can have for the cigarette retailers and have 5 retailers and the alternative will never you know the will also be like an imbalance it's innovate fair for the industry to suffer for people selling cigarettes and having the permit it seems like this legislation just needs a little bit more time and development before it should be presented and go into a vote versus like commissioner dwight said it shouldn't be done out of convenience because it's convenient for people to bring this legislation up before the citizens of san francisco it is a major inconvenience if you saw a business can you transfer this thing if i can't then it will make the business completely

worstless to sell thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners i'm 7-eleven fan a consultant for 1963 ocean avenue i think i applaud the supervisor for his intent i know he's trying to make sure that you know height is a top priority however, there are some changes that have come to the e cigarette industry it is a conditional use process whereas 21 prior stores opted without having to go through the process and two they've been on the establishment e cigarettes is not permitted and be enforceable by the health department some of the changes are treating the e cigarettes industry as though

it's cigarettes or smoke there needs to be a clear distinction and language or distinction incorporated definition i think this as democratic process on 1963 ocean where community members have weighed in i think everyone across the city is seeing how this is handled so we can handle future applications in the pipeline with more prudence so i want to make sure increase more clarity and it is required to have a permit tobacco permit for e cigarettes though their evaporating not smoke it is required how is that legislation going to address that i would be more confront 43

if we get our arms around it and take another serious look at this. >> thank you is there any public comment on item 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, do we have recommendations commissioner dooley >> i have a question for clarification are e cigarettes using tobacco? or i mean their included i was under the impression e cigarettes were a tobacco based item i know that's what i've read >> commissioners and victor this legislation came from our office at the beginning of the year you heard legislation and approved legislation that designated e cigarettes to

require the same licensing and permitting to follow the same rules where you can 0 smoke as sects it does as i understand it is clarified in terms of it's use how it is sold it's at same. >> it's the same. >> you can't smoke in bars. >> commissioner dwight. >> yeah. it this new class of e cigarettes and some of them still using i think some of them do utility tobacco and others not using tobacco their using nicotine based liquids there's a need to clarify some of that in this particular legislation i i mean tobacco maybe an outdated notation how we deliver nicotine and nicotine is the

thing here. >> other bio products of smoking but we've heard testimony from medical professionals who were you know discussing this with the fad food and making determinations about the status i wonder if this is granule enough to define what those are and to the point people are again you know this is not pro or anti discussion this is about clarification doss when we make laws we don't properly clarify things we have to go back and change them it's harder to undo things before you get them right there are things even though we're talking about following the legislation to clarify this might not in addition to the list of things to clarify if, in

fact, the legislation before us. >> commissioner ortiz-cartagena. >> my friend before recommending anything commissioner white said before we have to undo things in certain districts like i know that nicotine is a medication right so it opens up in some districts things of that nature i don't care there's a lot of questions still. >> commissioner dooley. >> i think a very important thing that needs to be addressed is the issue of spouses i think that is absolutely essential i know that my own neighborhood instances where one of the spouses has all of a sudden

passed away and another spouse beyond children too young to be having a tobacco license this needs to be i think this is very important that needs to be included in this legislation. >> absolutely. >> commissioner riley. >> yeah. as commissioner commissioner dwight brought up the number 45 that can't be one-size-fits-all all the districts are different the populations are different the geography locations that needs to be looked at also. >> okay any other commissioner comments because what i've hearing we want to what's the word i'm looking for. >> mr. president, if i may ask a clarifying question i'll have to write up the commissions response following up to a question that commissioner

ortiz-cartagena had so victor so in this situation where we have businesses that have their applications in but noted approved and may not get approved until after the you know. >> the passing of the laws then as per section 19 h-6 a the business has to have an approved permit to be eligible for this exception; right? by the time the legislation passes so if a business in the process of the application process it seems like age unusual for the city to say now you can't you know we're getting rid of our application. >> right. >> but to be clear if the application is approved they

won't be eligible to be able to sell their business and the new business owner apply for the permit is that how it is going to be based on i don't know if theirs copies of the legislation but if - i'm going to write a response for the commissioners i want to be clear on that on page 11. >> now is this going in front of the board of supervisors. >> yes. it is so which line. >> it is on page 11 start on line 21 uh-huh. >> if a owner of a retail food satiability as defined holds a tobacco sales permit and been in business for 5 years as of the effective date. >> uh-huh.

