> there is always a lot of controversy when alcohol is involved. if alcohol is being abused, it is a problem to the addict called an alcoholic. anyone following rules and regulations pertaining to business and the code of ethics and the business professional code and you have a liquor license, you have a constitutional right to distribute alcohol just like anybody else. we had this problem in the tenderloin where people were objecting to liquor distribution of alcohol in the neighborhood because this is contributing to the delinquency of alcohol abuse, and the stores stopped selling small bottles of alcohol because it was littering the community and exacerbating chin alcoholism. the owner of that store has the
constitutional right to sell alcohol to people here. just like the people here have the constitutional right to sell alcohol. if you're not breaking the rules or constitutional law, you can't be objected. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that like to speak on this item before i close public comments? seeing none, public comments is now closed. we continue to await the a.l.u. what i like to do on this item is continue it later in the meeting, but we'll take it up before we get to the vaping rela related and nicotine related items. >> i believe the petitioner's council presented the a.l.u.'s. i don't have any objection if we
move it until later or move forward if it is the will of the chair. >> i think it would be good for us to give the a.l.u. an opportunity to show. i mean there is a time constraint on this item and i think it's important that we act on it at this meeting to ensure our 90 days don't expire. i think just to have completeness, and partly because i do not understand why the a.l.u. is not here 20 minutes into our meeting when they said they would be here. i think we should hold up for them and wait for them to get here. i don't want to keep folks waiting for a conversation about e-cigarettes. you're fine either way. so, i think we should continue this to later on in the agenda but before items 5 and 6. is that something we can do?
can we do that without objection? great. mr. clerk, please call the next item. >> the resolution supporting california state assembly bill number 1076 by phil ting. >> great, thank you mr. clerk. i think we have derek here from supervisor brown's office. >> good morning supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to speak with you. i will be brief because i know you have a long meeting ahead of you. 1076 will provide relief to advance the goals of restorative justice for an estimated 8 million californians which records hamper them from finding jobs or get into college.
80% of landlords and 60% of colleges screen applicants' criminal records. 1076 provides relief to several million of californians that have been arrested and never charged or convicted of a crime, but still face the obstacles as those convicted of a crime. what this law will do, it will require the california department of justice to review their criminal justice databases on a weekly bases to recognize people eligible for dismissal or expungement of their records. it will go back to 1973 to find folks eligible for automatic relief. some eligible for relief are those who completed their probation or county jail sentences and others are those with arrest records that did not result in a conviction. under 1076, those records will
be removed automatically. it does not apply to folks who have been convicted of violent felonies, sexual felonies, or serious felonies. the current law allows folks to petition the court to do this, but only 20% of people do petition the court. it's estimated that many do not do it as an option because they don't know it's an option or they lack the resources. as a result, millions of californians find themselves in paper prison for life after they paid their debt to society. the national institute of justice found that having a cm record reduces a person's chances of getting a job offer by 50%. 75% of people living in paper prisoners say it prevents them from getting a job. under the clearance system, each record system cost the state
over $3,500 to process but with this automated system, the cost plummets to just $.04 per record. as a city, we said to the world, we must do better in instituting restorative justice. folks who have paid their debts to society or who never owed a debt must be able to access jobs, housing and other opportunities without encountering roadblocks that would be removed if they had the means to do so. i want to thank you for the time to speak on this and i hope you will move this forward with a positive recommendation. >> thank you. doesn't look like we have questions for you so i will open this up to public comments. >> this is a good law and it's a
derivative of the infractions of jaywalking tickets, open container, infraction laws, tickets are generated for infractions, not a misdemeanor, but infraction. i believe his name is judge hines handed down a court order where all these types of charges are to be dropped in order not to put a burden on the justice center and the people that are ticketed because they're economically disadvantaged and have a hard enough time to survive in the first place. it's tough enough to go through the justice system and then convicted and serve your time and paying a debt to society, let alone when you go through the system, you're innocent and when you get out, you still have this in your background and it's being held against you. so, it's definitely good law and even when it's passed, it's still going to be difficult in order to get established because
the harm that's done to an individual. it's a starting point and i think it's an excellent type of law to use, just like the law that was used to get rid of unnecessary tickets and putting a burden on the criminal justice system and issuing out bench warrants for a failure to appear for a jaywalking ticket. you should be concentrating on more serious crimes like felonies and serious misdemeanors so i stipulate and i agree with this. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that like to speak on this item? >> hello, good afternoon. i wasn't going to speak on this but it's very timely. i'm co-chair of the african-american council. we're here for the other items coming up. we've been working with restorative justice around this country. one of the things we have been working to prohibit the sale of men that and tobacco products
around the country and our proponents say we're criminalizing black and brown men. they said this will be an increase in criminal justice, their interactions with police officers. we want cities to be mindful that we're moving ahead with a lot of restorative justice. i'm so proud to see that san francisco expunged the record for cannabis arrests. we as the african-american tobacco control leadership council, we do not do our work in a vacuum. we know the issues facing our community and we're working on these issues as well. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of public that would like to speak on this item. seeing none, public comment is now closed. supervisor walton. >> thank you chair mandelman. i like to lend my support to the resolution. i was just meeting with someone this morning that was acquitted of a crime and still has to deal with some of the stigma around
being arrested and things come up that keep him from employment opportunities, even after acquittal. so this is important so that we can eliminate some of those barriers that keep people from being able to successfully re-enter society, particularly for folks who have not committed major crimes and this is just another way of eliminating some of those layers that keep them from getting back into society. so, i'm definitely in support of this. >> great, vice chair stefani. >> thank you chair mandelman. i like to thank supervisor brown for bringing this forward and i want to add my name as a co sponsor. the one criminal defense case i took was reducing someone's felony to a misdemeanor. i am in full support of this. >> great. so, supervisor walton would you like to move to forward the board with a positive
recommendation. >> yes. >> and we will take that without objection. mr. clerk, can you please call our next item. >> item number 3, a public works mutual aid agreement executed among and by various california cities and counties. it requires a city county, or city and county that receives mutual aid that receives mutual aid. >> tell us what's going on. >> thank you for bringing up this item. i'm with san francisco public works government affairs. i'm here to seek your recommendation on this residence lug -- resolution. can i have the presentation.
thank you. so the public works mutual aid agreement was established in october 1989 as means for them to receive mutual aid quickly following a natural disaster like an earthquake. 19 counties and 155 cities in california have been party to the agreement. a few things about the agreement, assistance in voluntary and participating agencies are under no obligation to provide or complete their own resources. requesting resources are to be reimbursed by fema. in order to request mutual age, an emergency proclamation is required. public works has an important role to play in the event of a disaster or emergency. all city employees are designated as disaster service workers. in the event of an emergency,
public works will be responsible for clearing debris, assessing damaged buildings and structures. prompted by the severe fires that have been affecting our state in the past several years, our agencies have been in conversations regarding disaster response. while we're not susceptible to the wildfires that affect the states more wooded areas, much of the planning centers on seismic events and associated damage. in the event of a large earthquake, we would like to request aid from nearby jurisdicti jurisdictions. public works would also like to be able to lend assistance. providing assistance to other localities will provide a valuable experience to our employees. i'm joined by our emergency planning manager and we are happy to answer any questions. >> doesn't look like we have questions. so, we will take public comment
on this item. are there any members of the public who would like to speak to us on item number 3? seeing none, public comment is now closed. vice chair stefani, would you like to move this to the full board with positive recommend. >> so moved. >> great, we will take that without objection. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. clerk, can you please call our next item. >> agenda number 4, a hearing on the coordination of data sharing between public safety departments as it relates to crime prevention and investigations. >> all right, now i understand that supervisor yee suggested we continue this item at a later meeting. >> mover's choice. >> before we deal with that, we
will take any public comment on this item. seeing none, oh. >> even though it's been passed to a later date, there should still be some discussion on this because this is related to the juvenile detention center and by the same response, i want to highlight that juveniles that have been kept in this juvenile detention center, those jail cells are the type of jail cells that are located in a prison and those adolescents should be kept 23 hours a day, falsely imprisoned like that, you're disturbing their mental abilities of their brain and causing them to have a hostile condition against society by
treating them like a convicted fill didn't felon at at juvenile age. i wanted to address that when you put that back on calendar. >> thank you, are there any other members of the public that like to speak on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. i want to thank our clerk for bringing to my attention that president yee asked to have this item continued to june 27th. i will move it until june 27th and we can take that without objection. great. all right, well that brings us almost to items 5 and 6, but i said that we would take up item 1 and see that the a.l.u. is still not here. we do have the a.l.u.'s report in our agenda packets and so, i
think we can move forward with this item. colleagues? supervisor walton, that's in your district. >> i move to not accept the issuance of this license. >> great. so we would direct our clerk to prepare a resolution finding that granting this license would not meet public convenience and necessity and supervisor walton has moved approval of that resolution. >> so it states that it would not be met by the application and you would act affirmatively to recommend that to the board of supervisors? >> yes. >> so that's a move by supervisor walton. we can take that without objection? >> the motion has been made.