>> and submits an affidavit to attest to it it has to be in business for 5 years; right? so if a permit application has been submitted and in the process do we know from dph. but those businesses will not be able to sell their business or the new buyer will not get a permit and now this becomes confusing at the effective date of the law for a business to be able. >> which page, sir sorry. >> page 11 clarification it has to be in business years to transfer it's license? >> yes. sorry any business that has not been

in operation at the effective date will not be able to - to not been able to transfer or the transfer he will not be able to get a license. >> right. >> so when the law this amendment kicks in yeah. >> do you know how many businesses are going to be effected. >> currently one thousand and one licenses out there. >> over one thousand licenses. >> sorry a thousand businesses that have been holding tobacco licenses for less than 5 years. >> that i don't know but what licenses and the majority of them have been in place for over 5 years. >> over 5 years. >> actually a lot of the owners

have held the place for 10 or 20 years. >> thank you that will suggest that no videotaping stores will be transferable. >> right. >> and to clarify about the e cigarettes that allowing law kikz kicked in april 26th of there are and accident e cigarettes with that definition what lee what - had presented it looks like a real cigarette and people wanted to know about other shape if not the traditional shape then the distinction of the e cigarettes it is not about the definition most of the south side contain nicotine and has an adam nirgz

so i'll get the distinction of the law at the time and any further questions. >> well me personally this piece of legislation still needs work and it has a lot of holes in it and for it to go in front of the board of supervisors are tomorrow with all those you know holes and inaccuracy i find dungeon founded i can't believe they'll send it the thing that bothers me the month is the spouse will and the e cigarettes i don't think that was thought through and it will effect a lot of small businesses in our neighborhood we have e

cigarettes dealers there are fairly new and contributing to the neighborhood whether you get that priority or noted so commissioners wyoming we like to do we can motion to continue this or have it continued but it is going to be heard at the board of supervisors so that's too late and i can say we can motion you want to - >> so a couple of clarifying things there were amendments to the original legislation to expand the ability in terms of how for the current businesses when they sell their businesses the new buyer being able to get a license so the fact they are different options i mean you can do straight up and down there are

certain components of the legislation you approve and do recommend and provide a list of things that need to be worked obtain and to recommend to the board of supervisors to consider for the trailing legislation i mean, i think that i don't know victor if adding spouse is a change that maybe something that can be done not a substantive change can be done at the full board are tomorrow so i mean there are a few things to deal with prior to the board hearing i'm communicate to the supervisors so you could sort of give a list of thing i may recommend or things to continue or do a straight up and down and you know if you're not recommending for approval it 0 would be great to get you a

list. >> commissioner riley. >> i think i hear five or six things to be clarified that were brought up. >> okay. >> it's reasonable to ask for clarification on those areas prior to us taking action. >> okay. >> we could say we could support it in general but the following issues. >> needed to be addressed. >> needed to be addressed and needed to be in trailing legislation but. >> if this 5 areas the clarification come back what will we expect not reasonable rather than what we said was important. >> too many items. >> i'll suggest do a straight up and down vote to support this for now. >> what would be appreciative

to again to provide direction to the board of supervisors if there - if the commission choose not to make a recommendation for approval then to list out the reasons why and then and what direction i mean what are the items the reasons why and what needs to be continued to worked on thing is that you know it will be before the board of supervisors how many spokesman to you have now. >> 4? >> 4 there's a how property it will pass on its first reading so, so even in come back there is not the opportunity to the likelihood to effect the vote is not likely i want to make a recommendation

in terms of how you want to communicate to the board of supervisors. >> commissioner dwight. >> well, the communication i'd like to deliver is not that we are unsupportive of the legislation and the intent clearly it's been stated in public comment you know, i think we can support the intent it's that we are here not only to represent the small business but to be good states people you know we're sitting up here helping the board of supervisors and the mayor's office pass laws and here we're in the situation where it would appear that there is some unfinished business in making this a law so it's sufficient for me to simply inclusive that message to the board of supervisors if they

appreciate our assistance in helping them pass good laws they should bring things to us twenty-four hours we're here to be helpful not buttock i thought we're reasonable individuals as well as people that are presuming specialists in the field of the legislation but planters in the legislation process to my objection there are issues in here that potentially have legal modifications where the spouse it one where we think that the mayor's office should take into account that before we give it to the board of supervisors i mean it's sufficient to note it as a supervisor as u.s.

bancorp obtaining we're on record to help to the extent we're precluded from a time schedule is silly there's no point in being here; right? we're all volunteering our time. >> if we could go on record stating the areas we feel have not been included in that and courage the supervisors. >> right to consider those before moving this piece of legislation along. >> great so i do not the spousal issue is one and the displacement. >> commissioner riley if you want to go down and talk about your list. >> i have a transfer to spouse and the business going through

the cu. >> conditional use; right? >> and then should i think the district should have a different number of permits due to difference of population and geographic areas. >> for clarifications of the rational whatever it might be. >> and then permit holders needs to move out of the current location due to no fault of their own like fire or change of landlord or you know soft story building eaten the fifth one is e cigarettes. >> right. >> and may i have get a little bit of clarification around the e cigarettes so i can clearly articulate it and - >> to me it is that the distinction the primary definition is tobacco products

and e cigarettes present a hybrid area that has not been fully clarified my understanding is some of them are tobacco based but other not per say only concoctions of liquid for evaporateing but there's an going on investigation into whether or not tobacco products is an outdated term and it should include whatever it is combustible inhale ants and evaporating is a gateway to tobacco and similar to tobacco and used to bring i did not know children into the tobacco industry those are issues that should be contemplated in this legislation maybe it only says for the time being e cigarettes

are clarified temporarily but that doesn't have to be solved in order for this legislation to go forward but i don't know the definition of e cigarettes rather than the over definition of tobacco products. >> so the definition of e cigarettes needs to be refined so there's a more clear definition of e cigarettes that are stoob based and those are not in terms of in terms of the assess or the business how the business operates with that. >> i think it needs well - i don't know it needs to be squared up with the definition of tobacco products that is used literally throughout and some of the traditional ones are objectives and e cigarettes are

not clear it is neatly fitting into the definition of tobacco products. >> so one last point of clarification we did do the legislation to say we on a san francisco are defining e cigarettes as tobacco produced so the commission says it needs to be revisited. >> it seems like there's clarification of what they look like this is disturbing to me. >> okay. then right - got it. >> a rose is a rose and so is needed a motion? or can we just give a recommendation >> what do he need you think what i have here is the commission would like me to the

board of supervisors i don't know if you want to support the general intent to communicate that but there are outstanding issues that need to be clarif d clarified. >> in this. >> i would make you know to the it's hard to say yes or no this commission makes a recommendation on this piece of legislation bans this criteria. >> so the commission is making another motion that the recommendations needs some continued work and those are the areas that needs continued work. >> correct those are the areas that needs identification. >> going this into more detail. >> you need a motion should we make a full motion.

>> it's appreciable so it's noted. >> read into the record. >> that all the full body agrees with that motion and it's officially documented this is a the official record of the commission. >> yes. >> so i move that we recommend to the sponsors that this legislation needs work in the areas that we have at least in the areas that we've identified here tonight and that. >> it needs to be continued. >> and it that we - recommend that the legislation be continued until those issues restraining order addressed. >> i second that motion. >> all right. i'm do a roll

call and taltdz. >> commissioner dooley. >> commissioner dwight commissioner ortiz-cartagena commissioner tour-sarkissian commissioner white commissioner riley and that motion passes 7 to zero. >> great thank you. >> thank you very much thank you for coming on such short notice now hear 2, 3, 4 ellen love. >> item 4 we've toddler i called this item into the record so we'll have ellen just - >> is this microphone on? >> it is great. >> okay good evening, commissioners i'm ellen love with the office of standards and

impoverishment thank you for inviting us to talk about the health care security ordinance i don't know if regina if you have copies of the power point presentation so you can pull it up that should be enough. >> so just briefly the administration i think you have the full that administration active guidance i tried to highlight some of the points that will be respect to you as a commission and the business community just a little bit of background on the health care security ordinance tests been in effect abstinence e since 2007 and there's two components the first i'll speak to say that it establishes the city's access plan the san francisco plan and the city's medical reimbursement

program and the second components of the law is the employers spending requirements to refresh your recollection it covers 20 employees worldwide and their covered by the security ordinance no, it covers nonprofits with 50 employees and requir that the employers make health care expenditures for all they're covered employees in san francisco so the requirement for 2015 i'll talk about firefighting first is that the employers spend one dollar cents per adhere that comes up to $284 a month foyer a for a moment person and are there's a requirement for one hundred employees that they spend 2 there's plus it comes out to 4

hundred and 26 there's per month for a full-time employee that hassal has been in place the amazes u amounts adjust annually but they have been unchained on june 17th of this year, the board of supervisors passed an amendment to the law which you probably heard about it has 30 main components and they have now about in fiscal most of the central ones begins on january 1st, 2015, and it phaseout the revocableable health care expenditures theirs expenditures that the employer lots of for the employees on the books but explicit pay out to a third party but they may return