>> the motion has been made and we're taking it without objection. great. thank you. mr. clerk, please call our next item. >> agenda item number 5, an ordinance amending the sale and distribution of tobacco products on city property. >> great. supervisor walton. >> thank you so much supervisor mandelman. item 5, which is 190311, this ordinance amends the health code to prevent the sale of tobacco products, including electronic cigarettes on city property, and what we have here is businesses in the city that operate on city property, that are in the business of harming young people for profit and this will ensure this never happens again on city property.
>> great. comments? then we will open this item to public comments. are there any members of the public that would like to speak on this item? >> this is a real serious problem, the tobacco, the e-cigarettes, you have numerous examples of them exploding in people's faces. this is a combustible. that's the first thing, an objection i got and there's been proof of this taking place. there is one attorney that only takes these types of cases because of the e-cigarettes blowing up in people's faces. some of them are exploding in people's pockets and people are running down the street with their pants on fire because they have e-cigarettes. the tip of an e-cigarette
contains more nicotine, cancer causing materials and the tip of that than a total pack of a cigarette. is that clear? you're contaminating the public and it's predominately being used by youths and adults that think they can kick the habit of smoking cigarette and more tobacco and nicotine that they were in hell by using regular cigarettes. you're dumping a cancer causing activity into the community just like the navy did when they dumped cancer causing materials out at the shipyard that is annihilating people of color, the majority of black people and samoan people, and now there are white people that are catching cancer too. there is no different. the only difference is you have a license to do it but you're getting the same affect by having people exposed to cancer
causing materials. you're brainwashing the younger generation with this high-tech device and claiming it's not a cancer causing material. i seen doctors on tv explain that it's causing anxiety disorders, compulsive disorders, and causing a destruction of concentration of young people in school. >> great, i do have some other folks that have identified this is the item they want to speak on. if any of those folks want to speak on this item, come on forward. they may want to speak on the next item, which they can. all right. so, seeing no further speakers, oh. mr. kelly. >> thank you very much, i'm dennis kelly, a retired teach,
35 years of classroom experience in san francisco and the former head of the united educators of san francisco president for 12 years. when i started teaching, we had smoking rooms for teachers on campuses. we had smoking rooms for children on campuses, also, we call them the bathrooms. we have moved away from that entirely. because of the recognition of what cigarettes do and what smoke does to children and to other adults, we no longer allow any kind of smoking on school grounds. it's time that we did the same thing on all government property. i am here in support of this resolution, thank you. >> great, thank you. next speaker. >> hello everyone, i'm roshawn,
project coordinator for health and wellness. our mission is to eliminate inequalities in black and marginalized communities. i work and reside in district 10. as you may knew, -- know, we he the highest rates of asthma due to tobacco use and secondhand smoke and other environmental factors. the bay view community, i'm supporting this agenda item number 5 and also number 6, and passing both policies will help lower asthma diagnosis, prevent youths from addiction and improve general health and life spans overall in san francisco. i chewly appreciate your support in passing these ordinances. please protect the future and save lives. thank you. >> great, thank you. >> are there any other members of the public like to speak on this item. yes, come on forward.
>> good morning supervisors, my name is star child, and i'm here if the libertarian party of san francisco. i'm here to strongly oppose any additional restrictions on what people may sell, consume, put into their own bodies. i think it's insane that in 2019, we're actually talking about expanding the war on drugs. make no miss take, that's what this does, when you criminal -- criminalizing to sell products that people choose to use. they may be better than the alternative, if people are trying to stop smoking, it's better to start using vaping products than continuing to smoke cigarettes. we know people who are trying to stop smoking are using vaping products. that means fewer people are able to use them, and in some case continue smoking products that
are more harmful to them. even if someone wants to use the most harmful products, it should be up to them. it's their bodies, their choices. it's illegal for minors to use tobacco products, that's not changing, but san francisco needs to get a clue here. it really is just insane. to expand the war on drugs it will create more black markets, you remember eric garner, he was killed for selling loose cigarettes on the street. he was choked and killed by police. that's the thing we're setting ourselves up for, a black market and cigarette products and we know the problems that this creates when you create black markets in terms of criminal sayings of poor and marginalized people, minorities, lgbtq people. these are the people that tend to get caught up by the wheels
by what passes for justice. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that like to speak on this item? all right, if there are folks that like to speak on this item, i ask that you line up on the right side of the chamber. >> my name, and i'm the president of the coalition of lavender americans on smoking or health clash. the main thing i want to say is this is a dream gateway drug for the tobacco industry. they're thrilled to have it because it makes it so easy for young people to get addicted to nicotine. i also want to remind you that altria owns a sizable share of jewel, so we should call it
jewel, they're drug pushers and back in 2006, phillip morris, and the other big tobacco companies were adjudicated racketeers for lying to the public for decades about the harm of tobacco and they're doing the same thing now. we wouldn't be here today if not for the lack of action on the part of the f.d.a., so like every other issue around tobacco control historically, it has to begin on grassroots, on local municipal and state areas in order to get what we need to protect the public. so, san francisco historically has been a leader in this movement and has done great work to save lives over the years. you're in a position now to prevent another generation from
becoming addicted to nicotine. please pass both of these ordinances. thank you. >> thank you next speaker. >> hello, i'm a local businessman in northern california. i don't smoke, but i been in business for 35 years, and i thought this was america. i thought we had a freedom. tobacco is a legal product. if a legal person over 21 is buying the product, what is happen to all those smokers that live in san francisco that pay t taxes. where are they supposed to go? are they supposed to go to oakland when they want a puff. we as citizens of this northern community, if it's a legal product, i'm a diabetic. if you say i condition have coke anymore, what am i supposed to do? thank you. >> just to reiterate, we're
taking comment on item number 5. next speaker. >> all right, my name is stan, i'm a professor of medicine at ucsf and the director of tobacco control research there. i like to correct a statement made by one of the earlier speakers. there's about 60 or 70 studies looking at the effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a smoking device and the vast majority that show smokers that use these cigarettes are less likely to quit smoking than smokers that use the e-cigarettes. the art that these are a way to quit smoking is not only wrong, it's a scam. they keep people smoking. the argument that the city should continue selling these and manufacturing these products on city property is some sort of public health measure is just
inconsistent with what the evidence shows. ucsf was the last major medical center in the state to stop selling cigarettes a long time aborigines and -- ago and i think it's sensible that the city does not engage in promoting this legal product on their own property. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> good afternoon, i'm ermay -- erm ermay ya, and with regard to this particular matter, i would want to urge you to move forward with this ban because fundamentally, san francisco would be in a conflicted position. it would have a conflict of interest because the city has, the city and county has public policy and particularly in the form of public health policy to
try to discourage and prevent the use of nicotine products and if you allow the city and county to earn revenue from those businesses, then essentially you have a conflict of interest position. so i appreciate your willingness to solve this problem. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that like to speak on this item before i close public comment? public comment is now closed. great. so, colleagues, supervisor walton, would you like to make a motion to move to the full board with positive recommendation. >> yes, that's the motion i would like to make. >> can we take that without objection? great. >> agenda number 6, a health
code to prevent the sale of tobacco products including electronic cigarettes. >> great, thank you. supervisor walton this item is also yours and the floor is yours. >> thank you so much supervisor mandelman. with this ordinance, it restricts the sale, manufacture, and distribution of tobacco products including electronic cigarettes without f.d.a. approval on their marketing, and also limits online sales of e-cigarettes without f.d.a. approval in san francisco. despite the progress reducing smoking tobacco, the use remains the leading cause of preventable death in the united states, killing more than 480,000 people
each year, and many forms of cancer, heart disease, respiratory diseases, among other health disorders that are more deadly than aids, alcohol, ca car accidents, illegal drugs, murders, combined. the number of middle and high school students reported to be current users of tobacco products increased to 4.9 million students between 2017 and 2018. according to the c.d.c., e-cigarette usage among high school students increased 78% during the same period of time. one in four high school students have used a tobacco product. four out of five kids that have used tobacco products started out with a flavored product, which we have banned in san francisco. i talked to numerous parents,
teachers, and principals, and the reality is that there is a rising number of youths who have been able to obtain vaping devices. these e-cigarettes are discrete and easily concealable because it looks like a usb drive. it contains the same amount of nicotine as 20 cigarettes and in some cases, the same amount of nicotine or more in one vaping product as it is in an entire pack of cigarettes. we also had a press conference earlier and one of the doctors who presented had a case full of e-cigarettes found by middle schools and high schools. when we hear this mantra of it's not getting in the lands of our young people, they're not being targeted to our young people. this is in fact not true and there is concrete evidence that
lets us know that young people are getting e-cigarettes in their hands. younger e-cigarette users are likely to become addicted to nicotine, have more difficulty quitting, and are at a higher risk of addiction to other substances in the future, which can lead to a lifetime of addiction. young adults who use e-cigarettes are more than four times as likely to begin smoking tobacco cigarettes within 18 months, compared to their peers who do not vape. vape products are sold all over social media and even the websites claiming they do their due diligence in verifying age, youths can buy e-cigarettes online 94% of the time and orders can be shipped to homes where parents or adults are at work when the mail comes. given the rates and youths among
youths, the known lifelong affects of tobacco use and the harmful affects of vaping systems, it is more than prudent to control the use and accessible of such products, particularly because they have not gone through f.d.a. trials for approval of how they are marketed and have not been determined safe for use. as it stands, the f.d.a. is carrying out a national survey on the affects of e-cigarettes on youths, even considering an out right ban on electronic nicotine delivery systems in general. our legislation bans e-cigarette sales in san francisco until the due diligence is carried out by the f.d.a. companies like jewel have had three years to submit their product and marketing to the f.d.a. the question is why haven't they?
the answer is simple, because their products are harmful, nicotine is harmful. nicotine kills whether it's in a cigarette form or electronic form. our young people and their health is under attack. please join us in protecting our youth from a lifetime of addiction. do not buy into the statements that vape products are harmless to adults as we know nicotine kills regardless of age. remember, they are spitting thousands of dollars trying to buy consul -- consultants, trying to buy communities, trying to make sure that they fight against people who are going to protect young people and the overall health of people in general in san francisco. i want us to remember this fact,
nicotine kills more people than aids, car accidents, murders, suicid suicides, it's the number one preventible murderer. please join me colleagues in supporting this ordinance. thank you. >> thank you supervisor walton. any comments? looks like we have no comments or consequentialism -- questions, we have a bunch of public comments which supervisor walton will call. >> thank you very much supervisor mandelman. i want to remind the public that you have 2 minutes to speak. if you do wish to speak, you are going to line up behind mr. wright and i'll start calling cards now.
dr. stanton, blithe, jeremiah, latonya, park --, christine. go ahead. >> okay, i am stan from ucsf. when i read this proposal, i thought it was one of the smartest local laws i seen in a long time. when the f.d.a. took jurisdiction over esignificance reside -- e-cigarettes in 2016, they gave them two years for a prema premarket order, saying they're allowing the marketing of the
product would be appropriate for the public health. that same rule, the f.d.a. committed to getting the review done within a year at during which time the product would be marketed. so as supervisor wilson said, they could have submitted their premarketed authorization applications three years ago and if they before able -- would be able to make. then they would be sold under this ordinance. the trump administration suspended the rule giving the company until 2022 to even apply. in fact, they have been sued over that in federal court, in maryland, and judge has ordered that the f.d.a. is ignoring the law. the fact that the f.d.a. isn't doing their job is why this
ordinance is even being considered right now. i think it's a brilliant move. i think it will force the f.d.a. to start acting and it will say to jewel, if you think you can make a case that can be defended scientifically, that these products are appropriate for the public health, make it and then they can be sold. this is a much more moderate proposal than what beverly hills just did when they simply outlawed the sale of all tobacco products. i strongly urge a yes vote for this ordinance. >> testimony from the doctor there just gives me further ground to make my demonstration on my hands on demonstrated experience. i'm triggered and quick to react that the fact that you do not have a license from the drug administration to sell a narcotic, you're in violation of civil law and criminal law.
you need to make a recommendation to file charges in both sets of courts, pertaining to criminal law and civil law because you are selling a narcotic without a license. i want to put a strong emphasis on it. you're putting profit over safety and you're selling material that you have to be licensed in order to sell. you're not doing that. so that should be done as well. along with the testimony from the doctor, you can't get more clear cut per ponder remembers from a professional to verify that this study, 60 to 70 of the people that are tested are not going to quit smoking cigarettes. it's a false narrative and it's actually fraud because you're making statements that are not true and correct. so, both city attorneys, the criminal law attorneys, the
district attorney's office, should be notified of this fact that there is no license for them to be selling this product in the first damn place, so you sue them and counter charge with a multibillion dollar lawsuit. that will take care of that and then they will clear up their act because they will be facing not only a civil suit, but criminal liabilities. you're sell an illegal drug to minors. you're poisoning minors. you're in violation of environmental and safety protection rules by -- >> good afternoon, i'm the community advocacy director for the american heart association in the greater bay area. this proposed policy would prevent access for targeting and addicting new nicotine users, particularly youths.
the tobacco industry is working to addict new young people, particularly of those from community offense color. they know that the formulated liquid within the jewel products and other vaping devices which makes inhaling nicotine easy to use. vaping e-cigarettes is tobacco in a new costume. many people will say they used e-cigarettes to quit smoking and these products are sensation devices. those are f.d.a. approved products.
and i'm a professor at san francisco state university. we have a crisis the likes of which we've never seen. we have young people being exposed and using nicotine in a form that's never really been tested and at concentrations that young people cannot absorb. we've conducted a study at 12 bay area high schools. these are the slides i wanted to show you -- looking at documenting the environment impact of e-cigarette products. they contain metals, litheum ion batteries, and from what i understand from jool. take a look at this. last year, they say they
manufactured 20 million pods p -- in 2017, they say they manufactured 20 million pods a month. and in 2018, they manufactured 40 million pods a year. that's a half a billion pods a year. and i have bags and bags and bags of pods that we've collected. and i want to point out it's not just jool pods. we know these are products that eventually entices young people to switch over to smoking cigarettes. i want to encourage you that young people need your protection, and san francisco
needs your protection from the dangers that come from these products. >> supervisor mandelman: professor, if i may ask you, one of the arguments fagain ths ban is e-cigarettes are doing less damage to a person's body than traditional cigarettes, and i was wondering if you could share your thoughts on that argument. >> right. so if you're probably aware, there's a very visceral, vociferous debate going on from people who have worked in tobacco for many years about
the dangers of these products. the fact is there are no trials that indicate these are safe or efficacious for use. so essentially, the f.d.a. reneged on its deal. one of the reasons is that the emerging scientific research is that they're more harmful than originally reported. the harm reduction was based on a premise unsupported by science. that premise was any nicotine deliverable device that was not a cigarette must be safer than a